Public subsidies have supported the development of electric trawling in Europe

Manach, Frédéric Le; Bisiaux, Laetitia; Villasante, Sebastián; Nouvian, Claire

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019.03.003

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, experts participating in the Delphi process also identified environmentally harmful subsidies from the EU and the Member States as a major barrier to ER. Environmentally harmful subsidies cover a wide range of policy areas, including climate change and energy, fisheries, agriculture, forestry, the production of materials, transport, waste, and water (Withana et al 2012), affecting nature in many ways (Wichmann et al 2016; Le Manach et al 2019; Pe'Er et al 2019; Quiroga et al 2019; Rey et al 2019). In Germany, the costs of subsidies to energy, transport, construction, housing, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries with harmful effects on the environment have been estimated at 57 billion EUR in 2012 (Berg et al 2010), thus, much larger than the contribution of the LIFE program mentioned above.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers to ecological restoration in Europe: expert perspectives

Cortina

García‐Sánchez

Grace

et al. 2021

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological restoration is key to counteracting anthropogenic degradation of biodiversity and to reducing disaster risk. However, there is limited knowledge of barriers hindering the wider implementation of restoration practices, despite high-level political priority to halt the loss of biodiversity. In Europe, progress on ecological restoration has been slow and insufficient to meet international agreements and comply with European Union Nature Directives. We assessed European restoration experts' perceptions on barriers to restoration in Europe, and their relative importance, through a multiple expert consultation using a Delphi process. We found that experts share a common multi-dimensional concept of ecological restoration. Experts identified a large number of barriers (33) to the advancement of ecological restoration in Europe. Major barriers pertained to the socio-economic, not the environmental, domain. The three most important being insufficient funding, conflicting interests among different stakeholders, and low political priority given to restoration. Our results emphasize the need to increase political commitment at all levels, comply with existing nature laws, and optimize the use of financial resources by increasing funds for ecological restoration and eradicate environmentally harmful subsidies. The experts also call for the integration of ecological restoration into land-use planning and facilitating stakeholders' collaboration. Our study identifies key barriers, discusses ways to overcome the main barriers to ER in Europe, and contributes knowledge to support the implementation of the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and the EU 2030 Restoration Plan in particular.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers to ecological restoration in Europe: expert perspectives

Cortina

García‐Sánchez

Grace

et al. 2021

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Dubois et al, 2016). Whilst there are only a few documented cases where scientists and scientific consultants employed by the fishing industry or other stakeholders have 'bent' scientific evidence in favor of the industry or conservation purposes, or have contested the scientific process (Starr et al, 1998;Loring, 2017;Moore et al, 2018;Le Manach et al, 2019;Kraan et al, 2020;O'Brien, 2022), such cases have contributed to the perception that stakeholderemployed scientists should be regarded with suspicion. However, there are also cases where scientists from marine institutes or academia, using their institutional credentials in the name of the scientific advice committee they are a member of, have acted as advocacy scientists in support of stakeholder views (Rice, 2011;Steins et al, 2020b;Mossler, 2021;Harris, 2022;Hutchings, 2022) or have selectively used information in science communications as a commodity seeking to polarize views to highlight debate and garner readership, instead of promoting understanding (for example, Pauly et al, 2013;Harris, 2022).…”

Section: Issue 3: Integrity Of Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

A will-o’-the wisp? On the utility of voluntary contributions of data and knowledge from the fishing industry to marine science

Steins

Mackinson²,

Mangi³

et al. 2022

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For future sustainable management of fisheries, we anticipate deeper and more diverse information will be needed. Future needs include not only biological data, but also information that can only come from fishers, such as real-time ‘early warning’ indicators of changes at sea, socio-economic data and fishing strategies. The fishing industry, in our experience, shows clear willingness to voluntarily contribute data and experiential knowledge, but there is little evidence that current institutional frameworks for science and management are receptive and equipped to accommodate such contributions. Current approaches to producing knowledge in support of fisheries management need critical re-evaluation, including the contributions that industry can make. Using examples from well-developed advisory systems in Europe, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, we investigate evidence for three interrelated issues inhibiting systematic integration of voluntary industry contributions to science: (1) concerns about data quality; (2) beliefs about limitations in useability of unique fishers’ knowledge; and (3) perceptions about the impact of industry contributions on the integrity of science. We show that whilst these issues are real, they can be addressed. Entrenching effective science-industry research collaboration (SIRC) calls for action in three specific areas; (i) a move towards alternative modes of knowledge production; (ii) establishing appropriate quality assurance frameworks; and (iii) transitioning to facilitating governance structures. Attention must also be paid to the science-policy-stakeholder interface. Better definition of industry’s role in contributing to science will improve credibility and legitimacy of the scientific process, and of resulting management.

show abstract

“…At the heart of this issue lies the overcapacity to fish in EU member-states due to subsidies of fishing industries (Churchill 1999;Sumaila et al 2010;Le Manach et al 2019), as well as the complex nature of EU external fisheries policymaking in Brussels where a multitude of actors seek to promote their interests (Vaquer i Fanés 2003;Zimmermann 2017). Here coherence emerges as a key concept in explaining the deficiencies in the EU's fisheries policies.…”

Section: The Eu As a Fisheries Actormentioning

confidence: 99%