Sustainability of the North Sea’s fishing activities: The role of the Common
Fisheries Policy.
Ralph lambert s1411888 Leiden University
MSc Public Administration: International and European Governance
Master’s Thesis
Supervisor: Dr. Sarah Giest
Abstract
Concerns over the health of our planet and its environments has never been higher. With the increased awareness of the fragile nature of the various ecosystems, it has become increasingly important that governments prepare and legislate their exploitation policies effectively in order to preserve them. For
governments to develop effective legislation which safeguards these environments it is important to understand how effective policy is made. This thesis examines the policy cycle in order to understand how effective policy is produced and employed in the service of sustainably managing those ecosystems we collectively exploit. This research examines the constituent aspects of the Common Fisheries Policy,
the European Union's attempt to manage fishing activities and protect the marine ecosystems off its shores. Through examination of the working mechanisms of the Common Fisheries Policy, we can attempt to understand what implications this has had for the overall long-term viability of the North Sea
as an ecosystem and food source. Sustainability is understood in line with the theoretical perspectives derived from prominent literature on the matter. The working mechanisms or terms of the Common Fisheries Policy quotas, methods and producer organisations are then contrasted against their capacity to
ensure and even deliver on wider commitments to sustainability. By conducting an in-depth case study into the Common Fisheries Policy, with a focus on the fishing activities in the North Sea, one is able to make an assessment as to how far the commitments to sustainability have gone. The study finds that the
mechanism of the Common Fisheries Policy, while well intentioned, is not delivering on the commitments to sustainability. However, the research had its own shortcomings in identifying the Common Fisheries Policy as solely being responsible for the lack of ecological sustainability in the North
Sea; a myriad of factors and actors have contributed to both the betterment or detriment of this natural resource. It provides important insight into the struggles associated with managing such natural resources
Contents
Contents
1
1. Introduction
3
1.1Thesis road map
4
2. Literature review
5
2.1.1 Definition and Context
6
2.3.2 Policy Formulation
9
2.3.3 Policy Implementation
11
2.6 Policy Evaluation
11
2.7 Policy Learning
16
3. Research Design and Case Description
18
3.1 Research Design
18
3.2 Research Goals
19
3.4 Research Approach and Design
20
3.5 Unit of Analysis, Relevant Populations and Case Selection
21
3.6 Key concepts and their operationalisation into variables
22
3.7 Common Threats to Inference
22
4. Case Description
25
4.1 Total allowable catch (Quota System)
29
4.2 Fishing Controls
33
4.3 Producer Organisations
36
5. Analysis
39
5.1 Total Allowable catch
40
5.6 Fishing Controls
41
5.7 Producer Organisations
43
5.8 Other Concerns
44
6. Conclusion
45
1. Introduction
In light of increased knowledge regarding the fragile nature of our planet and its ecosystems, there is increasing concern around the effects that human activities are having on its long-term viability. These concerns have led to increasing considerations being made towards sustainability, which has become something of a buzzword of late, finding its place in a wide range of discourses. Concerns for and around sustainability have had implications for individuals, industry, and policy makers alike, leading to many changes in behaviour. For sustainability to be truly something which we can realise and can benefit from, the approach to reaching it must be multifaceted. Endeavours targeted towards sustainability must incorporate all actors and be codified in legislation, which is robust, understandable and realistic in its expectations. Policy makers have come to recognise the difficulty in achieving sustainability with so many present actors, all contributing to either the problem or the solution. The European Union provides an international platform which can make steps towards harmonising the actions of all actors in the interests of sustainability, and has incorporated these concerns into its central responsibilities, most notably in the context of the Common Fisheries Policy as sustainability features among its primary mandates. The focus on sustainability on the part of policy makers is intended to close the gap between the various actors, all of whom contribute to the status quo. The continued reiteration of sustainability concerns within policy is a reflection of the times we live in and the elevated concern for our planet now shared by many at levels unimaginable by previous generations. The North Sea as a fishing ground has been described as unsustainable if current activities continue unabated or unmodified (McKie, 2014), the controlling managerial body which governs these, and the activities of all fishing endeavours for that matter, is the Common Fisheries Policy. It is for that reason the focus that this research will take and offer will be on the policy and its working mechanisms.
This research will look into the working mechanisms of the Common Fisheries Policy, total allowable catch (or Quota System), and the Methods of harvesting fish which are approved for
use under the terms of the Common Fisheries Policy and Producer Organisations. Examination of these areas will be done with the aim of answering the following research question:
“How do the working mechanisms of Common Fisheries Policy affect sustainability in North Sea fishing operations?”
By studying existing literature on the development and realisation of policy, a rounded understanding of how policy is produced will be distilled. Through understanding how policy such as the Common Fisheries Policy comes into existence, with discussion and analysis of its impacts on sustainability provided later.
This research is of societal and theoretical relevance to discussions covering matters of managing natural resources and attempts to legislate in a manner that is able to deliver on sustainability measures. With increasing concern being devoted to sustainability it is of greater importance to understand what works and what does not, in the context of the policy field. Current research has examined numerous aspects of the Common Fisheries Policy, however this thesis intends to bring the matters of sustainable policy and European fishing endeavours together in a manner that marries the two and provides oversight in managing natural resources while maintaining the interests of long-term sustainability. The importance of developing a sustainable policy cannot be stressed enough, as the changes we are experiencing collectively in our environment must be managed in the best interests of not only ourselves in the present, but also those of future generations who will, if effective policy is not implemented and put into action in a timely fashion, face even greater challenges.
1.1Thesis road map
This thesis will be laid out as follows: firstly, an understanding of what current literature has to say about sustainability will be done and a working definition of the concept will be achieved. Attention will then
turn to the policy cycle, which will explain in full, the manner in which policy is developed. Then in chapter 2, policy learning will be unpacked in order that an understanding of how policy is refined and improved upon and is established. Chapter 3 turns its attention towards the research design of this paper. Then chapter 4 will look at the case that is being examined; the Common Fisheries Policy. This will be introduced at this point so that the context of discussion is well grounded. Then the case studies for each of the working mechanisms that apply to the operation of the Common Fisheries Policy will be examined (Total Allowable catch, methods, and Producer Organisations). This will be followed by an analysis in chapter 5 of the implications of these mechanisms for sustainability and wider discussion of the matter. Finally, chapter 6 will form the conclusion that can be drawn from the thesis in its totality.
2. Literature review
The study of fishery is an already expansive body of literature, with numerous scholars lending their insight(Allison & Horemans, 2006 & Roberts, Hawkins & Gell, 2005). In order to develop a sound understanding of how sustainable policy and practice are essential to the long-term management of ocean fisheries, it is important that the theoretical pillars of the field understood fully. This literature review will provide a survey of relevant literature, upon which the thesis will build a theoretical understanding.
The core theoretical frameworks that will ultimately come to underpin this study of sustainable fishery policy will be the policy cycle, used together with the study of policy learning. These core elements will facilitate answering our research question:
"What effect has the Common Fishery policy had on the sustainability of North Sea Fisheries?' The research question will be answered through a twin analysis. Firstly, the policy cycle is used to analysed how the Common Fishery policy was developed. Secondly, it will be analysed how the ultimate level of sustainability it achieves relates to the data upon which existing policy was guided. Sustainability, the policy cycle and policy learning are important concepts for this
analysis. Once these concepts are understood, we can use them to understand how governments can design, implement and appraise policy targeted at ensuring sustainability.
The following theoretical framework to provide a foundation of theoretical knowledge upon which later study can build and ideally contribute to. This review will also attempt to provide an appreciation for the concept of sustainability and what this means within the field of study. Next, the policy cycle is defined, with particular interest in its potential relationship to sustainability. Finally, the framework will look to build an understanding of the implications for Policy Learning.
The literature under examination will be divided into to four core themes:
1) Sustainability, and what definitions can be derived from the existing literature 2) The policy cycle, in order to understand how policy is developed
3) Policy learning, and the role of data feedback mechanisms in facilitating this 4) A review of contemporary literature on fisheries policy management.
These four core areas of study will be scrutinised for commonalities that will ideally facilitate later discussion. By adopting more than one approach to the literature at hand through combining authors anddifferent schools of thought it is the hope that a highly developed discussion on how the aforementioned fields of study come together to deliver on sustainability within the fishing industry.
2.1 Sustainability
2.1.1 Definition and Context
Central to this thesis is the concept of sustainability and as such, it is essential that we ground our further progress in a solid foundational understanding of the concept's definition. Increasing awareness and access to information on the fragile state of our planet's ecosystems and the role
of humanity in affecting the stability of these systems has brought about intensified discussion and focus on to matters of sustainability (Haklay, 2003). While the field is not short of contending definitions, the working definition is understood in line with those applied to biological resources. This definition has been prominent in the field and applied consistently since the turn of the century (Brown et al, 1987). The working definition was laid out in the work of Tivy and O’Hare as:
“[The] management of a resource for maximum continuing production, consistent with the maintenance of constantly renewable stock” (Tivy and O'Hare, 1982).
This working definition was selected as it accounts for both the environmental constraints on resource exploitation and humanity's role in managing said resources. This definition is also compatible with other definitions that stipulate what constitutes unsustainability in the field of biological resource extraction, such as that provided by Lee m. Talbot’s 1980 work The World Conservation Strategy as:
“Over harvesting of a plant or animal to the point...when a species is so depleted that its value to man will be severely reduced or lost” (Talbot, 1980).
The relationship these comprehensions explore between the exploitation of resources of today and its implications for future generations' potential to exploit those same resources is central to understanding what sustainability must entail. As such, this strong working definition of what sustainability is will provide clarity in later discussion of this terminology.
In order to understand how the academic discussion on sustainability has developed, it is prudent to consider the literature pertaining to sustainability management. It must be first acknowledged that the term sustainability is not a globally defined concept, and it is still the subject of much debate with the parameter of the term not being clearly delineated. This allows great scope and
variation in interpretation. The focus of sustainability management theories are however specified by Starik and Kanashiro as the following core tenants:
“[The] formulation, implementation, and evaluation of both environmental and socioeconomic sustainability-related decisions and actions” (Starik & Kanashiro, 2013).
Moving forward and using these core tenants to sustainable management theory will provide the backbone of the later discussion within this literature review by guiding our areas of enquiry.
2.3 The policy cycle
In very brief terms, the policy cycle can be understood as a leading explanation for how and why policy comes about. It explains the process through which policy must go in order to become a part of the wider policy environment. This process is broken down into distinct phases which are identified and explained in detail in the next sections.
2.3.1 Agenda setting
The first phase of the policy cycle is the agenda setting phase. Agenda setting in the context of policy development can be understood as the initial stage in any policy's life cycle. The first question to be answered is how issues become prominent enough that they warrant the attention of decision-makers and public bodies. Groups or individuals will often make efforts to have the issues that they find important feature on the public agenda. One such method is through providing accurate and agreeable descriptions of the matter at hand. Being able to describe the issue well is important, because the group or body that is able to most adequately describe the issue at hand has been shown to enjoy greater advantage in dictating the response (Birkland, 2007). This hypothesis for how issues reach the agendas of decision makers is however contended by scholars of different persuasions, who would instead point to issue framing as a more substantive reason for a particular matters position on the agenda. Framing of an issue refers to the manner in which it is discussed, with particular focus on journalist interpretations
and wording adopted there (Scheufele, 2000). For example, if a particular issue is described as a “crisis” then the response it receives is that of a crisis. This would also account for why a particular issue reaches decision-makers' agendas. Such a perspective would care less for actual nature of the issue at hand and rather stress that attention given is the product of the language that is attributed to an issue in journalistic circles and common parlance (Scheufele, 2000). What both perspectives agree on is that the development of policy begins with the identification of a problem, so that individuals can begin the process of analysis and producing potential responses.
Understanding how issues are perceived within society is central to understanding how
governments respond and develop a policy that is targeted at addressing these concerns (Jann & Wegrich, 2007). Therefore, it can be understood that issues that garner little attention and are not framed appropriately are unlikely to get far in the policy cycle. Once issues make their way onto the agenda of policy-makers they then become the subject of further debate.
2.3.2 Policy Formulation
Once an issue has entered the agendas of those in positions to instigate policy changes, the matter enters the next phase in a policies life cycle, which is policy formulation. Policy formulation can be understood as the development of a course of action which is acceptable to the various stakeholders. At this stage this group of stakeholders is often dominated by political figures (Jordan & Turnpenny, 2015). This understanding of the policy formulation stage is twofold, and encompasses both effectiveness and acceptability both of which warrant greater attention. The actors involved in the policy formulation process include (but are not limited to), elected officials, political parties, civil servants, advocacy coalitions, experts in the policy field, industry representatives and think tanks (Craft & Howlett, 2012).
Through careful analysis of a problem, these actors devise potential solutions to the problem at hand. Potential solutions then become subject to intense analysis where by the political viability of each response is assessed. This analysis is made using already present constraints, which can
come from political leadership, existing legislation, stakeholder consultations, budget concerns and similar conditions (Adelle & Weiland, 2012).
Actors at this stage of the policy cycle must similarly pay close attention to the political viability of their proposals. The proposed policy must be politically acceptable, and this should be communicated effectively by those with those who advocate for the proposal. Policies that do not meet political conditions are unlikely to be adopted and can be discarded until such a time that attitude change arises and is a common source of polarization (May, 1992). The presence of numerous actors within this stage of the policy process leads to competitiveness as actors seek to elevate their respective positions. This competitiveness means that policy is increasingly the product of increased negotiation the further through the formulation process it goes.
Proposals that come through this part of the policy formulation stage must then go through a process of acceptance. During this process, decision-makers must instigate the process of policy realization. Politicians must table the proposed policy to others, and seek to have the policy legitimised. Legitimation of policy in democracies is usually the product of majority building within government where by the actor seeks approval and support from others who are endowed with decision-making authority. During this part of the policy formation, even more
compromises are made on the policy because the process of majority building often demands
changes to be made to placate the concerns of others (Fischer, Miller & Sidney, 2007). The formulation phase of the policy cycle can be seen as a process of near continual compromise. Compromises are made so that policy is able to make it through the formulation stage where the relative effectiveness of proposals is analysed and factors are contended before the policy is tabled and proposed as legislation. It must then go through the political arena, whereby actors will 'champion' the proposed policy and seek to gather support so that it can be implemented into legislation. This also comes with the caveat of further compromise and alterations being made before legislative realisation. Due to the development of stable advocacy coalitions wielding greater influence, it is here that the design that policy will take become clear (Benoit, Jacques and Keeling, 2013).
2.3.3 Policy Implementation
Policy implementation is where the agreed and negotiated policy becomes realized and begins to change the status quo or the operating procedures it was designed to change. If a policy is directed at or will have direct effects on the operations of certain institution it is their task to ensure that they are compliant with the terms of the new policy (Smith, 1973). This process can be undertaken swiftly, or can become prolonged due to stakeholder pushback. If a policy is designed to address changes in circumstances such as in a crisis situation, their introduction into the operating procedure will often be accelerated (Dorey, 2014). However, where policy is not addressing such situations and is rather designed to change the status quo it is more likely to
encounter pushback. Pushback can come from stakeholders with a vested interest in the
maintenance of the status quo, and is often motivated by capacity concerns within institutions (Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975) . External influences also affect how policy is implemented once it has been legislated. For example, positive and negative media coverage and public perceptions often have an effect on the process of policy adoption (Happer & Philo, 2013).
2.6 Policy Evaluation
When policy is enacted or subject to a pilot scheme, it can receive criticism that is no longer hypothetical, and can actually engage in constructive evaluation. Such constructive evaluation is possible in instances where concrete data has been collected, like in pilot schemes (Sanderson, 2002). It is here that we will attempt to gather insight and value to be put towards this particular
study. Policy evaluation is still an ununified field of discourse with numerous differing
perspectives offering their explanations and approaches. We will try to distil these in order to identify an approach which offers validity and can aid in the progression of this piece of research.
The rationale for evaluating public policy is rather simple: in a system where resources are limited, as is the case in society at large, care must be ensured that resources are allocated as effectively/efficiently as possible (Martin & Sanderson, 1999). The task of evaluating policy is a complex activity, which draws upon a number of methodologies and different actors, with the intention of quantifying the effectiveness of a policy. The chosen approach is dependent on and the conditions under which they take place and their intended audience (Bovens, 't Hart & Kuipers, 2010).
Given the importance of conducting effective policy analysis there are within the field a number of contending approaches each with their own merits and potential drawbacks. Familiarity with these approaches will provide validity to the approach to be adopted later in this study. In starting our exploration of policy evaluation, the social experimentation approach provides a fitting start.
Social experimentation, outlined by Heckman and Smith, draws on existing cross-sectional time series data to find the impact of policy on studied variables. This approach can be further
reinforced through careful selection of variables and use of randomization to ensure that
researcher bias is minimized from the results of such research (Heckman & Smith, 1995). This approach is subject to heightened scrutiny from economists and social scientists due to the public nature of their undertaking and messy circumstances the approaches are often dogged by.
However, some argue that this is to some degree unavoidable when dealing with real world
matters (Weiss & Birckmayer, 2008).
In developing the academic field of policy evaluation, contending approaches to policy
evaluation have risen to prominence. Once such approach is an analysis-centric approach
which examines the implications for policy on a micro level and provides a technical approach to attaining how resources should be allocated to deliver the greatest efficiency. The “policy process approach” is an examination of the policy process itself, once policy has had time and been implemented discussion about its credibility can begin against the actors that were present
there and exerted influence over it , producing a political model of explanation and analysis (Serban, 2015).
Core differences in these approaches can be seen in the respective areas of focus and timing in which such analysis is carried out. Greater attention must be given to the methodologies which enjoy greater prominence within the field of policy evaluation, namely rational evaluation, formative evaluation, evaluation through human resources and additional schools of thought which are more contemporary in their approach.
The rational evaluation approach to policy evaluation intends to garner insight into how well a policy is performing by examining the effects on the intended target of the ongoing policy. This allows for a wide range of policies to be scrutinised in this manner (Neimun & Stambough, 1998). Analysis within this school of thought aims to provide an objective account of the relative cost and benefits of a policy by employing empirical research to arrive at conclusions. In this approach, datasets are commonly comprised of economic indicators with evaluations often taking the forms of cost/benefit analyses, utility analyses or experimental evaluation to measure performance (Sanderson, 2000). Central to this approach is to generate new knowledge that can be applied in the development of new policies and the overhaul of existing ones, while validating the choices previously made by decision-makers (Van der Knaap, 1995). Rational evaluation is not without its critics, who question the validity of findings produced by this approach on the grounds that a clear understanding of policy goals is not always available. The stated goals of policies are often preferential options rather than being objectively the best approach. This is further compounded by the innate complexity of society, which presents a natural weakness in the applicability of this model (Granger Morgan, Kandlikar, Risbey & Dowlatabadi, 1999). With this in mind, how can we provide objective analysis and generate new knowledge, when the object of study is not itself an objectively produced item and is subject to non-empirical influences?
Formative evaluation approaches policy evaluation in a different manner to that of rational analysis and exemplifies different measurement techniques to arrive at their conclusions. Rather than being a retrospective evaluation of policy, this approach instead examines the policy during its implementation phase. This approach will pay close attention to the manner in which policy is being brought into effect and the management that takes place in this process . This type of evaluation provides a constant feedback for those tasked with implementing policy which in turn allows for this process to be further streamlined. The key areas of evaluation to be covered in this approach would be an assessment of whether the policy is reaching its target population, how actors are interacting, whether it is meeting the criteria set down in the design of the policy and how efficiently resources are being allocated (Chess, 2000). The ability of this approach to be integrated during the development of policy increases its popularity among managers who wish to act responsively to changes in circumstances. Within the public sector, the scarcity of resources means that their correct allocation is very important (Davies, 2012). For this reason, this approach focuses on these factors and aims to inform actors in real time to improve policy implementation. The results this approach produces can become laden with subjective bias such as political or value-based assumptions (Bate & Robert, 2003). Given that political interests and values are subjective and based on the perceptions of different actors, this method of analysis is questionable in terms of its ability to deliver knowledge which is defendable under objective scrutiny. The use of indicators that are value-based raises other, more difficult to answer questions about what the policy's goals are, and if objective knowledge can be found through questions that are themselves flawed. The political nature of this approach and the actors carrying it out also raises questions as to who is conducting the analysis and their relative influence on policy (Bate & Robert, 2003). This is particularly pertinent as such individuals likely have their own vested interests and thus have questionable levels of public legitimacy.
A developing school of thought in policy evaluation is that of relative introspection whereby policy can be evaluated by examining those charged with carrying it out. This is typically described as evaluation through human resources. The goal of this approach is to understand the actions of individuals and how this relates to their respective role in ensuring positive policy
outcomes (Ferris, 1999). Such a style of evaluation will attempt to draw parallels between salary and performance, which can be reviewed through appraisals of the workforce in question. Such appraisals will aim to have a positive effect on productivity and development within the organization itself (Jackson, 1995). This approach differs in a number of ways to that of rational approaches to policy evaluation. This approach reveals stark differences in the outcome of such evaluation, instead of delivering improvements in the decision making process it instead aims to advice improvements from within existing organizational structures (Jackson, 1995). Such improvements are targeted at the personnel within an organization or enterprise with a particular focus on improving commitment to the organization, as staff longevity often relates to positive performance (Benkhoff, 1997). Competency within an organisation is of high concern, because employing staff that do not hold the required skills and knowledge can result in adverse outcomes for the policy (Bertram, Blase & Fixsen, 2014). Internally, an organisation must also account for whether its staff's cost effectiveness to the organization's goals at large. Finally, an organisation must make sure that employees' sympathies aligned with those of the organization, as personal beliefs or values will have their implications for the organizations and for relative productivity and execution of policy terms (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). As such, human resource management approaches to policy evaluation would stress the importance of a number of measures to ensure that the policy is executed effectively, such as recruitment, training, appraisal and recognition of good performance. Summarizing this approach to evaluation, it is people-centric and seeks to understand the roles of individuals and their impact on achieving wider policy objectives. It argues that individual bureaucrats' professional performances are of great importance to achieving collective policy objectives, as opposed to the structure of the policy itself explaining its relative success.
Alternative approaches to policy evaluation have been proposed more recently and can be differentiated from the more mainstream as being post-positivist. This in effect means that they do not attempt to draw conclusions from what are described as objective measurements, instead attempting to pursue value-free evaluation like economic indicators. This is due to the innate difficulty in obtaining accurate figures and the institutionally constructed nature of these
indicators (Hanberger, 2001). Such approaches, have however been subject to criticism around the viability and the validity of their findings (Fischer, 1998), and can effectively be overlooked when moving forward with this particular piece of research.
2.7 Policy Learning
Policy learning pertains to the policy cycle as the latter stages of the cycle where information which later benefits policy learners is produced (Sanderson, 2002). Policy learning has established itself within the scholarly analysis of policy development and garnered appreciation in Public Administration and Political Science alike. In pursuing a greater understanding of what policy learning is and entails, we will first arrive at a definition and then explore the differing approaches and perspectives which have been laid out by prominent scholars on the subject. Policy learning as a body of academic thought can be traced back to the 1960’s. During this time, societies all over the world were undergoing numerous socio economic changes (Freeman, 2008). Given that these conditions were present in much of the world, it was also the case that policy makers in the respective nations were addressing similar problems. Policy learning developed within this set of circumstances, and can be understood as the process by which policy makers learn about policy and its implication via making comparisons with other legislation in their own jurisdiction or those of others, be that other government departments or the policies of other nations (Dobbin, Simmons & Garrett, 2007).
Within the remit of policy learning, practitioners/policy makers must first recognise the tools that they have at their disposal in releasing policy objectives, as selecting the right approach will have consequences for the longevity of policy once implemented. Within the toolkit at the disposal of policy makers there are seven options which can be examined for the suitability to the problem at hand. The available options that policy makers may choose to adopt are as follows:
● Direct provision, where the government provides a service to its citizens in its totality. A real world instance of this would be the provision of public education to children (Pal, 2013).
● Subsidies: this is understood as the government allocating resources to either the producer or consumer to reduce the costs of a product. This is the case with agriculture in many jurisdictions, where subsidies are given to producers so that consumers enjoy reduced costs.
● Taxation, where by the government will apply extra duties to products or behaviours that are undesirable (Stavins, 2003).
● Contracts, may be issued by the government and entered into by private operators to deliver a service to the government or population at large in the field of procurement (Georghiou, Edler, Uyarra & Yeow, 2014).
● Authority would be an instance where the government acts to prevent or enforce a behaviour through its legal capacity, violations of which would result in a judicial response and the power vested therein (Armstrong, 1998).
● Regulation can be employed to alter the behaviour of actors who must now adapt the modus operandi. This is rather an administrative exercise and an alternative to legally binding legislation (Zito, 2017).
● Policy makers can employ encouragement without the coercive influence towards behaviour or values which are desirable for the wider good (Woodside, 1986), such as campaigns encouraging recycling.
Once an approach is selected by policy makers, then the details of the policy must be worked out and the policy is implemented. Policy can still fail for a number of reasons. These include but are not limited to lack of cost-effectiveness, unwarranted delays, or the policy being revealed to be ineffective in addressing the initial concerns it was supposed to address (McConnell, 2016). These risks can be mitigated by policy makers themselves by accounting for these common causes of policy failure and drafting policies with that account for these risks.
Policy learning can take place in two very distinct ways, which are referred to as top-down and bottom up policy learning. They differ due to the direction information is flowing in; either from policy maker to practitioner or practitioner to policy makers. These are most adequately
described by Birkland 2016, who notes that top down policy learning is when senior officials design and dictate the objectives of a policy and then delegate the task of implementation to actors at a lower level . Bottom-up policy learning, on the other hand, originates from individuals lower on the institutional hierarchy like employees or even recipients of a service. They will contribute to the overarching goals that policy should aim to achieve based on their on their frontline experiences. A careful process of negotiation and compromise often follows as the goals and power imbalances between those at the top of the policy structure and those at the bottom will often manifest themselves in differences of opinion in how resources should be allocated and policy carried out (Birkland, 2016).
Having conducted an examination of the policy cycle and policy learning, what can be distilled is that adherence to these phases is essential for the development of an effective policy. Moving forward, the research that will be conducted will aim to identify if the correct measures have been taken in evaluating policy as well as learning from existing policy so that the case study might be better suited to the task at hand.
3. Research Design and Case Description
3.1 Research DesignThis research aims to understand and address the relationship between the development of policy targeted towards sustainability, and its relative success in achieving such goals. It will do this by evaluating the Common Fisheries Policy, followed by a multifaceted investigation into the operational dictates of the policy in an attempt to answer the question “ How do the working mechanisms of Common Fisheries Policy affect sustainability in North Sea fishing operations?”
3.2 Research Goals
The goal of this research is to investigate the Common Fisheries Policy in order to understand what its implications are for the sustainability of North Sea Fisheries. It will analyse different aspects of the Common Fisheries Policy in order to determine how the clauses of the policy might have implications long-term sustainability of European fishing waters. It will take the form of an explanatory case study, whereby the Common Fisheries Policy is investigated from conception to realisation. In doing so, the operational terms of the Common Fisheries Policy will come under examination as their relation to sustainability is intrinsic and will hopefully shed light on the matter at hand.
3.3 Theory and Causal Mechanisms
Causal mechanisms here pertain to the policy cycle, which was discussed previously in this piece of research, with a particular emphasis on how and why the Common Fisheries Policy was developed and ultimately implemented. By examining how the European Union has accounted for and included measures targeted at ensuring sustainability, we can arrive at conclusions as to how these measures (or lack of them) play a role in the sustainability shortfall of North Sea fisheries.. A discussion of managing such common resources like those of European fishing waters was conducted by Elinor Ostrom. Where she argues that self-regulation or involvement in developing the terms of usage by those directly implicated and involved in resource extraction is instrumental in ensuring the long-term sustainability of the respective resource (Ostrom, 2009). Therefore, it can be assumed that the effectiveness of policy targeted towards sustainable management of a resource is dependent on engagement with and from those involved in the exploitation of the resource.
It is prudent to consider if there are other theories and other potential causal mechanisms which might attempt to explain the lack of sustainability in Europe's fishing sector. Such explanations might be that the climate change which is being experienced globally is responsible for a greater share of the fish stock depletion than human activity currently accounts for (Roessig, Woodley, Cech & Hansen, 2004). This thesis however, aims to focus its attention on the Common Fisheries Policy and whether the practical terms have produced positive or negative results for North Sea Fisheries. This means that it will place a particular focus on the manner in which the policy is carried out and ultimately realized in fishing operations.
3.4 Research Approach and Design
This thesis will be adopting a single case study design whereby the terms and context of the Common Fisheries Policy are scrutinised in great depth, with the constituent mechanisms receiving intense focus. A single case study design can be understood as an examination of a single case, whereby multiple pieces of evidence from that single case are examined; the analysis takes place within the case as opposed to across a number of cases. As such, it does not involve measuring variables from many cases, but rather observations being gathered from the single case in order to determine what competing theories are most compatible and well-placed to account for the observations found therein (Toshkov, 2016). This method was chosen, as the Common Fisheries Policy is relatively unique, which means that conducting a comparative study such as a Most Similar System Design would not be a viable option for this piece of research.
A single case study of the Common Fisheries Policy itself will provide the most fitting approach while attempting to address the hypotheses elaborated on later and ultimately answering our
research question. This research will be based on data and research which is already in existence,
pertaining to the Common Fisheries Policy and the wider environmental health of the North Sea
3.5 Unit of Analysis, Relevant Populations and Case Selection
The factors to be analysed within this case study will be the constituent parts or clauses of the Common Fisheries Policy which are relevant to practitioners within the industry and policy environment. These are:
● Total Allowable Catch ● Fishing Controls
● Producer Organisations.
These aspects of the Common Fisheries Policy will be analysed as these will provide the insight needed to answer the research question. These aspects, which are of the greatest relevance to maintaining fish stocks and are the product of the policy cycle, are also those aspects most relevant to the fishing industry and those active within it. This study will examine these aspects in order to determine their implications for the long term sustainability of North Sea fisheries. The understanding of these elements will be derived from the terms of the Common Fisheries Policy itself, which is already within the public domain. Other publications and data banks which pertain to these mechanisms will also be consulted. As the identified constituent parts form three distinct aspects of the policy, utilisation of them as part of the case study will help in garnering the insight needed for this research to make valid conclusions as to what effect the Common Fisheries Policy on sustainability in North Sea Fisheries and whether it is honoring its mandate towards ensuring sustainability. Other aspects of the Common Fisheries Policy which do not pertain to the exploitation of natural resources, such as marketing and preparation clauses covered by the Common Fisheries Policy, are discounted for further examination as they are technicalities which do not attempt to address concerns about sustainability but rather consumers.
3.6 Key concepts and their operationalisation into variables
The Key concepts which will be used within this research are those which will be transformed into the independent variables which can be compared against their respective impacts on sustainability, the dependent variable. Operationalisation of variables is explained by Toshkov as the process by which these factors can be measurable, classifiable and detectable (Toshkov, 2016). By conducting an in-depth case study proposed previously with a particular focus on the working mechanism of the policy we can assess their relative impact on the sustainability of European fishing endeavours. The mechanism of the Common Fisheries Policy will be examined through and as they are the product of the policy process/cycle, which accounts for their inclusion within the policy as a whole. Attention will then turn to their respective impacts on overall sustainability. In evaluating their respective impacts on overall sustainability data made public by the European Union on catch size and the biological health of ecosystems and impact of practices provided by Eurostat and other publishing bodies.
The three areas of the Policy which will be examined are as previously mentioned the working aspects of the Common Fisheries Policy and are dealt with by practitioners on a near daily basis as they pertain directly to their operations. The research will contribute to existing literature on the topic of the Common Fisheries Policy as it presents these working mechanisms of the policy in the context of the policy cycle. It could act as a springboard for a more in-depth study into the implications these working mechanisms or approach to managing the resource have on the resulting levels of sustainability.
Addressing common threats to inference will pose a difficulty for this study, however through careful analysis, accounting for reverse causality and trying to distil the occurrence of randomness from tainting our conclusions. This research will, as part of this concern, address potential other theories or explanations for the North Sea’s status quo. Taking into account reverse causality, in that the policy under examination may in fact play no part in the resulting levels of sustainability, and that rather the level of sustainability dictates how the policy was written are accounted for by isolating the operational dictates and focusing exclusively on them and their relationship to the sustainability of North sea fisheries . Furthermore, this research is focusing on the levels of sustainability currently being exhibited under the mandate of the Common Fisheries Policy. Randomness is addressed by the choice of case studies and the working mechanisms of the Common Fisheries Policy. Selection of these areas of examination are constituent parts of the Policy and directly pertain to the fishery operations and are directly connected to resource exploitation. A limitation we will encounter in undertaking this study will be the subtleties of each individual area of study and the myriad of factors that would account for potential fluctuations, however this study is accounting for the larger picture and thus will overlook such occurrences and differing factors. This research intends to identify what role working mechanisms, which are dictated by the Common Fisheries Policy, have on the wider sustainability of these fisheries sustainability and thus is the area of focus for this research.
Definition Operationalization Sources
Independent
Variables
Total Allowable Catch
Quotas that are set down per Annum dictating the
Have Quotas been issued that are counterproductive to
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, European
number of fish that can be harvested. the goals of sustainability? Union Publications on annual quotas.
Fishing Controls The methods of fishing that are currently allowed under the terms of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Are the Methods that are employed in keeping with the goals of sustainability and what are their impacts?
Terms for the Common Fisheries Policy, Scientific publications, consensus on the effect of the different methods. Producer Organisations Organizations that take on the Role of a trade Union protecting the Interests of those in the industry.
Are the roles and activities of producer organisations conducive to delivering on sustainability goals? European Union dictates and explanations on the roles of Producer Organisations and discussions on their implications. Dependent Variable Sustainability levels of EU fisheries Have levels of sustainability improved or decreased as a result of measures taken. Is the Ecosystem better or worse off in terms of its ability to replenish itself?
Hypothesis 1) Using Quotas to manage Fishery Operations are counterproductive to the goals of maximizing sustainability.
Hypothesis 2) Current fishing controls are not best suited to delivering the sustainability of a natural resource like the North Sea.
Hypothesis 3) Producer Organisations’ roles and responsibilities are designed to serve the interests of those engaged in the industry and not those of sustainability.
4. Case Description
This part of the thesis will address the case of the Common Fisheries Policy itself so that is can be understood within the context of the larger discussion on the policy cycle and the delivery of sustainable policy. In doing this it is prudent practice that a sound foundation of understanding of the policy context and the manners in which it works is established before moving forward into the details of the case.
This section as previously stated will examine the working aspects of the common fishery policy in order to understand the implication for sustainability. Here clarification as to how each aspect of the case study will be conducted will be provided in order to clarify the methods and measures appropriated. Firstly examination of the clauses pertaining to total allowable catch will draw on published data about the health of fish stocks in the North Sea presented as spawning stock biomass. This information will be contrasted against the quotas which are allocated to fish stock. At this point it would be prudent to assume that when allocating quotas to particular fish species these quotas would reflect the larger health of the fish population and as such would fluctuate in line with scientific estimations on overall stock size, and is what the part regarding total allowable catch will cover. When moving forward and looking at the methods by which fishers permitted to ply their trade commonly referred to as Fishing Controls, the methods which are allowed and commonly used to catch fish will be assessed to understand what impacts are having on the ecosystem of the North Sea to determine if they play a role in the perceived lack of
sustainability of North sea fisheries. Finally examination of producer organisations and what their role entails for the fishing industry. The responsibilities of producer organisations are broad in their scope, however it is only those aspects which can be correlated with their potential impact on sustainability which will be examined. this will account for their role and influence on the market which directly exploits the natural that is the North Sea. Through this three pronged approach which examines the working aspects of the Common Fisheries policy we should be able to arrive at conclusions as to what impact if any the common fisheries policy is having on levels of sustainability in the North Sea.
The Common Fisheries Policy currently dictates how all fishing activities within the European Union must be conducted. The policy provides instruction for, not only the manner in which the activity of fishing itself must be conducted, but also directions for the marketing and storage, once fish are harvested. These rules apply to all those engaged in the commercial fishing (Alexander, 2015). While the European Union's Fishing industry is not a large source of its revenue in 2016 it accounting for 4.4 billion in total (Eurostat, 2018), however it is still an important source of food. As such and like many of the agricultural endeavours within the European Union, it is subject to strict policy which is intended to ensure safety to consumers and practitioners alike (Vos, 2000).
While it is true that fishing activities within the European Union are not its largest industry, it still accounts for the income of thousands of citizens (an estimated 152 700 fishers alone
(STECF 2017)coupled with the fact that it provides an important source of food. It is naturally
within the interests of the European Union that measures, protections and funding are correctly allocated to the industry. Unchecked, the commercial interests of fishers would see this this natural resource exploited at rates well above what could be considered sustainable, according to the theory pertaining to common pool resources espoused by the notable author Hardin (Hardin, 1968). Therefore, careful policy must be introduced in order that this resource is fairly distributed whilst being protected to ensure its longevity. The Common Fisheries Policy can be understood as the EU’s attempt to mitigate the potential tragedy of the commons befalling
Europe’s fishing waters and source of food. This is particularly pertinent when one considers the size of the European fishing fleet (63,976 active vessels in 2015) and their respective fishing capacity, landing as much as five million metric tonnes a year (STECF 2017).
Within the history of the European Union, the idea that fishery management should be conducted at a higher level, namely at an internationally cooperative level, have been around since 1970. The first measures in developing such international controls were instigated in preparation for the applications of; Britain, Ireland, Denmark (which at the time also included Greenland) and
Norway to join the Common Market. This was based on the realisation that these applicant
members’ coastal positions placed them at the doorstep of what were, at the time, some of the
richest fish stocks in the world, to which the original six members sought to ensure equal
access-rights to. The Common Fisheries Policy, in these early days of its conception, was
supposed to create a free trade area for the fishing industry as a whole, where by vessels from
any member state would be eligible to fish in the waters of other member states. The Common
Fisheries Policy would go on to be expanded and developed over the coming years in a number
of ways; 1976 saw the expansion of fishing waters from 12 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles
(22.2 km to 370.4 km) from the coast of each member state; this was in line with changes
experienced at an international level (Symes, 1997). The expansion of the waters in which
European fishing vessels could now operate brought about the need for a more comprehensive
policy structure to govern these increased activities, which saw the advent of the Common
Fisheries Policy as we know it now in 1983 (Raakjær, 2011). With fishing operations in Europe
coming under the mandate of the Common Fisheries Policy, massive investment into fishing
fleets ensued, this resulted in increased fishing activities to the point of overfishing, as harvests
began to decrease. In 1992, in response to these findings, the Common Fisheries Policy was
augmented so that it would be able to take greater control and the ability to monitor the activities
of individual fishing vessels, to ensure compliance with regulations (Lutchman, I., et al 2009).
Development in the Common Fisheries Policy in 1995 saw the introduction of fishing permits
which would provide permission regarding where and when fishing could take place.
scientific surveys of fish populations (Churchill & Owen, 2010). Fishing Activities would run for
some time under these parameters until new discussion grew within the European Union on how
best to manage the shared resource. These discussions were manifested in 2013 when the
Common Fisheries Policy was overhauled into the policy regime we see today (Salomon, Markus & Dross, 2014).
The Common Fisheries Policy is administered in a number of ways and for clarification’s sake; these will be elaborated upon in detail. Among the most obvious clause of the Common Fisheries, is the policy tool of setting quotas. The Common Fisheries Policy is responsible for allocating quotas to fishers. These quotas dictate what fish and how much can be caught in specific areas. These are issued on an annual basis. Quotas are based on the total available catch, which is then translated and divided between member states into Total Allowable Catch. Quotas are decided upon and fixed by the European Union's Council of Ministers. These are the product of the consideration of proposals submitted by the European Commission who in turn have consulted their own in-house scientific body known as the Scientific, Technical and Economic
Committee of Fisheries, (abbreviated to STECF). Once quotas have been decided upon, they are
divided among member states who issue them to fishers, each adopting its own preferred method
of doing so. Policing of these quotas once they have been issued is similarly the responsibility of
the individual member states concerned, approaches to this diverge depending on the member
state (Markus & Salomon, 2012) .
Another control measure of which comes under the Common Fisheries Policy is regulation
pertaining to the methodology that fishers can employ in plying their trade. Such measures can
for instance, cover the size of the weave in the netting used (Larger weaves size allows for
smaller fish to pass through in the hopes they might reach maturity and be harvested at a later
date) (REGULATION (EU) No 579/2011, 2011) .
The European Union as part of the Common Fisheries Policy also encourages the establishment
producers themselves to facilitate the trade of their product. These organisations are intended to
protect fishers and the operators of fishing fleets from negative market forces. To this end, they
are endowed with a number of powers, such as removing fish from the market if the price falls
below price minimums agreed previously by the Council of Ministers, and the ability to
negotiate rebates or stock buy up (Markus, 2010).
The Common Fisheries Policy is in effect the controlling legislation for all European fishing
endeavours. Whilst some powers are delegated to nation states the structure and guiding
principles within which member states have the freedom to exercise their own preferences are a
product of the Common Fisheries Policy. 4.1 Total allowable catch (Quota System)
In attempting to understand why North Sea fisheries are unsustainable and the effects that the Common Fisheries Policy might pay in this, examination of the mechanisms employed by the policy is where the attention of this research will turn. As previously mentioned, the Common Fisheries Policy makes numerous stipulations about how the industry can conduct its activities. Our first area of focus is however the terms which pertain to catch controls, otherwise known as quotas. These quotas dictate the quantity and species that fishermen can catch and ultimately land. Examination of this aspect of the Common Fisheries Policy will be done with the intention of identifying if they constitute a contributing factor to the overall lack of sustainability of North Sea fisheries.
In identifying how this part of the Common Fisheries Policy might jeopardize sustainability in the North Sea careful analysis of quotas and scientific consensus on replenishment rates of a selected group of crop fish (cod, herring and mackerel) will be required. The crop fish are selected as they are commonly consumed and are familiar to the vast majority of people (EUMOFA, 2018). Firstly, we will confirm the allocated quotas for each of these fish, then we will look at how much is actually being harvested against estimates for overall populations of
these fish. Estimates must be used to understand the overall health of the population, as producing highly accurate figures for such a mobile natural resource is prohibitively difficult and outside the scope of even the most arduous policy makers and research bodies. Examining the past four years of fishing activity for which data can be found should provide insight into what effect fishing quotas may or may not have on the sustainability of fish stocks.
Cod, herring and mackerel are all saltwater fish, commonly consumed and with which the reader should have some familiarity, even if they themselves do not consume them. They are all medium to large sized fish which are harvested for consumption in Europe, primarily in the Atlantic and North Sea.
The European Council currently sets the target or quota amounts of each of these fish, which are allowed to be caught by European fishing vessels, at the following amounts over the last four years. Fishing waters and quota amounts are subdivided by species and by region/body of water. In the interests of simplicity, the quotas for each species are to be combined to identify the total amount which are allowed to be caught within the Atlantic and North Sea waters, under the mandate of the Common Fisheries Policy.
2016 2017 2018 2019
Cod 95,225 102,354 103,943 84,593
Herring 479,950 365,975 537,544 393,076
Mackerel 443,789 505,438 404,815 648,336
Table 1.1: Total allowable catch of each species of fish by tonnage over four years in all waters under European Union management (Council of the European Union, 2017, 2018, 2019).
In order to provide some context to the figures shown in table 1.1, we must understand what the total populations of fish are. As previously stated, these can only be estimations as natural fluctuations and shortcoming in the technology mean that accurate figures are impossible to produce and would only be short lived in their accuracy. In maintaining the focus on Atlantic and North Sea Fisheries these figures similarly pertain to those regions. The estimates that are used here are provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, as they have maintained a strong reputation and employ multi-faceted approach to producing these figures ("Who we are", 2019). They express the relative health of fish stocks in a figure referred to as “Spawning Stock Biomass” this accounts for both male and females of a particular species that are of breeding age or size and thus are able to take part and contribute during breeding season (Cooper, 2015). Spawning Stock Biomass is expressed in tonnage by the thousand.
2016 2017 2018 2019
Cod 119,699 113,502 118,387 NA
Herring 2,357,200 1,886,840 1,529,880 NA
Mackerel 4,590,401 4,387,307 4,186,496 NA
Table 1.2: Spawning Stock Biomass for the Atlantic and North Sea expressed as tonnage by the thousand (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 2018).
We can see from comparing the data attached to quota allocation Table 1.1 against the stock spawning biomass of Table 1.2, that the quotas that are allocated to each fish stock within the Atlantic and North Sea, are done with the intention of maintaining a replenishment stock of fish, as quotas allow for some of the biomass to remain in situ. So while the system of quota fishing is undertaken with the best of intentions, whether or not these have been set in a manner that ensures sustainability is questionable. The quotas that are issued do not fluctuate in accordance
to the relative health of the population at large. This position has been corroborated by the ICES Overview, which points out that cod fishing was carried out between 2015 and 2018 at levels that are in excess of the rates of replenishment. Herring, similarly, although to a lesser extent, have been subject to untenable levels of fishing pressure with 2017 being notably high, as they were fished above sustainable rates of replenishment. Mackerel have also been shown to be fished at intensive levels, placing fishing pressure on them at elevated levels. In 2018 the overall stocks of these fish were below healthy levels of replenishment and yet were still harvested with quotas continuing to be placed on them (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 2018). There was such concern on the part of the Marine Stewardship Council (a watchdog which provides its seal of approval to fish harvested in a sustainable manner to be placed on packaging in order to allow consumers to make informed decisions) that all North East Atlantic mackerel fishery products were suspended from its certification program as of march 2019 ("MSC certificates suspended for all North East Atlantic mackerel fisheries | Marine Stewardship Council", 2019).
As a policy position, the use of quotas is subject to wider criticism, in that they have been shown to induce lying and environmentally detrimental practices in order to avoid the repercussions attached to breaking the rules. While accurate figures cannot be gathered on the extent of catch dumping on the part of those operating within European waters, the practice was in part caused by the imposition of quotas (Crean & Symes, 1994). This practice, as of 2016, is now prohibited, however the ability of the European Union to enforce such a measure is questionable given the remote locations of those engaged in the fishing industry and the implicit difficulty in monitoring such activities (POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES, 2014). Given the continuation of the quotas as a policy tool, determining if the clandestine practice of catch dumping continues will continue to raise questions.
The use of quotas as a policy instrument and the rates at which they have been set show that the health of fish populations has not been fully accounted for. A shortfall between development of each annual directive on fishing and the use of scientific evidence on fish stocks, has resulted in
the examined species being subject to high levels of fishing pressure, which has negative implications for the long term viability of their respective populations.
4.2 Fishing Controls
Among the many stipulations and allowances that the Common Fisheries Policy covers are the methodologies which those in the industry might employ when plying their respective trade. These stipulations are the technical measures of the Common Fisheries Policy, which governs how, where and when fishing may take place. For this section it is the stipulations regarding how fishing can take place and the methods that can be employed which will be under scrutiny. Each method will be explained so that a rudimentary understanding of what it entails can be appreciated by the reader, then consultation of the effects, be those positive or negative, can be discussed to ascertain their potential implication on the sustainability of European Fishing endeavours. This will once again focus on those efforts concentrated in the North Sea Region, in order to maintain continuity with the avenue of study.
A core method of commercial fishing that is employed in the North Sea is referred to as trawling. Trawling can be understood as an umbrella term to describe a number of different methods or approaches to catching fish, however all effectively involve the use of fishing vessels dragging large nets to catch fish. The primary differences between the methods, all of which are described as trawling, differ regarding the fish that they each respectively target(Purrington & Pike, 2019). Trawler fishing is highly prevalent, as it is a very efficient method of fishing. Trawling currently accounts for the majority fishing activity and landings of catches tanking place in the North Sea (ICES, 2018). The method has however come under a certain amount of scrutiny for a number of reasons. First and foremost among these reasons, is the indiscriminate fashion this takes, because the nets are simply dragged by the fishing vessels for a set amount of time. This means that any number of species can be caught in this way, Trawling has been shown to produce the highest amounts of bycatch – a term which refers to fish and other marine life caught which were not
