Abstract
Our study explores governing of European eel in Sweden. The paper aims to analyze and tentatively explain the degree of policy coherence between different political levels and discuss implications for management. The study focuses on the Advocacy Coalition Framework and a qualitative methodology. Results show that EU and Swedish eel fishery policies are based on partly different beliefs about prioritized groups, problem descriptions, and policy preferences. Swedish policy is more considerate of fishery, attentive to the problems of hydropower, and hesitant toward fishery closures, than is the EU. These differences can be understood by the positions and power of the two advocacy coalitions competing for influence at the national level. National decisions align more with the coalition that includes fishery organizations, the Swedish Board of Agriculture, and coastal municipalities than with the beliefs of the coalition involving environmental-and sport fishing organizations and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.