The following section attends to how different governance

rationales may be combined in a RBM approach, with a focus on RBM models that involve collective arrangements developed and management by see more resource users groups. Subsequently, major challenges that can be expected with moving towards RBM in fisheries are discussed. Finally, possibilities for implementing RBM arrangements within the new CFP, which was adopted in 2014, are addressed. The state centric or hierarchical model of fisheries management should be recognized as one among several generic approaches within a broader notion of fisheries governance.f As pointed out by Gray [58], participatory and market based approaches to fisheries governance MDV3100 clinical trial are on the advance. Gray relates this tendency to the experience that the state centric model has not met its objectives successfully in different contexts. It may also be related to a change in emphasis regarding the basic values that underpin fisheries governance; i.e. a shift from representative democracy towards participatory democracy, and from administrative rationality towards economic efficiency [58]. However, the fact that the state centred model nevertheless remains dominant within fisheries governance indicates that this approach not only has weaknesses,

but also advantages. It will be suggested here that the recent interest in RBM in Europe as an instrument to deregulate fisheries activities and to delegate responsibility to resource users may be MRIP linked to its potential of integrating main rationales from each of these governance modes. The fisheries co-management literature (see e.g. [59]) describes normative and substantive rationales for delegating management and research responsibilities to resource users. Drawing on ideals of direct or participatory democracy, it may be argued that those affected by certain policy decisions should also have an opportunity to voice their opinion or even participate in decision-making regarding such

policies. Participation by affected parties is expected to enhance the legitimacy and compliance to a given policy [60]. A substantive rationale for including resource users in decision-making is to benefit systematically from experience based knowledge in order to secure a broader and potentially more detailed knowledge base for management and implementation. Seen in isolation, these rationales favour a transition from state centric governance to self-governance by resource users. However, there are also important rationales that underpin state centric fisheries governance. As remarked by Gray [58], the hierarchical or top down model fits well with the notion of representative democracy by which policy making regarding public resources is left to elected leaders (supported by relevant scientific expertise).