Stakeholder perceptions on regionalisation of the common fisheries policy and its impact on the legitimacy of fisheries policy in the European Union

Abstract The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), established in 1983, is the European Union’s policy for sustainable management of European fishing fleets and conservation of fish stocks. In 2002, the CFP was reformed with the objective of improving its legitimacy towards fisheries management. This involved the introduction of ‘Regionalisation’, establishing Advisory Councils (ACs) for each European sea basin. Regionalisation advanced in 2013 by setting up Member States Groups (MSGs), facilitating more tailor-made management proposals at decentralised levels. We examine whether these reforms have reached their objectives of improving the CFP’s legitimacy and effectiveness, using the concepts of input and throughput legitimacy. Results from interviews, an online survey and focus groups show that Regionalisation is considered necessary and has fulfilled most expectations (to a certain extent). European and national policy-makers were more positive than ACs. Regionalisation increased legitimacy of the CFP by giving diverse stakeholders direct access to the policy-making process. Yet, in practice stakeholders (unevenly) struggle with different aspects of participation, and clarity about the extent to which AC advice is taken on board is lacking. Improving these aspects of input and throughput legitimacy are therefore required to arrive at a truly legitimate fisheries policy. The ACs and MSGs developed under Regionalisation provide structured procedures of cooperation and dialogue. ACs have demonstrated to be crucial boundary organisations where consensus is built and mediated, information is shared, capacity is built, and knowledge is co-produced. This is crucial considering increasingly wicked problems associated with the blue economy agenda and climate change.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
MAST. Maritime studies/Maritime studies
Published
2026-01-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-025-00471-8
Primary Topic
Coastal and Marine Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Stakeholder perceptions on regionalisation of the common fisheries policy and its impact on the legitimacy of fisheries policy in the European Union

Stephen C. Mangi, Noémi Van Bogaert, Nathalie A. Steins, Chris ten Napel et al.
MAST. Maritime studies/Maritime studies
Coastal and Marine Management
article

Stakeholder perceptions on regionalisation of the common fisheries policy and its impact on the legitimacy of fisheries policy in the European Union

Stephen C. Mangi, Noémi Van Bogaert, Nathalie A. Steins, Chris ten Napel, Laura Lemey, Marloes Kraan, Else Giesbers, Martín Aranda, Sara Vandamme
article en

Abstract

Abstract The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), established in 1983, is the European Union’s policy for sustainable management of European fishing fleets and conservation of fish stocks. In 2002, the CFP was reformed with the objective of improving its legitimacy towards fisheries management. This involved the introduction of ‘Regionalisation’, establishing Advisory Councils (ACs) for each European sea basin. Regionalisation advanced in 2013 by setting up Member States Groups (MSGs), facilitating more tailor-made management proposals at decentralised levels. We examine whether these reforms have reached their objectives of improving the CFP’s legitimacy and effectiveness, using the concepts of input and throughput legitimacy. Results from interviews, an online survey and focus groups show that Regionalisation is considered necessary and has fulfilled most expectations (to a certain extent). European and national policy-makers were more positive than ACs. Regionalisation increased legitimacy of the CFP by giving diverse stakeholders direct access to the policy-making process. Yet, in practice stakeholders (unevenly) struggle with different aspects of participation, and clarity about the extent to which AC advice is taken on board is lacking. Improving these aspects of input and throughput legitimacy are therefore required to arrive at a truly legitimate fisheries policy. The ACs and MSGs developed under Regionalisation provide structured procedures of cooperation and dialogue. ACs have demonstrated to be crucial boundary organisations where consensus is built and mediated, information is shared, capacity is built, and knowledge is co-produced. This is crucial considering increasingly wicked problems associated with the blue economy agenda and climate change.

MAST. Maritime studies/Maritime studiesVol. 25(1)
Flanders Marine Institute (BE), Ghent University (BE), Wageningen University & Research (NL)
European Commission, European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency, Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 91%
Coastal and Marine Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.