Ocean Governance Podcast

In the sixteenth episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast Aron and David discuss two articles that aim to analyse complexity, either in terms of how law is nested in an affected by social realities and ‘materiality', or in the form of a multitude of policy instruments and their potential inconsistency. Complexity seems to be a perpetual challenge in marine management. Ecosystems are in need of delineation and simplification to be manageable, and the same goes for social systems. Both the regulatory structures that have been intentionally designed to pursue various policy objectives and address management challenges, and the multiple way in which laws and other regulatory structures affect and are affected by social structures and processes in the surrounding society are challenging to fully comprehend. The articles discussed in this episode are: O'Donnell, T., Coastal Lawscape: A framework for understanding the complexities of climate change adaptation, Marine Policy 129 (2021), 104532, doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104532 Rouillard, J., Lago, M., Abhold, K., Roeschel, L., Kafyeke, T., Klimmek, H., Mattheiß, V., Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity across the Freshwater, Coastal and Marine Realms: Is the existing EU policy framework fit for purpose?, Environmental Policy and Governance 28 (2017), 114-128, doi.org/10.1002/eet.1793 If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

In this, the fifteenth episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast we discuss two recent articles that engage with seas and oceans as resources. One does so by challenging, at a fundamental level the notion that nature, including species and ecosystems represent potentially useful functions and services, and critically inquiries what such a view does with the way we live with or in nature. It looks at the history of a teleological view of nature, i.e. essentially the idea that every creature has a purpose and a given role to perform in nature. A view that, the article contends, is very much alive today with managers dealing with nature protection. The core message of the article is that humanity was reached a point where we need to choose between living in nature or wholly become the gardeners of a new post-nature, with full responsibility for the structure and function of essentially manmade ecosystems designed to meet our various needs. The second article in a way embraces the view of the ocean as a resource – though not necessarily a manmade one – and goes on to discuss how it can be managed in a fair and sustainable manner. At centre stage is the phenomenon of ocean grabbing, which can take many different forms, and the potential role of marine spatial planning (MSP) in preventing, or potentially exacerbating this challenge to fair ocean access. The focus is on MSP in the “global south” – an often-neglected perspective – with the aim to help preventing some of the negative consequences that may follow if MSP is implemented without due consideration to local contexts and preconditions. The article is a clear example of the recent turn to more critical approaches in the scholarly discussion on MSP, but without in any way losing sight of the practical requirements and implications of MSP as a practical tool. Read together, these two articles help us challenge or nuance our thinking about ocean resources and MSP as an instrument for their rational and sustainable use. The utility of that should be beyond doubt in an age where we are increasingly placing ourselves as managers of the very planet on which we live. The two articles discussed in this episode are: J. M. Weslawski, Why Does the Seal Exist? Teleology in the Present-Day Human Relation to Animals B. Queffelecand others, Marine spatial planning and the risk of ocean grabbing in the tropical Atlantic, ICES Journal of Marine Science (2021), fsab006, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsab006 If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

The fourteenth episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast is dedicated to governance of the marine Arctic and its resources. To discuss this topic, Aron and David are joined by Gabriela Argüello who as a post doc at the School of Business Economics and Law at Gothenburg university studies Arctic governance from a legal and institutional perspective. The Arctic is subject to much political as well as scholarly attention and increasing levels of human activities. This applies not least to many marine areas in the Arctic which are becoming increasingly attractive due to climate change and a receding ice cover. This opens for shipping and fishing in areas where such activities have hardly been possible before. Increased access to previously unexploited areas gives rise to many challenges, including how fragile Arctic ecosystems can be protected against pollution and resource depletion. Although much of the marine Arctic falls under the national jurisdiction of the five Arctic coastal states (Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the United States) there are still large areas, including the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO) that count as areas beyond national jurisdiction. In respect to these areas, is it urgent to ensure that new opportunities for resource utilisation do not result in an unregulated race to capture as much as possible of resources of which little is still known. Against this backdrop, the 2018 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Arctic Fisheries, entered into by the five arctic coastal states and some important non-Arctic states as well as the European Union is a promising sign that states are able to pursue common long-term interests in the Arctic. In no way, however, does it mean that all the legal and political challenges associated with ensuring a sustainable and precautious approach to Arctic resource management have been overcome. The episode discusses two recent articles that look at this situation from slightly different perspectives, providing important pieces of knowledge to understand the increasingly complex jigsaw puzzle of Arctic marine governance. The articles discussed in this episode are: Y. Tanaka, Changing Paradigms in the Law of the Sea and the Marine Arctic, 35:3 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (2020), 439–467, doi.org/10.1163/15718085-BJA10012 A. N. Vylegzhanin, O. R. Young, P. A. Berkman, The Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement as an element in the evolving Arctic Ocean governance complex, 118 Marine Policy (2020), 104001, doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104001. If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

The thirteenth episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast looks at maritime boundaries and the challenges that maritime delimitation and the zoning system face in a time of rising sea levels and intensified demand for maritime resources. How come that more than half of all maritime boundaries have not been finally agreed by the states concerned, and what demands do rising sea levels place on the law and policy of maritime delimitation and zoning? In discussing this, Aron Westholm and David Langlet are aided by a guest, Snjólaug Árnadóttir. Among other things, Snjólaug is a member of the International Law Association’s Committee on International Law and Sea Level Rise and has written extensively on maritime boundaries. In the episode, we discuss two very recent texts. One looks in some detail at the legal options for preventing the dramatic shrinking or complete disappearance of maritime zones due to rising sea levels. The other takes a broader historical and functional approach to the topic of maritime boundaries, querying why maritime boundaries are so frequently disputed and how to understand the legal and political principles that frame endeavours to settle such disputes. The articles discussed in this episode are: Alfred H.A. Soons, ‘The Effects of Sea Level Rise on Baselines and Outer Limits of Maritime Zones’, in Tomas Heidar (ed), New Knowledge and Changing Circumstances in the Law of the Sea (Brill 2020), 358-381. Andreas Østhagen, ‘Maritime boundary disputes: What are they and why do they matter?’, 120 Marine Policy (2020) 104118. Also mentioned in this episode is P.E. Steinberg, The Social Construction of the Ocean, Cambridge University Press, 2001. If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

The theme of the twelfth episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast is fishing and more specifically issues relating so called IUU fishing, i.e. illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. As usual, we approach the theme by discussing a couple of recently published articles. This time both articles approach the theme from a developing country perspective and look at the particular challenges associated with regulating, controlling and enforcing fisheries regulation in relation to small scale or subsistence fishing. The first article problematizes the application of the IUU concept to small-scale fisheries practices and points to ways in which large scale attempts to combat IUU fishing, including by the imposition of trade restrictive measures, could be better adjusted to the particular needs and challenges of small scale fisheries. The second article looks at the complexities of addressing illegal fishing in the small-scale fisheries sector in South Africa and the potential roles of criminal law and human rights-based approaches. In this episode, Aron and David are joined by Nkeiru Scotcher who as a post doc researcher is studying the legitimacy of regional approaches to ocean governance with a particular focus on Africa's Integrated Maritime Strategy. The articles discussed in this episode are: A. M. Song, J. Scholtens, K. Barclay, S. R. Bush, M. Fabinyi, D. S. Adhuri, M. Haughton, Collateral damage? Small‐scale fisheries in the global fight against IUU fishing, Fish and Fisheries, published online 22 April 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12462 M. Isaacs and E. Witbooi, Fisheries crime, human rights and small-scale fisheries in South Africa: A case of bigger fish to fry, Marine Policy 105 (2019) 158–168. If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

The eleventh episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast focuses on marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction, i.e. on the high seas and in the deep seabed known as ‘the Area’. In this episode, Aron and David are joined by Niels Krabbe who is finalising a PhD thesis in which he investigates how the appropriation of marine genetic resources is regulated in three different regimes of international law: the law of the sea, intellectual property rights law and environmental law. Regulating marine genetic resources is highly complex for a number of reasons. Among these are that the same organism is viewed very differently depending how it is (intended to be) used, and can also be subject to quite distinct legal regimes depending on where it is accessed. As usual, we discuss a couple of articles. The first one sets out a rather elaborate model for a “fair and effective” regime regulating benefit-sharing of marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction. The model aims to safeguard multiple objectives, including inclusion of developing states, promotion of scientific research and safeguarding of private investments. It should be seen as input to the ongoing international negotiation of a legally binding instrument on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. The second article is based on an analysis of a huge set of data on genetic sequences of marine origin associated with patents. The data reveals who has had the requisite resources and also the interest in exploring marine genetic resources. It also cast some doubts on the assumption that such resources represent an enormous economic potential. Together the two texts highlight many of the pressing challenges associated with achieving a well-functioning regime for marine genetic resources beyond national jurisdiction, i.e. what is currently being pursued with the Intergovernmental Conference on an international legally binding instrument under UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. The articles discussed in this episode are: A.Broggiato, T. Vanagt, L. E. Lallier, M. Jaspars, G. Burton, D. Muyldermans, Mare Geneticum: Balancing Governance of Marine Genetic Resources in International Waters, 33 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (2018): 3–33. R. Blasiak, J.-B. Jouffray, C. C. C. Wabnitz, E. Sundström, H. Österblom, Corporate control and global governance of marine genetic resources, 4:6 Science Advances (2018), article-id eaar5237. If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

The tenth episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast focuses on marine protected areas (MPAs). While being a well-established and much-discussed instrument for protection of the marine environment, the three articles discussed in this episode show that interesting perspectives can still be added to the discourse on MPAs. Our first article looks at the blending of rationales in designating and managing many large-scale MPAs in areas with a strong military legacy and sometimes also a remaining military presence. Although not drawing strong general conclusions about the effects of military legacies or military activities in MPAs, the author opens up an interesting discussion on the multiple interests and legacies that can affect marine areas and shape the conditions for their conservation and management. The second article, with a message directed to the ongoing negotiations on protection of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, calls for the elaboration of new dynamic management tools, including mobile MPAs to be employed in high seas areas. Although mobile MPAs entail practical and policy challenges, the article provides strong arguments both for the utility and need of such an instrument and points to factors that could facilitate the practical operation of such MPAs. Not least rapid technological development in areas such as animal tracking, vessel monitoring and communication make such measures practically feasible. The third article constructively challenges the oft-repeated idea that MPAs are a good way of strengthening the resilience of marine ecosystems in the face of climate change. Noting the scarcity of empirical support for ecosystems within MPAs being less negatively affected by climate change related pressures such as rising water temperatures or severe storms, the authors point to factors that may actually make protected areas (seem) more rather than less vulnerable. This, however, does not mean that MPAs cannot be useful in countering the effects of climate change although their effectiveness may be more limited than often thought, and also require integrating climate change factors in the designation of protected areas. The three articles discussed in this episode are: A. E Bates, et al., Climate resilience in marine protected areas and the ‘Protection Paradox’, Biological Conservation 236 (2019), 305–314. S. M. Maxwell, K. M. Gjerde, M. G. Conners, and L. B. Crowde, Mobile protected areas for biodiversity on the high seas - Protecting mobile marine species and habitats under climate change will require innovative and dynamic tools, Science 367:6475 (2020), 252-254. E. M. De Santo, Militarized marine protected areas in overseas territories: Conserving biodiversity, geopolitical positioning, and securing resources in the 21st century, Ocean and Coastal Management 184 (2020), 105006. If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

In this ninth episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast, we use a recent text of our own, published within the Pan Baltic Scope project, as a point of departure to discuss the meaning and utility of the ecosystem approach in the context of marine spatial planning (MSP). The publication synthesizes research publications and relevant policy documents with the aim of establishing a ‘state of the art’ for operationalization of the ecosystem approach in MSP. This is done as a basis for an assessment of the “Guideline for the implementation of ecosystem-based approach in Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) in the Baltic Sea area” adopted/approved in 2016 by VASAB (‘Vision and Strategies around the Baltic Sea’) and HELCOM (the Helsinki Commission). The publication was commissioned by the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, as part of the agency’s participation in the regional MSP collaboration within the Pan Baltic Scope project. We use the publication to reflect on the nature and usefulness of the ecosystem approach (or approaches) in relation to MSP. In doing this, we are greatly aided by a number of planners working with MSP who were interviewed at the Maritime Spatial Planning Forum: Global Meets Regional, which took place on 19-21 November 2019 in Riga. With their help, we address issues such as what do we actually mean by ecosystem approach?; does it have practical relevance for MSP?; and what is the place of social knowledge in applying an ecosystem approach? The publication discussed in this episode is: D. Langlet, and A. Westholm, Synthesis Report on the Ecosystem Approach to Maritime Spatial Planning (Pan Baltic Scope 2019) If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

The theme of this episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast is blue growth. We discuss two articles that approach this topical concept with different intentions. One aims to aid the achievement of blue growth, understood as ‘an ambitious framework for ocean management’ by proposing a pragmatic, goal-oriented approach to ocean management and science. The article elaborates five rules of thumb to build such an approach. The second article instead deals with assessment of blue growth strategies. Having noted that the focus of reports and initiatives on blue growth tend to be predominantly on economic growth, the authors elaborate a methodology for assessing if blue growth is achieved, and if so to what extent it covers the range of objectives encompassed by SDG 14 on conservation and sustainable use the oceans, seas and marine resources. Both articles give rise to questions of how blue growth can be understood and what, if anything, it adds to pre-existing management concepts like sustainable development, and how to deal with the complexities of natural as well as social systems. Data also takes centre stage in the discussion. Both the potential of getting more out of already available data, and the need for being cautious about what specific data can actually tell us, irrespective of how we aggregate it. The two articles discussed in this episode are: M. G. Burgess, M. Clemence, G. R. McDermott, C. Costello, S. D. Gaines, Five rules for pragmatic blue growth, 87 Marine Policy (2018) 331–339, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.12.005 W. Rickels, C. Weiganda, P. Grasse, J. Schmidt, R. Voss, Does the European Union achieve comprehensive blue growth? Progress of EU coastal states in the Baltic and North Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean against sustainable development goal 14, 106 Marine Policy (2019), doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103515. Other articles mentioned: G.G. Singh, A.M. Cisneros-Montemayor, W. Swartz, W. Cheung, J.A. Guy, T.-A. Kenny, et al., A rapid assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among Sustainable Development Goals, 93 Marine Policy (2018) 223–231. W. Rickels, J. Dovern, J. Hoffmann, M.F. Quaas, J.O. Schmidt, M. Visbeck, Indicators for monitoring sustainable development goals: an application to oceanic development in the European Union, 4 (5) Earth's Future (2016) 252–267. If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

In the seventh episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast, we are joined by Brita Bohman, post doc researcher in ocean governance law at Gothenburg University and lecturer in environmental law at Stockholm university. In her research, Brita has focused on issues of adaptivity and legitimacy in relation to marine governance. That is fitting since preconditions for adaptive and legitimate governance can be said to be the overall theme of this episode. One of the two articles discussed identifies, based on the relevant literature, impediments to and models for facilitating knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers as a precondition for adaptive governance. The second article, which draws on interdisciplinary assessments of the resilience of six North American water basins, formulates guidelines for evaluating ways in which law can be used, adapted, and reformed to facilitate adaptive governance in ways that also enhances the legitimacy of governmental action. While it is evident that creating the right conditions for knowledge-based governance where law provides both legitimacy and facilitate adaptivity is challenging, the texts discussed offer suggestions, at different levels of specificity, for how that can be facilitated. The articles discussed in this episode are: B. A Cosens, R. K. Craig, S. Hirsch, C. A. (T.) Arnold, M. H. Benson, D. A. DeCaro, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, J. Ruhl, and E. Schlager, The role of law in adaptive governance, Ecology and Society 22(1):30 C. Cvitanovic, A.J. Hobday, L. van Kerkhoff, S.K. Wilson, K. Dobbs, N.A. Marshall, Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decisionmakers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: A review of knowledge and research needs, Ocean & Coastal Management 112 (2015) 25-35 It should also be mentioned that Brita Bohman is the author of ‘Transboundary Law for Social-Ecological Resilience?: A Study on Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea Area’ (Department of Law, Stockholm University , 2017) If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

In the sixth episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast, we discuss two recent articles that in different ways throw a light on how states approach international law relating to the seas. One of them take a close look at some contentions terminology that plays a central role in the ongoing negations of a binding agreement on biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Taking a classical international law approach to the negotiations, the article makes clear how what is essentially a struggle between groups of states with different interests or priorities, in this context takes the form of a seemingly semantic debate where the choice of individual words become of paramount importance. The other text deals more explicitly with states’ attitudes to international law and specifically the extent to which ‘great powers’, defined as the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, accept and respect the outcome of compulsory dispute settlement under the Law of the sea convention. Although such respect and compliance are far from universal, even ‘great powers’ come out as being very concerned with both the wording and interpretation of international agreements relating to the law of the sea. The two articles discussed in this episode are: H. D. Phan, International Courts and State Compliance: An Investigation of the Law of the Sea Cases, 50:1 Ocean Development & International Law (2019) 70-90. doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2018.1548420 A. G. Oude Elferink, Coastal States and MPAs in ABNJ: Ensuring Consistency with the LOSC, 33 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (2018) 437-466. If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

This special issue episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast combines discussions of a research article with reflections and interviews from the Connecting Seas MSP Conference held in February 2019 in Hamburg. In this episode we discuss practical challenges for transboundary marine spatial planning, with a particular focus on the Baltic and North Seas. What institutional conditions are needed for good regional cooperation on MSP? How can cooperation be fruitful despite significant differences in legislation, planning culture, the current phase of the MSP process, and possibly also focus of and expectations on MSP? The episode also raises issues related to the nature of MSP as both practical problem-solving and an expression of political priorities reflecting fundamental conceptions of sustainability. The article discussed in this episode is: H. Janßen, R. Varjopuro, A. Luttmann, A Morf, and H. Nieminen, Imbalances in interaction for transboundary marine spatial planning: Insights from the Baltic Sea Region, 161 Ocean and Coastal Management (2018) 201–210. The episode also includes parts of interviews made during the Connecting Seas Conference. If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

In this episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast, we return to a core challenge for research endeavours that wish to assess or contribute to the development of complex governance mechanisms. Namely how to balance the need for analytical precision with the wish to contribute to the practical management of multifaceted problems that encompass many related aspects which all call for attention. In this case the mechanisms or processes at issue are respectively marine spatial planning as a tool for advancing ‘blue energy’ and development of strategic environmental goals and objectives for environmental regulation of deep seabed mining. A subtheme in the discussion is how conclusions (should) relate to the preceding analyses. The two articles discussed in this episode are: P.Q. García, J. García Sanabria, J. A. C. Ruiza, The role of maritime spatial planning on the advance of blue energy in the European Union, Marine Policy 99 (2019) 123–131 V. Tunnicliffe, A. Metaxas, J. Lec, E. Ramirez-Llodrad, L. A. Levin, Strategic Environmental Goals and Objectives: Setting the basis for environmental regulation of deep seabed mining Marine Policy, available online 20 November 2018 doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.010 If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

In this the third episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast, we discuss two articles which, although dealing with different issues both raise questions relating to the role of legal and social sciences scholarship in contributing to coherence, policy integration and systems perspectives while at the same time highlighting the challenges of dealing with details and finding the best level of analysis when pursuing an integrating perspective. Although very different in their approach, the two articles share a common focus on space-based governance instruments; marine spatial planning and area-based management tools, respectively. The two articles discussed in this episode are: M. Ntona and E. Morgera, Connecting SDG 14 with the other Sustainable Development Goals through Marine Spatial Planning, 93 Marine Policy (2018) 214-222. E. M. De Santo, Implementation challenges of area-based management tools (ABMTs) for biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ), 97 Marine Policy (2018) 34–43. If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

In this second episode of the Ocean Governance Podcast, we discuss two articles which can both be said to assess or analyse a legal or governance framework – in one case relating to high seas fisheries management and in the other to the regulation of GHG emissions from international shipping. However, they do so in strikingly different ways and take very different approaches overall to the use and account of scientific method. The two articles discussed in this episode are: B. Pentz, N. Klenk, S. Ogle, J. A.D. Fisher, ‘Can regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) manage resources effectively during climate change?’ 92 Marine Policy (2018) 13-20 Y. Shi, W. Gullett, ‘International Regulation on Low-Carbon Shipping for Climate Change Mitigation: Development, Challenges, and Prospects’ 49:2 Ocean Development & International Law (2018) 134-156. Other articles referred to in the episode are: S. Cullis-Suzuki, D. Pauly, ‘Failing the high seas: a global evaluation of regional fisheries management organizations’ 34 Marine Policy (2010) 1036–1042. Y. Tanaka, ‘Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from International Shipping and Jurisdiction of States’ 25:3 RECIEL (2016) 333-346. If you want to comment on the content or otherwise communicate with us, please do so by sending an email to: aron.westholm@law.gu.se. We hope that you will enjoy listening!

In this first episode of the Ocean Governance Pod, we discuss two articles which both may be said to address the importance of language, the terminology that is used for communication and the way in which principles and objectives are defined and understood. The two articles in this episode are: Jonathan G. Odom, Navigating Between Treaties and Tweets: How to Ensure Discourse about Maritime Freedom Is Meaningful, 49:1 Ocean Development & International Law (2018) 1-51. Leyre Goti-Aralucea et al., Overarching sustainability objectives overcome incompatible directions in the Common Fisheries Policy, 91 Marine Policy (2018), 49–57. We hope that you will enjoy listening!