history and evolution of the advisory councils · 2018. 4. 18. · 1971. acf. eezs. 1977. 1983....
TRANSCRIPT
HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF THE ADVISORY COUNCILS
Joint AC meeting on the future functioning of the ACs13 April 2018
• Development of the Advisory Councils
Before Now Next
GOVERNANCEWho decides whatHow 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 1983EEZs
CFP
1992
CFP Reform
1994
PECH Committee in the EP
1997
Informal Regional Workshops
CommissionAction Plan for closer dialoguewith the fishing industryACFA (+NGOs)
Council Regulation closer dialogue with the fishing sector and groups affected by the common fisheries policy
1999 2000
Before Now Next
Adap
ted
from
Burn
s and
Stö
hr(2
011)
RACs
20022001
CFP Reform
Before Now Next
Green Book
2004
Common Framework (R)ACsCouncil Decision 2004/585/EC
NSAC NWWAC
2005 2006
LDACSWWAC
Assessment Advisory Councils(ACFA + RACs)
Aim of EuropeanGeneral interest2007/409/EC
BSAC
2007 2008
MEDAC
From DG FISH to DG MARE
MSFD
2008
PELAC
Burn
s and
Stö
hr(2
011)
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)
20132009
CFP Reform
Before Now Next
MoU EU- ICES
2015
Commission delegated Act onACs functioning. Small-scale fisheries
BlSAC
20162014
MACAAC
ScheveningenGroup of MS (2004)BALTFISH
EU- Increased financialcontribution 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 obligationMMSMP
Process: rationale and timelines
Discontinuation of the ACFA
RegionalizationOMR (not set up yet)
Ramirez et al (forthcoming)
ACs assessmentWho 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 informantsinterviews. 16 on-line survey
ACs Learning curve
2004 2007 2009 2013 2018
Peak of expectative
Disillusionment
Opportunity
Frustration
Heavier workloadProcess 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 of publicly held values (Jentoft and Mikalsena, 2001).
• Evidences: comercial interests ≠ unsustainablepolicies
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
organizations?
Advisory system
Able to feed their knowledge into the system beforethe 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 governanceCouncil and Parliament
1. Delegated power (s)Commission 3. Adopted delegated
regulation (s)
MS ACs
Supraregional
Regional
Subregional
2. Request forrecommendations (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 [email protected]