No abstract

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is often considered as a pragmatic approach to implement an ecosystem based management in order to manage marine space in a sustainable way. This requires the involvement of multiple actors and stakeholders at various governmental and societal levels. Several factors affect how well the integrated management of marine waters will be achieved, such as different governance settings (division of power between central and local governments), economic activities (and related priorities), external drivers, spatial scales, incentives and objectives, varying approaches to legislation and political will. We compared MSP in Belgium, Norway and the US to illustrate how the integration of stakeholders and governmental levels differs among these countries along the factors mentioned above. Horizontal integration (between sectors) is successful in all three countries, achieved through the use of neutral ‘round-table’ meeting places for all actors. Vertical integration between government levels varies, with Belgium and Norway having achieved full integration while the US lacks integration of the legislature due to sharp disagreements among stakeholders and unsuccessful partisan leadership. Success factors include political will and leadership, process transparency and stakeholder participation, and should be considered in all MSP development processes.

Harvest control rules have become an important tool in modern fisheries management, and are increasingly adopted to provide continuity in management practices, to deal with uncertainty and ecosystem considerations, and to relieve management decisions from short-term political pressure. We provide the conceptual and institutional background for harvest control rules, a discussion of the structure of fisheries management, and brief introductions to harvest control rules in a selection of present day cases. The cases demonstrate that harvest control rules take different forms in different settings, yet cover only a subset of the full policy space. We conclude with views on harvest control rules in future fisheries management, both in terms of ideal and realistic developments. One major challenge for future fisheries management is closing the gap between ideas and practice.

No abstract

Different framings of food may shape food policies and their impact. Despite acknowledging food systems' complexities, the European Commission's Farm to Fork Strategy still addresses food as a commodity instead of a human right or common good.

No abstract

Anticipating future changes in marine social‐ecological systems (MSES) several decades into the future is essential in the context of accelerating global change. This is challenging in situations where actors do not share common understandings, practices, or visions about the future. We introduce a dedicated scenario method for the development of MSES scenarios in a participatory context. The objective is to allow different actors to jointly develop scenarios which contain their multiple visions of the future. The method starts from four perspectives: “fisheries management,” “ecosystem,” “ocean climate,” and “global context and governance” for which current status and recent trends are summarized. Contrasted scenarios about possible futures are elaborated for each of the four single perspectives before being integrated into multiple‐perspective scenarios. Selected scenarios are then developed into storylines. Focusing on individual perspectives until near the end allows actors with diverse cultures, interests and horizons to confront their own notions of the future. We illustrate the method with the exploration of the futures of the Barents Sea MSES by 2050. We emphasize the following lessons learned: first, many actors are not familiar with scenario building and attention must be paid to explaining the purpose, methodology, and benefits of scenarios exercises. Second, although the Barents Sea MSES is relatively well understood, uncertainties about its future are significant. Third, it is important to focus on unlikely events. Fourth, all perspectives should be treated equally. Fifth, as MSES are continuously changing, we can only be prepared for future changes if we collectively keep preparing.

No abstract