Participation in MultiLevel Governance

1
Participation in Multi-Level Governance

• Short presentation
• Felix Rauschmayer and Augustin Berghöfer, UFZ

2
Multi-level Governance

• Problem is meeting regulation
• Different possibilities of participation at
  different levels
• 2 Examples
• Cormorant
• North Sea Regional Advisory Council

3
Conflicts with Fish Predators the European
Cormorant Case

• During the 1960s only several hundred breeding
  pairs
• 1979 Strictly protected by European Birds
  Directive
• Todays estimates 0,5 - 1,6 mio. birds migrating
  all over Europe
• 0,5kg fish/day Since the 1990s increasing
  conflicts with fisheries and aquaculture

4
Participation at the local level

• Portugal
• Newly established dialogue
• Creating a mutually beneficial solution through
  conflict coupling and empowerment

5
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

6
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)

7
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

8
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?

9
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
10
Multi-level governance in the North Sea
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
11
New cross-scale linkages
ICES stock assessment Before ICES scientists
produced official advice on stocksquotas 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
12
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.

13
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?

14
Groups

• Catrin, Raphael, Matteo, Patricia, Dimitris
• Minna, Cathy, Mireia, Augustin, Paula, Ilona
• Oli, Sonja, Cordula, Anna, Felix, Barbara