68
better integrated into the risk governance cycle of fi sheries management under
CFP. An increased emphasis on social aspects promises to create the necessary trust
between actors and also to take local knowledge into account. Furthermore, communication processes need to focus more on two-way channels of communication
rather than only on providing information and educating people. Taking into account
the social, cultural and economic needs of different stakeholders around the Baltic
Sea will be crucial for communicating management results more appropriately to
stakeholders. Ultimately, better results depend on better sharing of management
responsibility amongst actors, both with respect to the aims of the newly reformed
CPF and regional fi sheries management in the Baltic Sea. The current CFP with its
interest-based system of stakeholder representation (Linke and Jentoft 2014 ) and its
legally bound centralisation of decision-making seems to leave little room for such
visionary objectives of shifting the burden of proof and creating a more responsible,
results-based management system (cf. Linke and Jentoft 2013 ; Nielsen et al. 2015 ).
Any serious implementation of recommendations put forth above is still lacking in
the Baltic fi sheries context at the time of writing.
Acknowledgements The research was funded by the Foundation for Baltic and East European
Studies and the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (2007–2013) under grant
agreement No 217246 made with the joint Baltic Sea research and development programme
BONUS, as well as by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the
Swedish Research Council FORMAS. SL also acknowledges funding from the Swedish Research
Council and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. We wish to thank all these institutions for enabling this
research. Two peer reviewers are also thanked for valuable comments on an earlier version of the
chapter.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial 2.5 License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ ) which permits any
noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s)
and source are credited.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the work’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included
in the work’s Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory
regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt or
reproduce the material.
References
Aps R, Lassen H (2010) Recovery of depleted Baltic Sea fi sh stock: a review. ICES J Mar Sci
67:1856–1860
BALTFISH (2013) Memorandum of understanding: principles and working methods of the Baltic
Sea Fisheries Forum (BALTFISH)
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2001a) Green paper on the future of the
Common Fisheries Policy. COM(2001) 135 fi nal, Brussels, 20 Mar 2001
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2001b) European governance. A white paper,
COM 428 Final. Brussels 25 Jul 2001
P. Sellke et al.
better integrated into the risk governance cycle of fi sheries management under
CFP. An increased emphasis on social aspects promises to create the necessary trust
between actors and also to take local knowledge into account. Furthermore, communication processes need to focus more on two-way channels of communication
rather than only on providing information and educating people. Taking into account
the social, cultural and economic needs of different stakeholders around the Baltic
Sea will be crucial for communicating management results more appropriately to
stakeholders. Ultimately, better results depend on better sharing of management
responsibility amongst actors, both with respect to the aims of the newly reformed
CPF and regional fi sheries management in the Baltic Sea. The current CFP with its
interest-based system of stakeholder representation (Linke and Jentoft 2014 ) and its
legally bound centralisation of decision-making seems to leave little room for such
visionary objectives of shifting the burden of proof and creating a more responsible,
results-based management system (cf. Linke and Jentoft 2013 ; Nielsen et al. 2015 ).
Any serious implementation of recommendations put forth above is still lacking in
the Baltic fi sheries context at the time of writing.
Acknowledgements The research was funded by the Foundation for Baltic and East European
Studies and the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (2007–2013) under grant
agreement No 217246 made with the joint Baltic Sea research and development programme
BONUS, as well as by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the
Swedish Research Council FORMAS. SL also acknowledges funding from the Swedish Research
Council and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. We wish to thank all these institutions for enabling this
research. Two peer reviewers are also thanked for valuable comments on an earlier version of the
chapter.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial 2.5 License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ ) which permits any
noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s)
and source are credited.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the work’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included
in the work’s Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory
regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt or
reproduce the material.
References
Aps R, Lassen H (2010) Recovery of depleted Baltic Sea fi sh stock: a review. ICES J Mar Sci
67:1856–1860
BALTFISH (2013) Memorandum of understanding: principles and working methods of the Baltic
Sea Fisheries Forum (BALTFISH)
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2001a) Green paper on the future of the
Common Fisheries Policy. COM(2001) 135 fi nal, Brussels, 20 Mar 2001
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2001b) European governance. A white paper,
COM 428 Final. Brussels 25 Jul 2001
P. Sellke et al.