China's distant water fisheries management policy has made significant contributions to the development of distant water fisheries since 1985. Analyzing the evolution of China's distant water fisheries management policy is conducive to solving China's frequent IUU problems and promoting further development of sustainable fisheries. This paper first summarizes how China's distant water fisheries management policy has evolved, which can be divided into four stages: the start-up period (1985–1990), the rapid development period (1991–1997), the sustainable development period (1998–2007), and the optimization and adjustment period (2008-present). Then the characteristics of current distant water fisheries management are summarized, including how management has adapted to international rules, emphasize sustainable fisheries, diversification and facilitation of management methods. China's distant water fisheries management policy still faces severe challenges in terms of technology, marine rights, management system, industrial structure, and employee capabilities. Finally, this paper highlights the importance of attaching importance to science and technology, re-evaluating distant water fisheries subsidies based on environmental policies and IUU activities, establishing a polycentric governance mechanism with stakeholders at the core, improving the supervision system, and establishing overseas distant water fisheries bases to strengthen international cooperation.
Nowadays, it is widely agreed that traditional approaches to flood risk management—which focus on ‘defending against the water’—are no longer sufficient and that integrated flood risk management is required instead (Hartmann & Driessen, 2017; Merz et al., 2010; Pahl-Wostl, 2007; Warner et al., 2012; Woltjer & Al, 2007). In integrated flood risk management, traditional flood defense measures (e.g., building or strengthening dikes) are combined with measures that stress the ‘accommodation of the water’ (e.g., dike relocation); measures that take other land use functions (e.g., housing, recreation, and nature conservation), and the extent to which these measures increase local and regional spatial qualities, into account (Johnson & Priest, 2008; Nillesen & Kok, 2015; Van Herk et al., 2015). Whereas existing studies often focus on the policy instruments involved in the initiation and planning phases of integrated flood risk management (e.g., Busscher et al., 2019; Ran & Nedovic-Budic, 2017; Thieken et al., 2016), research into policy instruments in the implementation phase remains limited (see e.g., Moss, 2008). Implementation can be seen as the process that starts with the contracting of a project and ends when construction is finished.
In the Netherlands, the €2.3 billion Room for the River program is often considered the incarnation of the Dutch approach to integrated flood risk management (Jong & Van den Brink, 2017; Meyer, 2009; Van Buuren et al., 2010). The objective of the Room for the River program is twofold: the accommodation of higher flood levels, i.e., water safety, and improving the spatial quality of the riverine areas (Ruimte voor de Rivier, 2007). While much has already been learned from current research about the program (Rijke et al., 2012; Zevenbergen et al., 2015), research providing insight into the implementation of the Room for the River projects, and in particular the policy instruments used, is still scarce. Now that the Room for the River program has come to an end (Olde Wolbers et al., 2018), this provides the opportunity to analyze what policy instruments enable successful integrated flood risk management in the implementation phase.