Best Practices for Fisheries Management.

Abstract

There is currently a window of opportunity to influence the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in Europe, as the European Commission will initiate a reform process, beginning in April 2009 with the publication of a Green Paper. The reform will be carried out during the coming years and the revised CFP will be ready in 2012. There is substantial room for improvement to ensure long-term sustainability in fisheries management in the current CFP. Baltic Sea 20201 and Stockholm Resilience Centre2 have provided a team to analyse Best Practices in order to identify what measures apply in the European context and specifically the Baltic Sea. The team has been guided by two of the world’s most renowned and experienced experts on fish and fisheries management, Mike Sissenwine and David Symes. Initially, the relevant scientific literature was reviewed, a scientific workshop hosted and a number of in depth interviews with key fisheries stakeholders (scientists, managers, the industry and NGOs) were conducted in order to identify problems with the Common Fisheries Policy as well as best practices in Europe and elsewhere. Based on the scientific exercise the team was recommended to focus on Norway, the US and Canada where extensive visits and dialogue with agencies, governments and stakeholders were carried out and documented. In addition scientific literature, national and international management publications have been reviewed. It needs to be pointed out that scientific literature is cited, but material from case studies will not be cited. In order to ensure a comprehensive approach and to address as many issues as possible ‘best practices’ has been defined according to three ‘elements’ necessary for fisheries management: A) Best practice in the provision of science, B) Best practice in decision making, and C) Best practice for securing compliance The results from the investigations were presented to European stakeholders to elaborate key recommendations on applying the identified ‘Best practices’ in a European and Baltic Sea context. In addition to the guidance provided by the workshop, issues highlighted in two recent gap analyses of the Common Fisheries Policy (see p.15) provide the problem analysis. When applying ‘best practices’ to the European context, the problems are defined as examples, which create incentives for sustainability. We recognize the historical and contextual nature of fisheries management and that best practice may therefore depend on ecological, economic and social conditions of the fishery or regional sea. The document is structured in four parts: • Background and problem description • Best practices? Key lessons from case studies • Applying the key characteristics of best practices in Europe • Management of the Baltic Sea. It is generally recognized that fisheries management involves a number of potentially conflicting objectives, regarding social, ecological and economic aspects of the fishery. Trade-offs between biological sustainability, economic efficiency and social equity are thus often necessary in the medium term. In order to achieve any long-term goal, there is a need for policy-makers to confront these intermediate trade-offs while being aware of the outcomes of different perspectives/starting points. In this report we do not dwell on tradeoffs. Having investigated some of the most exemplary management systems in the world, it is obvious that there are solutions. Solutions, however, are demanding and they address tradeoffs by way of including all relevant stakeholders. We are attempting to indicate characteristics that are concrete and can contribute to real sustainability for fisheries.However, in order for sustainability to be lasting, transparency and trust have to bring stakeholders together and joint decisions have to be made. As the process of review and reform of the CFP is launched, the question is whether a courageous political vision of future fisheries management in the Baltic can be created and achieve an internationally respected marine policy. Or will the process again stumble over problems of path dependence (where earlier policy decisions exert a constraining influence on future decisions) or institutional inertia, both of which are quite marked in the CFP.