The Future of Fisheries Co-Management in the Context of the Sustainable Blue Economy and the Green Deal: There Is No Green without Blue
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (a)
- First, to assess to what extent fishery co-management schemes—as regional/local governance schemes in fishing communities on a pan-European scale—are strengthening sustainability, i.e, coping with the climate crisis, improving energy efficiency, promoting renewable energies, minimizing environmental impacts, and promoting a sustainable blue economy. This is achieved through a mix of qualitative and quantitative research.
- (b)
- Second, to discuss the challenges and potential opportunities created by maritime spatial planning (hereinafter MSP) for enhanced fishery co-management and vice versa [7]. The question is whether the latter, defined as “the collaborative and participatory process of regulatory decision-making among representatives of resource user-groups, government agencies and research institutions” [8], could also be, through its robust network, the critical mass of a “Blue Forum” consisting of stakeholders, scientists, and off-shore operators such as the one planned by the European Commission to promote a sustainable blue economy in the EU [9]. The Commission, intending to expand the necessary dialogue between different sea users, is currently setting up a Blue Forum for sea users in 2022 and offers permanent assistance for MSP, also through the MSP Assistance Mechanism [10].
2. Setting the Scene: The Evolution of Fisheries Co-Management Endeavors
2.1. The Place of Greek Fishery and Aquaculture Sectors in EU-27
2.2. Fisheries Co-Management and Governance as Subjects of Change and Evolution
2.2.1. Fisheries Governance Considered under the Lens of Evolutionary and Interactive Governance
2.2.2. A Bit of FLAGs History in Greece
2.3. MSP as a Key Process for Fisheries Co-Management, Also Considering Climate Change Effects
3. Materials and Methods
- the energy efficiency in the aquaculture industry and the range of energy sources in the sector;
- the emissions and energy efficiency of fishing vessels;
- the use of renewable energy sources (hereinafter RES);
- the impacts from the “invasion” of alien species;
- the awareness, education, and training of individual and collective actors about use of RES and the elimination of marine pollution;
- the waste management of aquaculture and fish-processing plants;
- ways of tackling overfishing; and
- fishery-driven and other marine litter (fishing nets and plastics, etc.)
- climate neutrality, zero pollution, circular economy, and waste prevention;
- the biodiversity and investment in nature-based solutions;
- coastal resilience;
- responsible food systems;
- ocean/island literacy;
- research and innovation, blue skills and jobs;
- citizen participation;
- maritime spatial planning;
- regional co-operation on a sea-basin level and support of coastal areas;
- safety at sea; and
- the international promotion of a sustainable blue economy.
4. Results
Thematic Focuses of CLLD Strategies 2014–2020
- ■
- in insular areas and areas including both island and coastal fishery areas, a significant impact on the reduction in gas emissions, as well as an increase in the energy efficiency of the fishing vessels, is expected (Table 3).
- ▪
- in the coastal and inland fishing-dependent areas, as well as the mixed island and coastal spaces, the impact on increasing the use of RES is expected to be particularly important (Table 3).
- ▪
- the impact of CLLD Programs on the awareness, education, and training in favor of the use of RES is particularly important in the inland fishing-dependent areas and the coastal and insular spaces as well (Table 3).
- ▪
- as has already been noticed, the “invasion” of alien species in the Greek seas is addressed, to a greater extent, in the exclusively island fishing-dependent areas (Table 3).
- ▪
- the impact of the CLLD programs on the awareness, education, and training of both citizens and local agencies/enterprises in order to reduce marine litter seems to be vital in all four types of intervention areas (inland only, island only, coastal only, and areas combining island and coastal areas), see also Table 3.
- ▪
- the influence of the CLLD programs is vital to the rational waste management of aquaculture and fish-processing plants in coastal areas, mixed coastal areas, and insular spaces (Table 3).
- ▪
- Tackling overfishing and enriching fish stocks seems to be more important in inland and coastal fishery-dependent areas (Table 3).
- ■
- Finally, reducing fishery-driven and other marine litter is expected to benefit all types of the fishing-dependent areas (insular, coastal, inland, and insular & coastal) (Table 3).
Type of Area | Actions Where Contribution Is Expected | Percentages Appeared in the Survey (Stating that They Agree to Strongly Agree) |
---|---|---|
Excl. Insular | -reduction in gas emissions/increase in energy efficiency of fishing vessels | 54.5% |
-reduction in fishery and other marine litter | 100.0% | |
-awareness/education/training of people, local agencies, and enterprises to reduce marine litter | 72.7% | |
-invasion of alien species in the Greek seas | 72.7% | |
-increase in the energy efficiency of the fishing vessels | 50.0% | |
Excl. Coastal | -increase in the use of renewable energy sources | 100.0% |
-reduce fishery and other marine litter | 63.6% | |
-tackle overfishing and increase fish stocks | 63.6% | |
-rational waste management of aquaculture and fish-processing plants | 63.6% | |
-awareness/education/training of people, local agencies, and entrepreneurs to reduce marine pollution | 72.7% | |
Inland | -increase the use of RES | 63.0% |
-tackle overfishing and enrich fish stocks | 100.0% | |
-awareness/education/training in favor of the use of RES | 100.0% | |
-reduce fishery and other marine litter | 63.6% | |
-awareness/education/training of people, local agencies, and enterprises to reduce marine pollution | 100.0% | |
Insular & coastal | -reduce gas emissions/increase energy efficiency of fishing vessels | 54.5% |
-increase the use of RES | 66.0% | |
-awareness, education, and training in favor of the use of RES. | 66.6% | |
-rational waste management of aquaculture and fish-processing plants | 50.0% | |
-reduce fishery and other marine litter | 50.0% | |
-awareness/education/training of people, local agencies, and enterprises to reduce marine litter | 66.67% | |
-increase energy efficiency of the fishing vessels | 50.0% |
“FLAGs are a cornerstone for achieving development goals in the marine environment and relevant jobs”;
“Coastal fishing is still considered to be very crucial for the local fishing communities”;
“The current legislative framework hinders the implementation of many important CLLD related measures, often rendering the strategic directions of the fisheries LAGs’ dormant and failing to address the needs of their respective areas”.
“Fishers know little about conservation of marine ecosystems, overfishing, circular economy and fishing tourism”
“Fisheries need to de sufficiently informed about and adapted to the ecosystem-based management and take initiatives to reduce overfishing and make fishing effort productive, in the long term”.
“FLAGs should step up their efforts in reaching out fishers, raising their awareness through relevant educational programs and seminars”, and also
“In order for training to have the greatest participation and the best result it should not be a classical training program. It should be done at the right time and place. For example, it should take place after the sale of the day’s catch, next to the boats or in the coffee shops where fishers meet and have the opportunity to discuss and address questions”.
“The role and responsibilities of fishery LAGs should be expanded to enable the implementation of a holistic development strategy on local level, improving the position and the role of coastal fishers, both within the LAGs and the fishing local communities”, and
“The exclusion of local fishers is due to the fact that they are often elderly, low-educated people, working rather alone and not easily trusting new comers”
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Barange, M.; Bahri, T.; Beveridge, M.C.M.; Cochrane, K.L.; Funge-Smith, S.; Poulain, F. (Eds.) Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture: Synthesis of Current Knowledge, Adaptation and Mitigation Options; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 627; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018; p. 628. [Google Scholar]
- Maulu, S.; Hasimuna, O.J.; Haambiya, L.H.; Monde, C.; Musuka, C.G.; Makorwa, T.H.; Munganga, B.P.; Phiri, K.J.; Nsekanabo, J.D. Climate Change Effects on Aquaculture Production: Sustainability Implications, Mitigation, and Adaptations. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 609097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daw, T.; Adger, W.N.; Brown, K.; Badjeck, M.-C. Climate change and capture fisheries: Potential impacts, adaptation and mitigation. In Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture: Overview of Current Scientific Knowledge; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 530; Cochrane, K., De Young, C., Soto, D., Bahri, T., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009; pp. 107–150. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. The Economics of adapting Fisheries to Climate Change; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peck, M.A.; Catalán, I.A.; Damalas, D.; Elliott, M.; Ferreira, J.G.; Hamon, K.G.; Kamermans, P.; Kay, S.; Kreiß, C.M.; Pinnegar, J.K.; et al. Climate Change and European Fisheries and Aquaculture: ‘CERES’; Project Synthesis Report: Hamburg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- F.A.O. Assessing Climate Change Vulnerability in Fisheries and Aquaculture: Available Methodologies and Their Relevance for the Sector; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 597; Brugère, C., De Young, C., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries: Community-Led Local Development and the Blue Economy, Publications Office of the European Union; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2023; Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/392 (accessed on 15 April 2023).
- F.A.O. The State of Mediterranean and Black Sea Fisheries; General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean: Rome, Italy, 2016; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5496e.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2022).
- European Commission. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Outlining the Progress Made in Implementing Directive 2014/89/EU Establishing a Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- European MSP Platform. Available online: www.msp-platform.eu (accessed on 14 March 2023).
- Pertoldi, M.; Fioretti, C.; Guzzo, F.; Testori, G.; De Bruijn, M.; Ferry, M.; Kah, S.; Servillo, L.A.; Windisch, S. Handbook of Territorial and Local Development Strategies; Pertoldi, M., Fioretti, C., Guzzo, F., Testori, G., Eds.; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Fisheries and Aquaculture in Greece. OECD Review of Fisheries Country Notes|January 2021. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/agriculture/topics/fisheries-and-aquaculture/documents/report_cn_fish_grc.pdf (accessed on 14 March 2023).
- European Union. Facts and Figures on the Common Fisheries Policy, Basic Statistical Data-2022; European Union: Luxemburg, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- E.U.M.O.F.A. European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products; Country Profile; E.U.M.O.F.A: Athens, Greece, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Fleet in a Glimpse, Situation as in July 2011. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fleet-europa/stat_glimpse_en (accessed on 22 September 2022).
- Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). The 2021 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF 21-08); EUR 28359 EN; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021; ISBN 978-92-76-40959-5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liontakis, A.; Vassilopoulou, V. Exploring fishing tourism sustainability in North-Eastern Mediterranean waters, through a stochastic modelling analysis: An opportunity for the few or a viable option for coastal communities? Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2022, 221, 106118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vassilopoulou, V.; Kikeri, M.; Politikos, D.; Kavadas, S. Action Plan on the Testing Area of Greece. Portodimare Project, Interreg Adrion. 2021. Available online: https://portodimare.adrioninterreg.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/DT2.8.3_Action-Plan-on-the-testing-area-of-Greece_new.pdf (accessed on 14 March 2023).
- Kyvelou, S.S.I.; Ierapetritis, D.G. Fisheries Sustainability through Soft Multi-Use Maritime Spatial Planning and Local Development Co-Management: Potentials and Challenges in Greece. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hellenic Statistical Authority. Marine Fishing Survey with Motorized Vessels; Hellenic Statistical Authority: Athens, Greece, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Kyvelou, S.S.I.; Ierapetritis, D.G. Fostering Spatial Efficiency in the Marine Space, in a Socially Sustainable Way: Lessons Learnt from a Soft Multi-Use Assessment in the Mediterranean. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 613721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macfadyen, G.P.; Cappell, R. Characteristics of Small-Scale Coastal Fisheries in Europe. EPRS: European Parliamentary Research Service. 2011. Available online: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1338828/characteristics-of-small-scale-coastal-fisheries-in-europe/1947856/ (accessed on 19 November 2022).
- Harris, M. Greenpeace Launches “A Box of Sea” to Promote Low-Impact Fishing. 2016. Available online: http://greece.greekreporter.com/2016/06/25/greenpeace-launches-a-box-of-sea-to-promote-low-impact-fishing/ (accessed on 15 October 2022).
- Tzanatos, E.; Dimitriou, E.; Katselis, G.; Georgiadis, M.; Koutsikopoulos, C. Composition, temporal dynamics and regional characteristics of small-scale fisheries in Greece. Fish. Res. 2005, 73, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazou-Dean, A. Low Impact Fishers: The Future of Our Seas. 2014. Available online: http://www.medsos.gr/medsos/images/stories/PDF/LAZOU.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2021).
- Pititto, A.; Rainone, D.; Sannino, V.; Chever, T.; Herry, L.; Parant, S.; Souidi, S.; Ballesteros, M.; Chapela, R.; Santiago, J.L. Research for PECH Committee—Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on EU fisheries and aquaculture, European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels. 2021. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/292305 (accessed on 14 March 2023).
- Beunen, R.; Van Assche, K.; Gruezmacher, M. Evolutionary Perspectives on Environmental Governance: Strategy and the C Construction of Governance, Community, and Environment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Partelow, S.A.; Schlüter, D.; Armitage, M.; Bavinck, K.; Carlisle, R.; Gruby, A.K.; Hornidge, M.; Le Tissier, J.; Pittman, A.M.; Song, L.P.; et al. Environmental governance theories: A review and application to coastal systems. Ecol. Soc. 2020, 25, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierson, P. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Van Assche, K.; Beunen, R.; Duineveld, M. Evolutionary Governance Theory: An Introduction; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Van Assche, K.; Hornidge, A.K.; Schlüter, A.; Vaidianu, N. Governance and the coastal condition: Towards new modes of observation, adaptation and integration. Mar. Policy. 2020, 112, 103413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beunen, R.; Van Assche, K. Steering in Governance: Evolutionary Perspectives. Politics Gov. 2021, 9, 365–368. Available online: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/issue/viewIssue/261/PDF261 (accessed on 5 February 2023). [CrossRef]
- Kooiman, J.; Bavinck, M.; Jentoft, S.; Pullin, R. (Eds.) Fish for Life Interactive Governance for Fisheries; MARE Publication Series No. 3; Amsterdam University: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007; Available online: https://library.oapen.org/viewer/web/viewer.html?file=/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/35130/340216.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 19 November 2022).
- Jentoft, S. Limits of governability: Institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance. Mar. Policy 2004, 31, 360–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linke, S.; Bruckmeier, K. Co-management in fisheries—Experiences and changing approaches in Europe. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2015, 104, 170–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chuenpagdee, R. Blue justice for small-scale fisheries: What, why and how. In Blue Justice for Small-Scale Fisheries: A Global Scan; Kerezi, V., Kinga Pietruszka, D., Chuenpagdee, R., Eds.; TBTI Global Publication Series: St. John’s, NL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Bugeja-Said, A.; Svels, K.; Thuesen, A.A.; Linke, S.; Salmi, P.; Lorenzo, I.G.; de los Ángeles Piñeiro Antelo, A.; Villasante, S.; Orduña, P.P.; Pascual-Fernández, J.J.; et al. Flagging Justice Matters in EU Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs). In Blue Justice; MARE Publication, Series; Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., Bugeja Said, A., Isaacs, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2021; Volume 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salmi, P.; Linke, S.; Siegrist, N.; Svels, K. A new hope for small-scale fisheries through local action groups? Comparing Finnish and Swedish experiences. Marit. Stud. 2022, 21, 309–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Root, H.; Jones, H.; Wild, L. Managing Complexity and Uncertainty in Development Policy and Practice. (PDF) Managing Complexity and Uncertainty in Development Policy and Practice. 2015. Available online: https://www.edu-links.org/sites/default/files/media/file/5191.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- Wenger, E.C.; Snyder, W.M. Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2000, 78, 139–145. [Google Scholar]
- Ierapetritis, D.G.; Lagos, D. Building rural entrepreneurship in Greece: Lessons from lifelong learning programmes. In Entrepreneurship, Social Capital and Governance: Directions for the Sustainable Development and Competitiveness of Regions; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2012; pp. 281–301. [Google Scholar]
- PESCA. New Community Initiative for Fisheries and Fishery-Dependent Zones. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_94_128 (accessed on 30 November 2022).
- The European Fisheries Areas Network. FARNET. Available online: http://flashnote.farnet.eu/201706/ (accessed on 6 February 2023).
- McKinley, E.; Acott, T.; Stojanovic, T. Socio-cultural Dimensions of Marine Spatial Planning. In Maritime Spatial Planning, Past, Present, Future; Zaucha, J., Gee, K., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Artelaris, P.; Mavrommatis, G. Territorial cohesion, the COVID-19 crisis and the urban paradox: Future challenges in urbanization and economic agglomeration. Region 2022, 9, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyvelou, S. (Ed.) From Spatial Planning to Territorial Management: The Notions of Strategic Spatial Planning and Territorial Cohesion in Europe; KRITIKI: Athens, Greece, 2010; p. 344. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
- Camagni, R. Progress on an ex-ante assessment tool for territorial impact of EU policies: The TEQUILA model and beyond. In Proceedings of the ESPON Seminar, Evora, Portugal, 12–13 November 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ierapetritis, D. Social Capital, Regional Development, and Innovation in Greece: An Interregional Analysis. Int. J. Innov. Reg. Dev. 2019, 26, 22–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fratsea, L.-M.; Papadopoulos, A.G. Fisheries Co-Management in the “Age of the Commons”: Social Capital, Conflict, and Social Challenges in the Aegean Sea. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceccacci, A.; Mulazzani, L.; Malorgio, G. Local partnerships for the development of coastal regions: A review of Fisheries Local Action Groups with focus on the Mediterranean. New Medit. 2022, 21, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papadopoulos, A.G.; Fratsea, L.-M.; Karanikolas, P.; Zografakis, S. Reassembling the rural: Socio-economic dynamics, inequalities and resilience in crisis-stricken rural Greece. Sociol. Rural. 2019, 59, 474–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a New Approach for a Sustainable Blue Economy in the EU; Transforming the EU’s Blue Economy for a Sustainable Future; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Kyvelou, S.S.I.; Ierapetritis, D.G. How to make blue growth operational? A local and regional stakeholders perspective in Greece. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2019, 18, 249–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niner, H.J.; Barut, N.C.; Baum, T.; Diz, D.; del Pozo, D.L.; Laing, S.; Rees, S. Warikandwa, Sian Rees, Issues of context, capacity and scale: Essential conditions and missing links for a sustainable blue economy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 130, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Said, A.; Trouillet, B. Bringing ‘Deep Knowledge’ of Fisheries into Marine Spatial Planning. Marit. Stud. 2020, 19, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jentoft, S.; Mc Cay, B.J.; Wilson, D.C. Social theory and fisheries co-management. Mar. Policy 1998, 22, 423–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jentoft, S.; Knol, M. Marine Spatial Planning: Risk or opportunity for fisheries in the North Sea? Marit. Stud. 2014, 12, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schupp, M.F.; Kafas, A.; Buck, B.H.; Krause, G.; Onyango, V.; Stelzenmüller, V.; Davies, I.; Scott, B.E. Fishing within offshore wind farms in the North Sea: Stakeholder perspectives for multi-use from Scotland and Germany. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 279, 111762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zaucha, J. Can Classical Location Theory Apply to the Sea Space? In Maritime Spatial Planning; Zaucha, J., Gee, K., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Nayak, P.K.; Berkes, F. Evolutionary Perspectives on the Commons: A Model of Commonisation and Decommonisation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyvelou, S.S.; Ierapetritis, D. Discussing and Analyzing “Maritime Cohesion” in MSP, to Achieve Sustainability in the Marine Realm. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Henocque, Y. SDG14 as a local integrated management tool. In Conference on Socio-Cultural Values in MSP; European MSP Platform, Region of Crete, Aghios Nicolaos; Panteion University: Crete, Greece, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- REGINA-MSP project 2022–2024. Available online: https://www.regina-msp.eu (accessed on 14 March 2023).
- Federation of Greek Mariculture. GM Annual Report 2020; Federation of Greek Mariculture: Athens, Greece, 2020. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
- Galil, B.; Marchini, A.; Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A.; Ojaveer, H. The enlargement of the Suez Canal—Erythraean introductions and management challenges. Manag. Biol. Invasions 2017, 8, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions REPowerEU Plan, COM/2022/230 Final. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A230%3AFIN (accessed on 5 February 2023).
- Government Policy Coordination Committee in the Field of Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development. Approval of a Special Spatial Planning Framework and Sustainable Development for Renewable Energy and the Strategic Environmental Study of Its Physical Effects; Greek Government Official: Athens, Greece, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Furmankiewicz, M.; Hewitt, R.J.; Kapusta, A.; Solecka, I. Climate Change Challenges and Community-Led Development Strategies: Do They Fit Together in Fisheries Regions? Energies 2021, 14, 6614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Developing an Observation Network for MCH/UCH in Greece; HER-SEA Project and Funded by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (ELIDEK), 2022–2024; Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences: Athens, Greece, 2023; manuscript in preparation.
Objectives of EGD | Agenda for Blue Economy (May 2021) |
---|---|
Climate neutrality and zero pollution | Development of offshore renewable energy, decarbonization of maritime transport, and greening ports. |
Switch to a circular economy and reduction in pollution | Establishment of renewed standards for fishing gear design, ship recycling, decommissioning of offshore platforms, actions to reduce plastics and microplastics pollution. |
Preservation biodiversity and investment in nature | Protection of the 30% of the EU’s area to reverse biodiversity loss, increase fish stocks, contribute to climate mitigation and resilience, minimize environmental impacts on marine habitats, and generate significant financial and social benefits. |
Support of climate adaptation and coastal resilience | Development of green infrastructure in coastal areas that will protect coastlines from the risk of erosion and flooding, preserve biodiversity and landscapes, and benefit tourism and coastal economy. |
Sustainability of food production | New marketing standards for sea food, use of algae and seagrass, strong fisheries control, R&D in cell-based seafood, and sustainable aquaculture. |
Management improvement of space at sea | Establishment of a Blue Forum for users of the sea coordinating a dialogue between stakeholders and stimulating a cooperative exchange for the sustainable use of marine environment and the implementation of the EU Directive on maritime spatial planning (MSPD). |
NUTS1_Greece | Number of Participating FLAGs | Fisheries Employment | |
---|---|---|---|
EL3 | Attica | 1 | 380 |
EL4 | Aegean Islands and Crete | 10 | 4.117 |
EL5 | Northern Greece | 9 | 2.435 |
EL6 | Central Greece | 9 | 3.565 |
Total | 29 | 10.497 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kyvelou, S.S.; Ierapetritis, D.G.; Chiotinis, M. The Future of Fisheries Co-Management in the Context of the Sustainable Blue Economy and the Green Deal: There Is No Green without Blue. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107784
Kyvelou SS, Ierapetritis DG, Chiotinis M. The Future of Fisheries Co-Management in the Context of the Sustainable Blue Economy and the Green Deal: There Is No Green without Blue. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):7784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107784
Chicago/Turabian StyleKyvelou, Stella Sofia, Dimitrios G. Ierapetritis, and Michalis Chiotinis. 2023. "The Future of Fisheries Co-Management in the Context of the Sustainable Blue Economy and the Green Deal: There Is No Green without Blue" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 7784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107784