Sharing responsibilities in fisheries management; Part 2 - Annex: case studies
2005
van Hoof, L.J.W. | Hoefnagel, E.W.J. | van der Schans, J.W. | Nielsen, J.R. | Christensen, A. | Sverdrup-Jensen, S. | Delaney, A. | Jentoft, S. | Mikalsen, K. | Karlsen, G.R. | Bodiguel, C. | Catanzano, J. | Suarez de Vivero, J.L. | Alba, I.M. | Dominquez, S.F. | Rommel, D.
This report focuses on the evaluation of the process of devolution of responsibilities in the current institutional landscape in European fisheries management. In particular the analysis focuses on how the present management systems contribute to good governance. We follow the criteria as suggested in the EU communication on governance (EU 2001): Openness, Participation, Accountability, Effectiveness and Coherence. The analysis of the various proposed fisheries management models confirms what would then be the hypothesis: There is no definitive alternative management model that can be applied - given the wide spectrum of circumstances surrounding fisheries activity in the six countries included in the study (Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, France, The Netherlands and Spain), or at least, none as clear-cut as the models proposed for regionalisation/devolution a decade ago. There are significant differences between these proposals for more decentralised fisheries management systems and the various alternative fisheries management systems proposed require improved efficiency in the application of policies and highlight the importance of local level involvement, whilst providing the opportunity to confer greater legitimacy on policies through improved participation.
Показать больше [+] Меньше [-]Ключевые слова АГРОВОК
Библиографическая информация
Эту запись предоставил Wageningen University & Research