Why and how to regionalise the Common Fisheries Policy

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

110 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The concept of regionalisation, as it has been employed in connection with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), is both ambiguous and multidimensional in the sense that it can have different meanings to different people and subsumes several discussions under one heading. Similarly, the perceived benefits of regionalisation can vary. In this article we develop a conceptual framework, which allows structuring of different, perceived benefits of regionalisation according to various objectives of CFP governance, as well as disentangling the different sub-themes that the discussion of regionalisation subsumes: the questions of ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘whom’. Eventually, we present a suite of five different models of regionalisation—‘archetypes’—that we believe are representations of important perspectives on what regionalisation means in practice and might facilitate a structured discussion of where the European Union should be heading in relation to fisheries governance: ‘Nationalisation’, ‘Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’, ‘Regional Fisheries Co-Management Organisations’, ‘Regional Marine Management Organisations’, and ‘Cooperative Member State Councils’.
Original languageEnglish
JournalMaritime Studies
Volume11
Issue number7
ISSN1872-7859
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Cite this

@article{a51b0adc01004bd5b863a3e3eff06cb7,
title = "Why and how to regionalise the Common Fisheries Policy",
abstract = "The concept of regionalisation, as it has been employed in connection with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), is both ambiguous and multidimensional in the sense that it can have different meanings to different people and subsumes several discussions under one heading. Similarly, the perceived benefits of regionalisation can vary. In this article we develop a conceptual framework, which allows structuring of different, perceived benefits of regionalisation according to various objectives of CFP governance, as well as disentangling the different sub-themes that the discussion of regionalisation subsumes: the questions of ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘whom’. Eventually, we present a suite of five different models of regionalisation—‘archetypes’—that we believe are representations of important perspectives on what regionalisation means in practice and might facilitate a structured discussion of where the European Union should be heading in relation to fisheries governance: ‘Nationalisation’, ‘Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’, ‘Regional Fisheries Co-Management Organisations’, ‘Regional Marine Management Organisations’, and ‘Cooperative Member State Councils’.",
author = "Hegland, {Troels Jacob} and Kristen Ounanian and Jesper Raakj{\ae}r",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1186/2212-9790-11-7",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
journal = "M A S T. Maritime Studies",
issn = "1872-7859",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "7",

}

Why and how to regionalise the Common Fisheries Policy. / Hegland, Troels Jacob; Ounanian, Kristen; Raakjær, Jesper.

In: Maritime Studies, Vol. 11, No. 7, 2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why and how to regionalise the Common Fisheries Policy

AU - Hegland, Troels Jacob

AU - Ounanian, Kristen

AU - Raakjær, Jesper

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - The concept of regionalisation, as it has been employed in connection with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), is both ambiguous and multidimensional in the sense that it can have different meanings to different people and subsumes several discussions under one heading. Similarly, the perceived benefits of regionalisation can vary. In this article we develop a conceptual framework, which allows structuring of different, perceived benefits of regionalisation according to various objectives of CFP governance, as well as disentangling the different sub-themes that the discussion of regionalisation subsumes: the questions of ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘whom’. Eventually, we present a suite of five different models of regionalisation—‘archetypes’—that we believe are representations of important perspectives on what regionalisation means in practice and might facilitate a structured discussion of where the European Union should be heading in relation to fisheries governance: ‘Nationalisation’, ‘Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’, ‘Regional Fisheries Co-Management Organisations’, ‘Regional Marine Management Organisations’, and ‘Cooperative Member State Councils’.

AB - The concept of regionalisation, as it has been employed in connection with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), is both ambiguous and multidimensional in the sense that it can have different meanings to different people and subsumes several discussions under one heading. Similarly, the perceived benefits of regionalisation can vary. In this article we develop a conceptual framework, which allows structuring of different, perceived benefits of regionalisation according to various objectives of CFP governance, as well as disentangling the different sub-themes that the discussion of regionalisation subsumes: the questions of ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘whom’. Eventually, we present a suite of five different models of regionalisation—‘archetypes’—that we believe are representations of important perspectives on what regionalisation means in practice and might facilitate a structured discussion of where the European Union should be heading in relation to fisheries governance: ‘Nationalisation’, ‘Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’, ‘Regional Fisheries Co-Management Organisations’, ‘Regional Marine Management Organisations’, and ‘Cooperative Member State Councils’.

U2 - 10.1186/2212-9790-11-7

DO - 10.1186/2212-9790-11-7

M3 - Journal article

VL - 11

JO - M A S T. Maritime Studies

JF - M A S T. Maritime Studies

SN - 1872-7859

IS - 7

ER -