Lisbon, 17.1.08Marie Curie Research Training Network, Contract No. MRTN-CT-2006-035536 Participation in Multi-Level Governance Short presentation Felix.

Participation in Multi-Level Governance

Short presentation

Felix Rauschmayer and Augustin Berghöfer, UFZ

Multi-level Governance

• Problem is meeting regulation• Different possibilities of

participation at different levels• 2 Examples:

• Cormorant• North Sea Regional Advisory Council

Conflicts with Fish Predators – the European Cormorant Case• During the 1960’s: only several

hundred breeding pairs;

• 1979: Strictly protected by European Birds Directive

• Today’s estimates: 0,5 - 1,6 mio. birds migrating all over Europe

• 0,5kg fish/day: Since the 1990s increasing conflicts with fisheries and aquaculture

Participation at the local level

Portugal:

• Newly established dialogue

Creating a mutually beneficial solution through conflict coupling and empowerment

Participation at the regional level

Italy – Province of Ferrara• Participation of most stakeholders• Provincial regulations, apparently fair and competent No effect on state or impact

Germany – State of Saxony• Participation of most stakeholders• State regulations, apparently internally fair and

competent Effect on impact through financial compensation

Participation at the national level

Denmark: • Long tradition of participation at the national level• „Wrong“ knowledge format Roundtable as arena for presenting opposing

interests not always conducive to fair and competent decision making

France• National management plan highly influenced by

fishermen• Large-scale, but not very effective culling Participation influenced the output (regulation), but

not necessarily the outcome (less fish eaten)

Participation at the European level

EU:

• Restricted participation in ORNIS committee

Any „real“ steps blocked through vetoing power of Member States

• Lobbying through national governments and EP

Multi-level Governance ?

• Many different entry points• Mono-level participation research exists• What are the multi-level aspects?

• Can local fishermen /bird watcher participate in processes on other levels?

• What about internationally oriented scientists at local levels?

• What about the links between local and European participation?

• Where is there type 1 and where type 2 MLG and does this have an effect on participation?

Multi-level governance in the North Sea

Fish: mobile, common, renewable but overexploited resource

EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) since 1983: hierarchical structure for setting quotas of total allowable catch per region. Top-down process and single sector planning.

CFP reform 2002: progress towards opening the process to more actors and issues:

from single stocks to coastal/marine systems

Coordination reguirements:

horizontal: among local and sub-national governments, fisheries organisations, research institutions and ENGOs, and also with their counterparts at same level but next door

vertical: with their counterparts at national, neighbouring country and EU levels.

thematic: with actors from other issues (positioned at different levels) : traffic routes, energy (wind and oil), MPAs

Multi-level governance in the North Sea

New cross-scale linkages

ICES stock assessment

Before: ICES scientists produced official advice on stocks+quotas for EU CFP, industry lobbyed at Member State level (against them).

Now: Making this report includes hearings with independent scientists and those from stakeholders – seeking to improve the quality of assessments and their legitimacy.

North Sea Regional Advisory Council –cross-sector coordination

Official forum for industry (2/3) and other stakeholders (1/3) (ENGOs) to provide consensus advice on fishery and marine spatial planning to the EU

Difficulties of participation in multi-level setting of marine policy

Fishery is managed at EU level, but marine spatial planning (incl. fishery) is multi-lateral.

Costs of participation are high – at which level should stakeholders focus their effort, if influence of political arenas is fluid?

CFP 2002 initiated bottom-up process to inform reform processes – but failed to maintain transparency across various levels.

Group discussions on your past-case experiences

• Participation• which kind of?• who participated? (stakeholder/citizens)• Was there a multi-level process?• Where on the participation ladder?

• MLG• How is authority distributed among levels,• What are the links between levels?• Did this influence the participatory process and

how?

Groups

1. Catrin, Raphael, Matteo, Patricia, Dimitris

2. Minna, Cathy, Mireia, Augustin, Paula, Ilona

3. Oli, Sonja, Cordula, Anna, Felix, Barbara