67
EAFM, whilst placing further demands on fi sheries science and management
and their interactions, is an important step towards a more holistic, regionalised and
stakeholder inclusive fi sheries governance approach for the Baltic Sea that could
help balance environmental and social dimensions. However, whilst the theory
behind EAFM with its novel knowledge requirements with regard to integrated
pressures, ecosystem impacts and societal concerns is rather well developed (cf.
Gilek et al. 2015 ; McLeod and Leslie 2009 ), a coherent strategy for EAFM implementation is still lacking. Expectations rest with science, especially all of ICES’
ecosystem working groups (e.g. the ICES/HELCOM Working Group on Integrated
Assessments of the Baltic Sea, WGIAB), to put forward new tools and methods to
build a knowledge base that can achieve integration that EAFM demands (cf.
Möllmann et al. 2014 ).
Furthermore, the EU’s CFP reform process ‘opened up’ EU fi sheries governance
in the Baltic Sea context to an extended regionalisation approach. Such an approach
has been strengthened due to the new Member States collaborating via
BALTFISH. Other reasons for this strengthening include increased incorporation of
EAFM in the new CFP as well as integration and empowerment of the stakeholder
sector due to a slightly enhanced role for the reformed RACs (ACs). Whilst stakeholders’ input to the EU authorities via ACs still remains purely advisory, as it was
during the previous CFP period, under the new basic regulation , both the Commission
and the Member States are legally bound to respond with detailed reasons in cases
where adopted measures or regulations diverge from the recommendations and suggestions that were received from the ACs (Council and Parliament 2013 , Article 44,
p. 47). However, the new provisions fl agged under efforts of ‘regionalisation’ of the
new (post-2013) CFP still remain relatively weak in EU’s fi sheries governance
(Hatchard and Gray 2014 ; Salomon et al. 2014 ).
Overall, as Symes ( 2012 , 1) states, the current CFP of the new regionalisation
approach ‘presently faces the most important challenge of its thirty year history’.
The challenge is ensuring that the short-term management approach of annual fi shing quotas is changed and a new perspective embracing more fundamental changes
aimed at long-term viability and sustainability of the fi sheries sector adopted. Such
an approach should remain true to the overall European project (ibid.). Symes and
other scholars, whilst discussing these new challenges, are pessimistic about
whether the authorities in ‘technocratic Brussels’ (Salomon et al. 2014 , 81) are willing to delegate powers to the regional levels such as the Baltic Sea.
However, despite such legal constraints, the Baltic Sea is seen as the closest
prototype for regional cooperation under the post-2013 CFP (cf. Hegland et al.
2015 ). The future will tell if and how the new regionalisation project for fi sheries
governance in the Baltic Sea including BALTFISH will result in the implementation of EAFM and a stakeholder inclusive management approach.
In summary our recommendations for improving environmental governance of
the Baltic Sea fi sheries relate fi rst of all to knowledge aspects, which are of paramount importance for CFP in general and hence also for the Baltic Sea context.
Interdisciplinary knowledge and specifi cally social science research are the need of
the hour (Linke and Jentoft 2014 ; cf. Urquardt et al. 2014 ) and therefore have to be
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance
EAFM, whilst placing further demands on fi sheries science and management
and their interactions, is an important step towards a more holistic, regionalised and
stakeholder inclusive fi sheries governance approach for the Baltic Sea that could
help balance environmental and social dimensions. However, whilst the theory
behind EAFM with its novel knowledge requirements with regard to integrated
pressures, ecosystem impacts and societal concerns is rather well developed (cf.
Gilek et al. 2015 ; McLeod and Leslie 2009 ), a coherent strategy for EAFM implementation is still lacking. Expectations rest with science, especially all of ICES’
ecosystem working groups (e.g. the ICES/HELCOM Working Group on Integrated
Assessments of the Baltic Sea, WGIAB), to put forward new tools and methods to
build a knowledge base that can achieve integration that EAFM demands (cf.
Möllmann et al. 2014 ).
Furthermore, the EU’s CFP reform process ‘opened up’ EU fi sheries governance
in the Baltic Sea context to an extended regionalisation approach. Such an approach
has been strengthened due to the new Member States collaborating via
BALTFISH. Other reasons for this strengthening include increased incorporation of
EAFM in the new CFP as well as integration and empowerment of the stakeholder
sector due to a slightly enhanced role for the reformed RACs (ACs). Whilst stakeholders’ input to the EU authorities via ACs still remains purely advisory, as it was
during the previous CFP period, under the new basic regulation , both the Commission
and the Member States are legally bound to respond with detailed reasons in cases
where adopted measures or regulations diverge from the recommendations and suggestions that were received from the ACs (Council and Parliament 2013 , Article 44,
p. 47). However, the new provisions fl agged under efforts of ‘regionalisation’ of the
new (post-2013) CFP still remain relatively weak in EU’s fi sheries governance
(Hatchard and Gray 2014 ; Salomon et al. 2014 ).
Overall, as Symes ( 2012 , 1) states, the current CFP of the new regionalisation
approach ‘presently faces the most important challenge of its thirty year history’.
The challenge is ensuring that the short-term management approach of annual fi shing quotas is changed and a new perspective embracing more fundamental changes
aimed at long-term viability and sustainability of the fi sheries sector adopted. Such
an approach should remain true to the overall European project (ibid.). Symes and
other scholars, whilst discussing these new challenges, are pessimistic about
whether the authorities in ‘technocratic Brussels’ (Salomon et al. 2014 , 81) are willing to delegate powers to the regional levels such as the Baltic Sea.
However, despite such legal constraints, the Baltic Sea is seen as the closest
prototype for regional cooperation under the post-2013 CFP (cf. Hegland et al.
2015 ). The future will tell if and how the new regionalisation project for fi sheries
governance in the Baltic Sea including BALTFISH will result in the implementation of EAFM and a stakeholder inclusive management approach.
In summary our recommendations for improving environmental governance of
the Baltic Sea fi sheries relate fi rst of all to knowledge aspects, which are of paramount importance for CFP in general and hence also for the Baltic Sea context.
Interdisciplinary knowledge and specifi cally social science research are the need of
the hour (Linke and Jentoft 2014 ; cf. Urquardt et al. 2014 ) and therefore have to be
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance