Feedback blog 3 (Laurens Boulens and Marco Meloni)

Laurens B, 

I really liked your article. You gave a very detailed and extensive description of all the elements in the SES. However, using Ostrom you dissected the situation very clearly, but in my eyes did not analyze it. You didn’t try to answer a question nor did you write a conclusion about the area. It wasn’t more than a description. However, the entire blog was nice, because in contrast your take on Friedman together with the earlier description actually concluded everything nicely. 

Marco Meloni,

The first part of your blog was comprehensive. The topic is a traditional SES and a very difficult one to analyze at best. I liked your background research and this did provide some extra insight in the situation. However, it is my personal feeling that you did not provide strong arguments in your analysis. ‘The CFP has not managed to induce compliance’. How come? The provision of infrastructure is not a major point according to you, but can’t this be linked to the inability of inducing compliance? If there is more infrastructure at place to check fishing regulation, might this not increase the success by CFP? Finally, a conclusion in this part is also missing, which is always useful when making an analysis. Overall, I believe you should have invested more time in backing up your argumentations or even finding information on the points addressed. 

The second part I though was very original and creative out of the box thinking. Even though, the usability of your proposition is virtually zero, the idea behind it gives a clear statement about how far we have to take it in order to achieve sustainable measures.