HIST ORY AND E VOL UT ION OF T HE ADVISORY COUNCIL S Jo int - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

HIST ORY AND E VOL UT ION OF T HE ADVISORY COUNCIL S

Jo int AC me e ting o n the future func tio ning o f the ACs 13 April 2018

• De ve lo pme nt o f the Adviso ry Co unc ils

Before Now Next

GOVERNANCE Who decides what How decisions are made PATH DEPENDENCY

• What is the underlying

question that comes to your mind when you see this topic on the agenda?

Question by Stefan Baudy licensed under CC BY 2.0

1971 ACF 1977 1983 EEZs CFP 1992 CFP Reform 1994

PECH Committee in the EP

1997

Informal Regional Workshops Commission Action Plan for closer dialogue with the fishing industry ACFA (+NGOs) Council Regulation closer dialogue with the fishing sector and groups affected by the common fisheries policy

1999 2000

Before Now Next

Adapted from Burns and Stöhr (2011)

RACs 2002 2001 CFP Reform

Before Now Next

Green Book

2004 Common Framework (R)ACs Council Decision 2004/585/EC NSAC NWWAC 2005 2006 LDAC SWWAC Assessment Advisory Councils (ACFA + RACs) Aim of European General interest 2007/409/EC BSAC 2007 2008 MEDAC From DG FISH to DG MARE MSFD 2008 PELAC

Burns and Stöhr (2011)

Functions:

• To provide advice to the

Commission

• to channel information

between local stakeholders and policymakers

• to react to proposed policy and

to create advice proactively

• To provide fora for improving

mutual understanding

• to work deliberatively, and

consensually : advice must reflect compromise.

• To be inclusive, transparent

and accountable, supporting also other EU policies Challenges

• Launching and managing

expectations

• Lack of common understanding:

definition of “the problem” and the “solution”. Highly time- consuming work to get a shared view.

• Consensus: radical change from

previous CFP contexts.

• Cleavages: national fisheries

sectors, industry –NGOs, etc.

• Lack of trust and dominance of

self-evident trues

• Ambiguity of the processes and

learning-by-doing.

11 ACs (R) 60/40 (Parliament 50/50) 2013 2009 CFP Reform

Before Now Next

MoU EU- ICES

2015 Commission delegated Act on ACs functioning. Small-scale fisheries BlSAC 2016 2014 MAC AAC Scheveningen Group of MS (2004) BALTFISH EU- Increased financial contribution 20%

From MS shall provide (art. 7 2004/585/EC Council) to MS may provide (art. 7 2015/242 Commission Delegated act) the appropriate support to the Regional Advisory Councils

Landing obligation MMSMP Process: rationale and timelines Discontinuation of the ACFA Regionalization OMR (not set up yet)

Ramirez et al (forthcoming)

ACs assessment

Who When How Griffin 2004-2006 50 interviews (NSAC) European Commission 2008 7 Secretariats and Member States Ounanian and Hegland 2009 (2012) 138 individual participants Hatchard and Gray 2002-2008 (2014) 103 interviews (NSAC) Selke and Dreyer 2010 15 interviews (BSAC) Pascal Baelde 2011 30 interviews. Audit functioning SWWAC Linke and Jentoft 2008-2015 27 interviews (BSAC) Eliasen et al. 2014 7 key informants

• interviews. 16 on-line

survey

ACs Learning curve

2004 2007 2009 2013 2018 Peak of expectative Disillusionment Opportunity Frustration Heavier workload Process legitimacy Risk: prolonged pattern of no perceived influence

What is at stake?

Crossroads by Tawheed Manzoor licensed under CC BY 2.0

How to ensure the ACs’ robustness

• ACs internal functioning
• CFP governance system

ACs functioning

• Tension between external effectiveness and

internal democracy

• Representativeness: allocating “stakeholderness”

and constituency issues.

• Rules of the game: practical procedures for

participation and communication. How members are allowed to provide input, how power relations are structured and how negotiation and communication between involved parties evolves during and between meetings.

The NGOs -industry cleavage

• ACs should provide balanced arbitration to

determine what is rational and acceptable (value-ladden).

• robustly justify their assertions in the context
• f publicly held values (Jentoft and Mikalsena,

2001).

• Evidences: comercial interests ≠ unsustainable

policies

Proposals

• Administrative and logistical burdens: resources

and flexibility. Multi-annual budget?

• Free-riders: Commitment. Positive/negative

incentives?

• Capacity building: participation and team building
• Quality advice: Annual de-briefing with ACs to

discuss the follow-up of their advice?

• Reputation: Communication trainees?
• Scoping: marine and maritime affairs. Umbrella
• rganizations?

Advisory system

Able to feed their knowledge into the system before the science has been incorporated into management proposals (Rice, 2005; Linke et al. 2011) Ballesteros et al. (2017)

Regionalisation

Eliasen et al. (2015: 228)

Current regionalisation

• Gradual process (EC)
• De facto enables

hierarchical decision making vs. pluralistic participatory processes.

• Hampering the ACs

position in the governance system.

• At odds with the

supra and sub- regional scopes

Proposals

• Current design

– ACs: active observers in the MS RGs. MS are not decision-makers at that governance tier. – Setting processes to ensure transparency and accountability – ACs as channel for all stakeholders (RSC, civil society, etc.)

• Polycentric

governance

Polycentric governance

Council and Parliament

• 1. Delegated power (s)

Commission

• 3. Adopted delegated

regulation (s) MS ACs Supraregional Regional Subregional

• 2. Request for

recommendations (s) Advice

Brexit

Brexit by Mick Baker licensed under CC BY 2.0

An opportunity to use the European added value of the ACs:

– Now: to monitor and respond to the progress of negotiations, facilitating also scientist communication and input. – During the transition period: UK government would not be part of the decision-making process. The ACs concerned may readjust their structure to allow for consultations and joint discussions at stakeholder level

• In the new institutional arrangement: dual

nature as Advisory Council within the EU and integrated as Regional Stakeholder Organization(s) (EU-UK-Norway¿?).

• Test the robustness of the stakeholder

cooperation in the area.

What about your underlying question for the history of the ACs? Thank you for your attention mballesteros@cetmar.org