CFP regionalisation : final report

Noémi Van Bogaert, Laura Lemey, Sabine De Peuter, Marloes Kraan, Else Giesbers, Janita Sanderse, Nathalie A. Steins, Didzis Ustups, Māris Plikšs, Valerio Bartolino, Maria Hansson, Daniel Valentinsson, Katja Ringdahl, Marcin Rakowski, Adam Mytlewski, Marina Panayotova, Madalina Galatchi, George Tiganov, Stephen Mangi Chai, Sergio AbreuSébastien Metz, Martin Aranda, Catalina Perales, George Triantaphyllidis, Ana Štrbenac, Daniel Hayes, Rana Alhaija, Andrea Gugnali, Edvard Mravlje, Sara Vandamme, Niels Hintzen (Editor), Robert Wakeford (Editor)

Research output: Book/ReportReportProfessional


Regionalisation was established to enable a bottom-up approach to fisheries governance by allowing lower-level authorities and stakeholders to step into the fisheries management process and design tailor-made management on a regional scale. A review has been undertaken to provide improved understanding on how regionalisation has worked until now and contribute information towards the European Commission (EC) report on the functioning of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Findings show that there are large differences in how regional groups operate and whether they have formal working procedures. The Advisory Councils (ACs) have clear working procedures and are transparent in the work that they do. However, this is not the case for the Member State Groups (MSGs), for which a lot of information regarding structure, working procedures and meeting outcomes are not publicly available. The onset of the Landing Obligation resulted in a large increase in the number of measures (i.e. discard plans) for several geographical areas. Stakeholders feel that there are gains and losses in participating in the regionalisation process, stating that regionalisation has provided a useful channel for individuals to put their points across and discuss them with a broader spectrum of stakeholders as opposed to writing individual position papers. The distribution of the ACs (different seas basins) is also seen as a gain as it provides EU-wide fora for discussions in fisheries management issues. The direct and closely working among different institutions (EC, ACs, scientists, MSGs) is also seen as an advantage of regionalisation. However, many of the perceived benefits have not yet been realised. Overall, regionalisation is necessary and has fulfilled its expectations although not in all fields. Regionalisation has given powers to Member States to perform functions that used to be the preserve of the EU. Without regionalisation, it would be difficult to get the same level of detail towards the various fisheries management and policy aspects. This is because, a one size fits all approach would miss a lot of detail and local specificities that apply in a particular sea basin. While regionalisation is seen as an improvement to the system that was there before 2004, stakeholders agree that more work is needed to apply regionalisation in practice. There is need for more transparency and more meaningful engagement and collaboration between AC and MSGs.
Original languageEnglish
Place of PublicationLuxembourg
PublisherPublications Office of the European Union
Number of pages85
ISBN (Electronic)9789295225534
Publication statusPublished - 2022


Dive into the research topics of 'CFP regionalisation : final report'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this