The Regional Advisory Councils’ current capacities and unforeseen benefits
Tóm tắt
The 2002 Common Fisheries Policy (cfp) reform introduced the Regional Advisory Councils (rac s) to enhance stakeholder involvement and correct one of the policy’s primary deficiencies, its lack of legitimacy, arising in part from low stakeholder involvement. While some criticize the 2002 reform as not going far enough to alleviate problems of lagging process and content legitimacy, in certain ways the rac s may be thought of as representing an interim institutional stage, facilitating better information sharing and cultivating stakeholder relationships. Based on a survey of rac participants, this paper illuminates the current capacities and functions of the rac s. The paper reveals that the rac s possess additional—often not sufficiently recognised—roles and values to the advice they produce as they facilitate understanding across and within sectors and interest groups and act as key purveyors of information. Additionally, the findings indicate that among those participating in the rac s, there are varying degrees of feelings of impact. Some participants recognize a positive change in EU fisheries governance, whereas others are sceptical of purported improvements.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Chase LC, Decker DJ, Lauber TB: Public participation in wildlife management: what do stakeholders want? Society and Natural Resources 2004, 17: 629–639. 10.1080/08941920490466611
Commission: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Review of the functioning of the Regional Advisory Councils COM (2008)364 final. Commission of the European Communities: Brussels; 2008.
Commission: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Review of the functioning of the Regional Advisory Councils COM (2008) 364 final. Commission of the European Communities: Brussels; 2011.
Council: Council Decision establishing Regional Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy. Official Journal of the European UnionL 2004, 256: 17–22.
Dalton TM: Beyond biogeography: a framework for involving the public in planning of U.S. marine protected areas. Conservation Biology 2005,19(5):1392–1401. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00116.x
Dalton TM: Exploring participants’ views on participatory coastal and marine resource management processes. Coastal Management 2006, 34: 351–367. 10.1080/08920750600860209
Gray T, Hatchard J: The 2002 reform of the common fisheries policy’s system of governance—rhetoric or reality? Marine Policy 2003, 27: 545–554. 10.1016/S0308-597X(03)00066-6
Halvorsen KE: Assessing the effects of public participation. Public Administration Review 2003,63(5):535–543. 10.1111/1540-6210.00317
Hanna S: User participation and fishery management performance within the Pacific fishery management council. Ocean & Coastal Management 1995,28(1–3):23–44.
Hegland TJ, Ounanian K, Raakjær J: Why and how to regionalise the common fisheries policy.A theoretical framework. Maritime Studies 2012a, 11: 7.
Hegland TJ, Ounanian K, Raakjær J: What does ‘regionalisation’ mean? An exploratory mapping of opinions on reform of the common fisheries policy. Maritime Studies 2012b, 11: 8.
Raakjær J: A fisheries management system in crisis – the EU Common Fisheries Policy. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press; 2009.
Raakjær Nielsen J: An analytical framework for studying: compliance and legitimacy in fisheries management. Marine Policy 2003,27(5):425–432. 10.1016/S0308-597X(03)00022-8
Raakjær J, et al.: Exploring the Option of Regionalising the Common Fisheries Policy: Work Package 4 Technical Document. 2nd edition. University of Liverpool; 2010.
Sen S, Raakjær Nielsen J: Fisheries co-management: a comparative analysis. Marine Policy 1996,20(5):405–418. 10.1016/0308-597X(96)00028-0
Symes D: Regionalising the Common Fisheries Policy: context, content, and controversy. Maritime Studies 2012, 11: 6.