The protection of the Baltic Sea ecosystem is exacerbated by the social, environmental and economic complexities of governing European fisheries. Increased stakeholder participation and knowledge integration are suggested to improve the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), suffering from legitimacy, credibility and compliance problems. As a result, the CFP was revised in 2002 to involve fisheries representatives, NGOs and other stakeholders through so called Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) in the policy process. We address the RAC's task to incorporate stakeholder knowledge into the EU's fisheries governance system in empirical and theoretical perspectives. Drawing on a four-stage governance concept we subsequently suggest that a basic problem is a mismatch between participation purpose (knowledge inclusion) and the governance stage at which RACs are formally positioned (evaluation of management proposals). We conclude that, if the aim is to broaden the knowledge base of fisheries management, stakeholders need to be included earlier in the governance process.

This chapter analyses environmental governance through a case study of fi sheries management in the Baltic Sea and investigates the problems, challenges and opportunities for improving sustainability in this sector. Fisheries management in the Baltic Sea is politically and culturally complex, institutionally fragmented and confronted with serious environmental problems, such as recent shifts in cod stocks. The central challenge is therefore to establish a regionally based, ecologically sustainable and socio-economically viable fi sheries governance system for the Baltic Sea. Our analysis is focused on how past and current reform processes of fi sheries management in the Baltic Sea have been able to move away from the pathdependent and highly ineffective management system linked to EU's Common Fisheries Policy towards new regional arrangements and procedures that address environmental problems in the Baltic on par with the social and economic challenges. We fi rst describe existing governance structures for fi sheries management in the Baltic Sea and their role in procedures of knowledge production, policy advice and decision-making. We then examine how the different governance actors (i.e. scientists, stakeholders, policymakers) address key issues such as the framing of the 'overfi shing problem', the handling of uncertainty in the interactions of risk assessment and risk management and the role of stakeholder participation and communication. The chapter concludes by emphasising the need for an improved understanding of how scientifi c developments and connected uncertainty problems, policy constraints and stakeholder perspectives can be brought together for improving the biological, ecological and socio-economic sustainability of Baltic Sea fi sheries governance.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective of this research undertaken is to collect knowledge from experts in the field of stunning and killing of animals in order to support EFSA in the selection of welfare indicators for the development of monitoring procedures to be used during the slaughter process. Specifically, several animal-based indicators are being used to check for unconsciousness of an animal after stunning and to check for unconsciousness and death of an animal after slaughter without stunning. However, it is not known which of the indicators is actually used the most, its feasibility, and what is its expected performance (sensitivity and specificity) in recognising truly unconscious or dead animals. Thus, an online survey was set up to determine what indicators are used the most, and to clarify why some indicators are used more than others. European experts of stunning and slaughter processes with different backgrounds, such as Food Business Operators, academics, NGOs, and Competent Authorities were contacted. Information was gathered on four different animal categories: bovines, chickens and turkeys, sheep and goats, and pigs. For each category, experts could choose different stunning and killing methods they felt experienced with; in total nine different combinations were subject of the survey. Overall results of the survey indicate that there are differences in reported experiences that are partly correlated to professions. Some indicators are most frequently used for all combinations of species/methods, and others less used and, very often, the frequency of use of an indicator is linked to its easiness of use. Questions about indicator sensitivity and specificity were asked together with the level of certainty of the answer from the respondents. Overall, useful information about the use of the indicators and their performance was drawn from the survey; further expert discussion is needed in order to finalise the selection of the indicators. © European Food Safety Authority, 2013 KEY WORDSslaughter, stunning, unconsciousness, death, welfare indicators, online survey DISCLAIMERThe present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The prese...