European Green Deal (EGD) cannot be fully achieved without improving the health and resilience of our seas and oceans. Better management of these shared resources is needed to drive sustainable development. However, the way in which marine governance arrangements are currently organised does not lend them to successful EGD implementation.
Understanding e-governance
Digital technologies are an important driver of change through which marine governance can evolve to improve its performance. PERMAGOV defines e-governance as the application of digital processes or technologies aimed at improving the management of marine activities or resources within and across sectors and governance levels.
E-governance is broader than just e-government. While the latter is an important pillar, e-governance is not solely about government services. Academia, private enterprises and the third sector also have a role to play by creating digital solutions that help the system function as intended, or better.
Conceptually, e-governance can be understood as digital piping wired into the non-technical process of governance. A system of ICT tubes, valves, fittings and pipes, e-governance acts as a structure within a pre-existing social construct, where stakeholders articulate their position and interests, negotiate rules and norms, and compete for power to achieve desired outcomes for themselves and for the system being governed. Just as physical pipes carry substances necessary for industrial processes, similarly e-governance transports elements in the form of technologies, data and analytics to various parts of the governance landscape.
The expectation is that e-governance will lead to good governance. A common juxtaposition is between traditional versus ICT driven decision making. According to this logic, underperforming areas affected by incomplete information, vested interests, powerful actors and other limitations can, under the influence of e-governance, transition to a better arrangement in which decision making becomes more agile, transparent, evidence-informed, objective, and collaborative.
Problematising e-governance
That e-governance will lead to this result is not guaranteed. For one, parties can resist the adoption of e-governance solutions because of zero-sum considerations. Take the Global Fishing Watch (GFW). Endorsed by environmentalists keen to end illegal fishing, the platform is a thorn in the side of fishermen, who see it as a surveillance tool against them. To avoid unnecessary scrutiny and potential compliance problems, many fishermen “go dark” by switching off their transponders, data from which is used by GFW to map illegal activity.
Another challenge with e-governance is its elusive nature. Within the same policy arena, technology penetration into governance processes can range from low or even non-existent, to very comprehensive bordering on absolute. It’s this ‘quantum property’ of e-governance, namely the ability to be present and absent to varying degrees in the same environment, that makes the concept both interesting and challenging to study.
E-governance levels
Four possible e-governance levels can be distinguished. E-governance is considered low when technology’s impact on governance arrangements is barely noticeable. Data and analytics may be considered by stakeholders, but the impact of this evidence base on decision making is hardly evident.
At a moderate level, the role of ICTs is more prominent. Here, digital tools support basic functions like information provision, reporting, and crowdsourcing.
At higher levels, governance arrangements primarily operate within integrated digital systems interconnected across multiple sectors and borders (countries). Managing a system at this level without technology would be neither feasible nor practical.
Finally, at the highest level of ICT integration, the role of technology is so comprehensive that we begin to witness a shift in governance arrangements. They no longer influence but are also influenced by the digital system, while some decision-making responsibilities are delegated from humans to smart systems operated by artificial intelligence.
Emerging e-governance penetration in fisheries
Fisheries, one of the most significant anthropogenic pressures on the marine environment, is globally characterised by variable e-governance penetration depending on the specific context. Generally, though, it seems fair to say that penetration remains at the low to moderate level.
Recently, however, Europe has witnessed an increased focus on the potential of ‘fully documented fisheries’ (FDF), an electronic system for monitoring and reporting catches. FDF relies on a suite of emerging and increasingly mature technologies, including on-board cameras, sensors, artificial intelligence and positioning systems, to provide managers and decision-makers with information, both real-time and historic, on what was caught and discarded, legally or illegally, by fishing vessels while at sea.
Though not yet implemented, this development could potentially be a game-changer for the EU’s fisheries management system, which currently enforces a relatively strict ‘landing obligation’, demanding that fishers land all catches of commercial species – even if the fish is too small to be commercially interesting – to ensure that these are deducted from the fish quotas, thereby disincentivising the catch of the smallest sizes.
FDF implementation could lead to a situation where all catches are automatically identified by the species type and size, then registered onboard the vessel in real-time, and ultimately deducted from the relevant quota. This could, in principle, enable a system where the fishermen could be allowed to discard the smallest sizes, something that might be easier to do than bringing them to shore, while possibly also allowing some of the discarded fish to survive.
Potentially, the technologies could also reduce the need for physical control onboard the vessels, reduce the administrative burden on the fishers, and enable the provision of better and more reliable data for fish stock assessments, as well as increase our knowledge of catches of sea creatures of no commercial interest.
Ultimately, it is possible to imagine a situation where even the relatively detailed rules governing gear choice and configuration could be softened, as many gear restrictions are in place exactly to prevent the catch of undersize fish. If fishers can document undisputedly that they are able to use their gear in a way that avoids the catches of undersized fish, then the need to have detailed gear regulations is significantly reduced, equating to a higher penetration of e-governance.
Not without challenges
FDF has a significant potential, but it also comes with challenges. The current fisheries management system in the EU is generally perceived to be overly top-down, command-control oriented. If FDF turns out to be primarily an instrument for tightening control of existing rules – without perceived benefits to fishers such as simpler regulation or reporting requirements – then the reaped benefits will likely remain limited. It is even possible to imagine FDF reducing legitimacy of management among fishers, who could experience electronic monitoring and reporting as ‘big brother’ style enforcement with negative impacts on work environment and job satisfaction.
Commenti