Stakeholder perceptions on regionalisation of the common fisheries policy and its impact on the legitimacy of fisheries policy in the European Union
Kraan, M.; Vandamme, S.; Lemey, L.; Giesbers, E.; ten Napel, C.; Van Bogaert, N.; Aranda, M.; Steins, N.A.; Mangi, S.C. (2026). Stakeholder perceptions on regionalisation of the common fisheries policy and its impact on the legitimacy of fisheries policy in the European Union. Marit. Stud. 25(1): 6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40152-025-00471-8
In: Maritime Studies. Springer: Amsterdam. ISSN 2212-9790; e-ISSN 2212-9790, more
|   |
| Author keywords |
Regionalisation · Common fisheries policy · Stakeholder perceptions · Legitimacy · Stakeholder involvement · Advisory councils |
| Authors | | Top |
- Kraan, M.
- Vandamme, S., more
- Lemey, L., more
|
- Giesbers, E.
- ten Napel, C.
- Van Bogaert, N., more
|
- Aranda, M.
- Steins, N.A.
- Mangi, S.C.
|
| Abstract |
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), established in 1983, is the European Union’s policy for sustainable management of European fishing fleets and conservation of fish stocks. In 2002, the CFP was reformed with the objective of improving its legitimacy towards fisheries management. This involved the introduction of ‘Regionalisation’, establishing Advisory Councils (ACs) for each European sea basin. Regionalisation advanced in 2013 by setting up Member States Groups (MSGs), facilitating more tailor-made management proposals at decentralised levels. We examine whether these reforms have reached their objectives of improving the CFP’s legitimacy and effectiveness, using the concepts of input and throughput legitimacy. Results from interviews, an online survey and focus groups show that Regionalisation is considered necessary and has fulfilled most expectations (to a certain extent). European and national policy-makers were more positive than ACs. Regionalisation increased legitimacy of the CFP by giving diverse stakeholders direct access to the policy-making process. Yet, in practice stakeholders (unevenly) struggle with different aspects of participation, and clarity about the extent to which AC advice is taken on board is lacking. Improving these aspects of input and throughput legitimacy are therefore required to arrive at a truly legitimate fisheries policy. The ACs and MSGs developed under Regionalisation provide structured procedures of cooperation and dialogue. ACs have demonstrated to be crucial boundary organisations where consensus is built and mediated, information is shared, capacity is built, and knowledge is co-produced. This is crucial considering increasingly wicked problems associated with the blue economy agenda and climate change. |
|
