Fishy Waters? Interest group’s role in shaping EU Ocean Fisheries Governance and Ocean Life

The ocean’s diversity and enigmas are much wider than is currently known, and are entrenched in increasing uncertainty. Addressing uncertainties while balancing diverse interests and beliefs of stakeholders underscores why oceans are often referred to as "political seas" (Bennet, 2019). Governing the ocean during a time of environmental uncertainty and rising anthropogenic pressures presents significant challenges. Despite these difficulties, a new era of dynamic and evolving global ocean governance mechanisms is beginning to take shape after years of stagnation. For example, the still-to-be-ratified agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions (BBNJ)—covering areas beyond the 200-mile boundaries of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)—will open debates on access to biologically important waters. Similarly, the proposed Plastic Convention may shape ocean marine debris removal, introducing new stakeholders and interests. and heightened public awareness of ocean-related socio-economic issues. Increasing public awareness of the ocean can impact debates on politicized socio-economic issues at the global level. The upcoming World Trade Organisation negotiations on cutting subsidies for overfishing following the 2022 decision on removing harmful subsidies for illegal and unreported fishing, may induce shifting baselines in the definition of overfishing by different stakeholders aiming to maintain the status quo, challenging existing scientific knowledge. As these global processes take shape and materialize, there is much to learn from regional empirical case studies on ocean governance to theorize and establish stronger foundations for effective policy design and implementation. Fisheries policies serve as the primary mechanism for managing the world’s most exploited ocean resource. The 1983 EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and its most recent 2013 reform represent an institutionalized constitutional framework aimed at solving collective action problems and avoiding a tragedy of the commons. However, its failure to achieve its goals in a timely manner highlights contentions, polarization and gaps in existing frameworks and institutions. The driving force behind the evolution of the CFP lies in stakeholder interest groups, which propel legislative bargaining, contributing to the persistence of overfishing. This empirical study applies Social Network Theory and Analysis (SNA) to examine informal rules, while linking to power structures and constitutional rules such as EU Council quota regulations. Using a quantitative stakeholder questionnaire, we measured the influence of communication lobbying on selected CFP policy tools and outcomes. Our findings reveal that communication lobbying in EU Baltic waters is dominated by meta-organizational interest groups (e.g., small scale fishers metaorganizations and NGO coalitions). In response to resource exploitation efforts across various scales—such as depth (e.g., deep sea and coastal areas), sectors (e.g., energy, tourism, and trade routes), and geographic scales, the ocean's uniqueness in multiuse of its space may lead to the emergence of new networks, coalitions, and policies. Uncovering underlying processes and efforts of stakeholders to exert influence, such as on access to waters and the (re)distribution of public resources, can further enrich political theories of global ocean governance. Our case study demonstrates how combining social networks, legislative bargaining and coalition dynamics theories can contribute to the conceptualization and theorization of ocean governance current and future challenges and visions.