Lobby Groups Lobbying the EU on Behalf of British Fishermen - Case Study Example

Lobby Groups Lobbying the EU on Behalf of British Fishermen Introduction and background The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is a policy passed by the EU that governs how fishermen should carryout fishing activity in the European waters. It sets out the quotas for each country in terms of how much fish each country can get from the natural waters each year. This is intended to protect the environment as the fish seemed to be getting rare and the danger of extinction is looming if the current fishing practice is not controlled. However, this policy has not been received positively by many European countries because of a number of issues (Heineman 1997). In the UK, fishermen feel that they are being denied a right to their livelihood and above that they need to be given more shares of the quotas specified by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). However, as John and Margetts (2003) put it, for this to change, a policy change would be necessary and this would help in making sure that the laws guiding how the fisheries are managed are changed. This is not an easy thing to do, especially in regard to cases where there are misunderstandings among the policy makers and the stakeholders. In this case, the stakeholders are the fishermen and fishermen businesses as well as the organizations they have formed. Unlike in the United States of America context, the UK policy lobbyists are more likely to be non-business interest groups as opposed to the business groups with certain interests (John 2010). The business interest groups however still do lobby for policy or policy change, but in a different way. In the UK context, both the business interest groups and the non business interest group have different ways of lobbying. As Martin (2000) says, the non business interest lobbying groups are more likely to be open in the way they lobby, usually parading in the public and mass media, while the non business lobby groups are more likely to do their lobbying in private sceness. This difference in the method and approach of lobbying is what may lead to confusion with regard to the level of lobbying. The non business interest groups are as much likely to lobby as much as the business interest group, but in a passive way. At the same time, as Charles (1979) says, they are also likely to use the non incremental approach with regard to policy development or he attitude they have with regard to how policy should be developed. There are several types of lobby groups that are available in the UK that are used in the lobbying for the fishermen who have been adversely affected by the quota policy of fisheries. These groups include; Regional politicians Regional politicians are form part of the lobby groups that push for a positive change of the issue of the Common Fisheries Policy. They feel that the Common Fisheries Policy is too centralized and that the EU makers are not considerate of diverse issues that go into managing the fisheries are spread over missions of square miles in the euro regions. They lobby by mobilizing the local populations. Just like the politicians and political parties, they also use political power such has threatening to pull out of the EU. Since this is capable of bringing up a political instability if local people start revolutionizing against the EU, their push is very powerful and highly considered by the EU policy makers. NGOs NGOs have a set of interest in the issue of fishing and the laws that govern it (Olsen 1983). There are over seventy NGOs that are involved in the lobbying for policy development in the EU with regard to the fisheries protection and they want the quota for UK fishermen to be increased. The kind of interest any particular NGO has on the issue of lobbying is determined by the nature of its core mission. Those NGOs that are involved in the taking care of peoples’ livelihood are concerned with the way the EU quota system is going to affect the livelihoods of the people who use fishing as their main source of livelihood (Holden 1996). Such organizations lobby either for the abolition of the quota system or the revision of the same so that UK fishermen can be able to have a higher quota so that they able to serve their needs. The way these groups lobby the EU is by requesting a massive action which will solve the problem in one move as opposed to incremental policy adjustment. As Charles (1979), there are two ways in which lobby groups regard the way policy should be changed. He argues that there is the incrementalist approach and there is the one-step approach where a solution to a problem is developed once and for all. Those who believe in incremental approach believe that complex problems should be solved in small but steady steps until the problem is solved completely. The other group which is a critic of the incrementalist approach believes that the way to do away with incrementalism is by having a solution that is looks at all possible alternatives and then using scientific analysis to identify which the best solution is (Charles 1979). Most NGOs who are lobbying the EU with regard to the fishing quota policy can be said to fall under this category of lobbyist. They argue that it is better to look at the problem and then come up with a solution that is the most viable, and hat can solve the problems, not just temporally but in a long term way (Bache & Flinders, 2004.). NGOs have a very big impact on the way EU policy makers act. Most of these are NGOs with an international presence and are very influential in many ways. NGOs act as the watchdog on so many matters and are part of the global political machine. Their views and ideas have to be valued and the EU policy makers have to keep their ear on the ground to know where the wind of NGOs is blowing. However, with regard to the issue of Common Fisheries Policy, the NGOs may not be the biggest source of pressure against the EU policy makers because they are also to some extent sympathetic with the issue on the issue of using the Common Fisheries Policy as a way to have sustainable fishing activity. Law and policy institutes Law and policy institutions are also another group of lobbyist that are lobbying the EU with regard to the issue of the fishery quotas. These institutions have different interests, which in most cases have to do with human rights (Long 2008). However, just like the NGO, they don’t have a commercial interest as would the business organizations such as fishermen organizations. These law and policy institutes seem to have a different approach with regard to the way they lobby the EU. Unlike the NGOs that in most cases are looking for a non incremental approach with regard to the way they intend the policy change to be conducted, they have an incremental approach with regard to how they argue the problem can be solved (Bernhagen 2012). This attitude towards the problem has an effect on the way they approach the problem and how they lobby for change. Unlike the NGOs that want a once and for all solution, law and policy institutes have a less aggressive way in which they lobby the EU. Apart from not using channels such as the mass media to push for what they want, these groups also can go further than expected in order to work with the stakeholders in the EU as a way to develop viable solution which will be implemented incrementally (Hillman & Keim 2013). Law and policy institutions have a great impact how EU policy makers act. They have a big impact because they have much more political power as they can lobby through legal processes as well as the policy development. These two groups pose a direct risk to the EU policy since they are capable of having a direct impact on the role of EU by creating policies and laws. If the UK was to finally decide to pull out of the EU, they would be instrumental in the process of pulling out and therefore they have a great impact. Politicians and political parties Politicians are also part of the actors which have been involved in the lobbying of the EU in reference to Common Fisheries Policy. Their interest on the Common Fisheries Policy as people’s representatives is to make sure that they have played their part in representing people. However, a closer look may indicate that there are some political that play a role. With regard to politicians, they may not only be rational in the way they approach the problem. Politicians use their platforms such a parliament as a way to lobby their agenda to the EU. Since some famous politicians are also mostly given interviews by the mainstream media, they also use this platform to push their agenda. Their influence is very big due to the political power they have. Politicians are people’s representatives and people seem to be trust them very much. In this regard, their views are able to be taken u by the public. In this regard, they have a higher power for mobilization and this s the highest level of mobilization. Fishers’ organizations These are business organizations and are part of the lobbying interest groups. The business organizations are definitely the most affected by the EU quota system of access to fishery. This kind of group has a different way of lobbying that is different with regard to how they lobby for the policy change and implantations (Bernhagen & Trani 2012). First of all, they have a higher chance of being loud and vocal and therefore may use mass media as a way to push their agenda. This attitude towards the way they lobby may make them look like they are the only lobbying groups in the UK, while in fact there are other groups which are available within the UK but which use a less public way of lobbying (Dunleavy,1991). The business organizations that are involved in the lobbying of the EU with regard to fishery quota policy are more likely to have a non incrementalist attitude towards the way the problem is taken care of. The reason for this is as below; This group of stakeholders is only interested in a pushing for a solution that is easy and fast to implement so that they can have their business running as fast as possible. Due to this, they may not advocate for incremental approach to be used since they are interested in guaranteeing that the issue is addressed as soon as possible (Chun 2005). This may make them less patient about the issue and therefore they want not only an immediate solution but one that is favorable to them. As a result, unlike the other lobby groups such as the Law and Policy groups and the NGOs, they are more likely to look towards making sure that the policy developers solve the issue as soon as possible as well as give them a solution that is easy to implement on their side. Lobbying strategy by NGOS to increase fishing quota Various European countries such as France, Spain and England are in disagreements on establishing a common policy regarding fish quotas. It is important to recognize that fishing should be regulated to prevent overfishing (Daniel 2014). However, regulations should be set in a way that does not negatively affect the economic status of the people in the fishing industry. In this regard, non-governmental organisations that deal with aquatic life in the UK have joined hands in the fight for an increase in the Britain fishing quota. The groups are working on a quota increment strategy that will ensure fishing proportion in Britain will experience a higher level in the next five years and at the same moment taking care of the environment (Eberl & Schwaiger 2005). The strategy adopted by these organisations has several components that reinforce its performance. The components of the strategy include educating the people in the fishing industry, establishing fish protection areas, lobbying the government to reduce tax and many others (Dinan & Miller 2012). The NGOs have liaised with various government agencies in Britain and Europe at large to establish and develop fish protection areas to ensure that fishing is more organized and the endangered fish species do not get depleted with time. In addition, the groups have embarked on establishing fish sanctuaries that are used to bread fish species and rear more fish to ensure that quantity of fish reaches to a level that can sufficiently meet the ever increasing demand for fish and fish products. In fact, some NGOs are conserving marine flora to ensure that the fish do not lack enough food to reproduce and maintain large numbers The NGOs are conducting education programs to the fishermen to ensure that they fully participate in the fish conservation. In reality, people cannot participate effectively in a practice that they are not fully aware of; however, when taken through an education program, people gain awareness and are able to support the practice. Essentially, the NGOs in the aquatic field are playing an important role in creating awareness to fishermen and fishing companies about the importance of maintaining a balance between biodiversity and fishing. The aim of conducting education programs is to promote controlled fishing that will ensure an increase in fish production and financial security for people in the fishing industry. In addition, the NGOs are acting as the intermediary between the fishing companies and the government to ensure that the government lowers the taxes for fish products. The current quota system offered by the government is a threat to the incomes of people who solely depend on fishing as their source of livelihood. Therefore, there is a need to increase the quota or do away with it in order to ensure that fishermen leap maximum benefit from fishing. Friedman and Miles (2002) points out that all the stakeholders must ensure that necessary approaches are adopted to increase fish production and the benefits of fishing to the fishermen Conclusion It appears that the business oriented lobby groups are the most aggressive with regard to how they lobby for policy development and policy change. Not only do they use a different tactic with regard to how they want to push their agenda, but also try to make sure they use all tactics to get what they want, even when their tactics are not the most acceptable ones. This group is therefore the one that poses the biggest risk to policy development. These people have two major risk factors with regard dot government policy making process. First, unlike the other types of lobbyist, this group is likely to be loud in the way they push forward their agenda and this can have a negative impact on policy development. Secondly they seem to not have regard of how a solution can be reached; always trying to get what is their interest without worrying about other factors. By understanding these factors, it comes easier for policy makers to know how to deal with such group not only during the time of policy development but also after the policy has been made and implemented. Bibliography: Amy J. Hillman and Gerald D. Keim, Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22(No. 2), pp.125–139. Bache I. & Flinders M., 2004. Multi-level governance and the study of the British state. Public Policy and Administration, 19(1), pp.31–51. Bernhagen P. & Trani B., 2012. Interest group mobilization and lobbying patterns in Britain: a newspaper analysis. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 1(1), pp.48–66. Available at: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/iga/journal/v1/n1/abs/iga20122a.html. Bernhagen P., 2012. Who gets what in British politics - and how? An analysis of media reports on lobbying around Government policies, 2001-7. Political Studies, p.no–no. Charles E. Lindblom, 1979. Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), pp.517–526. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976178. Chun R., 2005. Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), pp.91–109. Daniel W. Greening and Barbara Gray, Testing a model of organizational response to social and political issues. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37(No. 3), pp.467–498. David Vogel, Why businessmen distrust their state: the political consciousness of American corporate executives. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 8(No. 1), pp.45–78. Dinan W. & Miller D., 2012. Sledgehammers, nuts and rotten apples: reassessing the case for lobbying self-regulation in the United Kingdom. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 1(1), pp.105–114. Available at: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/iga/journal/v1/n1/abs/iga20125a.html. Dunleavy P., 1991. The bureau-shaping model. Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice: economic explanations in political science, pp.174–209. Available at: https://moss.brunel.ac.uk/SiteDirectory/library/staff_all/Digital%20Readings%20Service/SS/Pol/DUNLEAVY_Bureau-shaping.pdf. Eberl M. & Schwaiger M., 2005. Corporate reputation: disentangling the effects on financial performance. European Journal of Marketing, 39(7/8), pp.838–854. Friedman A.L. & Miles S., 2002. Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), pp.1–21. Heineman, Robert A., 1997. The world of the policy analyst: rationality, values, and politics. , Chatham House studies in political thinking. Holden, M. (1996). The Common Fisheries Policy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons . John P. & Jennings W., 2010. Punctuations and turning points in British policy: the policy agenda of the Queen’s speech, 1940–2005. British Journal of Political Science, 40(03), pp.561–586. John P. & Margetts H., 2003. Policy punctuations in the UK: fluctuations and equilibria in central government expenditure since 1951. Public Administration, 81(3), pp.411–432. John P., 2010. Group and network approaches. Analysing public policy, pp.57–79. Long, J. (2008). Enforcing the Common Fisheries Policy. Hobokenm, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Martin, Cathie J., 2000. Chapters 5 & 6. Stuck in neutral: business and the politics of human capital investment policy. Olsen, Johan P., 1983. Chapters 1 & 2. Organized democracy: political institutions in a welfare state : the case of Norway. Read More