Values,images, and principles: What they represent and how they may improve fisheries governance

Natural resource governance is expected to respond effectively and timely to dynamic environmental conditions, also in a manner that reflects social and political complexity of the system that it aims to govern. Values, images and principles that resource users and governing actors hold about how the world works represent a fundamental part of that complexity. These elements have indefinite form and meaning, may be incommensurable, competing and incompatible, and they often go unnoticed in governance discourse. This paper examines how values, images and principles are represented in a fisheries setting, and explores their diversity and ubiquity as well as the potential differences in the way they are conceived by various stakeholders. These characteristics are shown to give rise to the difficulties in policy planning and implementation, and create implications to power relations and overall governability of a fisheries system. The paper posits that governance challenges could be lessened if stakeholders' values, images, and principles are made explicit, understood, and articulated into the policy and decision-making process. It concludes with suggestions about future research steps.     

Limits of governability: Institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance

Drawing on some recent developments in so-called “interactive governance theory”, it is argued that fisheries and coastal governance is basically a relationship between two systems, which could be termed a “governing system” and a “system-to-be-governed.” The former system is social: it is made up of institutions and steering mechanisms. The latter system is partly natural, partly social: it consists of an ecosystem and the resources that it harbors, as well as a system of users and stakeholders who form political coalitions and institutions among themselves. Obviously, we need to be concerned with the relationship and interaction between the governing system and the system-to-be-governed, which forms a system in its own right. According to governance theory, these systems share similar structural attributes: they are diverse, complex, dynamic and vulnerable. In order for governance to work they must somehow be compatible, in order to be mutually responsive. This is not a matter of natural mechanism but of institutional design by societal actors such as legislative bodies, planning agencies and civic organizations—alone, or in concert. What conditions, mechanisms and institutions are conducive to creating a better rapport between the governing system and the system-to-be-governed? Before we can start this discussion, we need to rethink our basic assumptions of what governance is, what governors do, and what we can expect from governance. How do we get from where we are now to where we want to be? In order to accomplish this we need something other than an instrumental, rational model. We need “a technology of foolishness” that emphasizes institutional experimentation and learning by doing.     

Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem

Inspired by Rittel and Webber [Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 1973;4:155–69], it is argued that fisheries and coastal governance is confronted with problems that are inherently “wicked.” Problems are wicked (as opposed to “tame”) when they are difficult to define and delineate from other and bigger problems and when they are not solved once and for all but tend to reappear. Wicked problems have no technical solution, it is not clear when they are solved, and they have no right or wrong solution that can be determined scientifically. Instead, for wicked problems governance must rely on the collective judgment of stakeholders involved in a process that is experiential, interactive and deliberative. In this paper, the wicked problem is identified as a governability issue, recognizing that there are limitations to how rational and effective fisheries and coastal governance can possibly be. The paper offers a framework which could help us locate the wicked problems within the fisheries and coastal governance system, as well as examine their governability.     

Fragmentation in high seas fisheries: Preliminary reflections on a global oceans governance approach

Notwithstanding the wide range of actions taken to strengthen the legal regime of international fisheries, overexploitation and the risk of depletion of stocks have been strong concerns for decades. Indeed, the regime of international fisheries law is currently not rooted in sustainability, and it does not adequately take into consideration the impact of fishing activities on the wider marine environment. One of the main causes lies in fragmentation of international fisheries law: a lack of coordination between instruments and institutions, and gaps in effective coherent structures for fisheries management. Areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), including the high seas, are particularly prone to this lack of coordination and integration.One alternative to reach a durable management of high seas fisheries might be found in a ‘global oceans governance approach’. This paper explores how this approach could impact the fragmented regime of fisheries. It suggests that governance-based perspectives underline concepts rooted in adaptability and interactions, concepts that suggest to approach international fisheries law not as a static set of rules but as an evolutive process. Reflecting on an overarching goal of coordination and possible management challenges in ABNJ provides an interesting starting point to develop a comprehensive understanding of the impacts of oceans governance on the fragmented legal regime of high seas fisheries. We now need to see how to give effect to governance, a task that remains, at this point, a work in progress.     

Results based management in fisheries: Delegating responsibility to resource users

While the notion of results based management has been devoted recent attention in the context of reforming European fisheries management, it remains unclear what it entails. A conceptual model of results based management in fisheries is proposed as a way for public authorities to delegate specific management and documentation responsibilities to resource users. The model comprises three defining features: (1) That authorities define measurable objectives for the utilization of fisheries resources; (2) that resource users are made responsible for achieving these objectives and for (3) providing documentation that allows for an audit of the extent to which they are met. Selected cases are used to illustrate these features. Rationales and prospects of introducing results based management as an alternative in a European fisheries management context are discussed, giving consideration to how it may be pursued under the reformed common fisheries policy.     

Leaning on user-groups: The role of civil society in fisheries governance

Fisheries have long been managed through public–private partnerships based on collaboration between government and user-groups. The alleged benefits of involving the latter—as representatives of civil society—are a management system that is more flexible and legitimate than one based exclusively on top–down command and control. A question that is rarely addressed is whether civil society is up to the task. Are voluntary associations fit—‘technically’ and ‘democratically’—to take on management responsibilities? Assessing the pros and cons of involving civil society in fisheries governance requires a closer look at the role of user-groups in public policy-making. This paper attempts to do that by examining certain aspects of the Norwegian system of fisheries management, focusing—in particular—on the role of its most prominent civil society player: the Norwegian Fishers’ Association. The association has long been a privileged partner, virtually monopolizing the attention and goodwill of government. How has this been justified, and does it still serve its original purpose? As the fishery has changed, so—we contend—has the association: from something akin to a public interest group into what is essentially a ‘trade union’ pursuing the economic interests of its most powerful members. How and why did this change—in goals and priorities—come about, and is it tenable that this particular partnership continues? What lessons, if any, can be drawn from the Norwegian case about the pros and cons of user involvement, interactive governance and the role of civil society in fisheries management?     

Putting sustainable fisheries on the map? Establishing no-take zones for North Sea plaice fisheries through MSC certification

Spatial approaches gain importance in the governance of marine practices and their environmental impacts. Harmful effects of fishing gear on marine habitats is seen as a considerable spatial conflict that needs to be resolved. One of the most severe measures is the instalment of ‘no take zones’. In the certification programme of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) this measure is considered to be a last resort. MSC provides a telling example of ‘informational governance’, that is, a mode of environmental governance wherein information plays a centripetal but often also contested role. Such governing through information is different from conventional state-led decision-making processes. This paper assesses the way informational processes in MSC have affected the settlement of the spatial conflict between plaice fisheries and sensitive habitats in the North Sea. It concludes that information is a formative force in bringing about sustainable fisheries but leads to different outcomes even if the target species and fishing methods are very much alike. This is due to the (nationally) specific informational interactions between non-state actors, especially fishermen and environmental Non-Governmental Organizations. Even though information in marine governance should be science-based, other information (brought in by these actors) is extremely relevant in designing spatial measures.     

Co-management of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) fisheries

The countries of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) have a relatively poor record of fisheries management and the need to reform fisheries governance is urgent. There is now increasing interest in getting fishers and other stakeholders more involved in management through co-management and community-based management approaches. The purpose of this paper is to examine the potentials of co-management as an alternative fisheries management strategy for the countries in the CARICOM region. Co-management is found to have potential but there will need to be capacity-building and institutional strengthening of fisheries departments, fishers and NGOs to participate in co-management. Pilot projects should be initiated to gain practical experience in co-management.     

The effectiveness of community-based governance of small-scale fisheries,Ngazidja island,Comoros

Conventional top-down, exogenous approaches to fisheries management have been ineffective in more traditional and small-scale fisheries. Yet, there remains little understanding of the effectiveness of alternative approaches. This case-study of small-scale fisheries in the Comoros examines how effective local fishing associations are at managing common fisheries resources, and provides some understanding of the underlying characteristics of effectiveness. Emphasis is placed on assessing governance effectiveness according to characteristics appropriate within the local context, and on suggesting ways to enhance local institutional strength and capacity to manage resources. Qualitative methods were used to collect data on local governance structures and management tools, fishers’ knowledge and beliefs, and perceptions of the status of fisheries resources in four major fishing villages on the island of Ngazidja. Results show that fisheries management in the Comoros is informally shared between the State fisheries department, a national fishing syndicate, and village fishing associations. Village fishing associations play an active role in fisheries management by collectively designing, monitoring, and enforcing local regulations. Compliance with local regulations is high, primarily due to participatory decision-making, community-monitoring, and strong feelings of solidarity among fishers. Perceptions of the benefits of these regulations are also high. This suggests that by working within these pre-established informal management systems, collective governance of common pool resources can be achieved within communities, and feelings of empowerment and shared responsibility among resource users can lead to effective management practices.     

Participatory practices in fisheries across Europe: Making stakeholders more responsible

Drawing on an EU-funded project titled “Sharing responsibilities in fisheries management” this paper assesses the institutional landscape of fisheries management in a number of European countries, with a particular emphasis on stakeholder involvement in regulatory decision-making. What are their roles and responsibilities in the chain of governance? What are the specific characteristics of each country, and what is similar and what is different as compared with other sectors? Although there is a move towards devolvement and decentralisation in some European countries, there is quite an ambivalence regarding such reforms in other countries. These differences in stakeholder involvement are partly a result of institutional traditions within each country, but also a reflection of how management authorities struggle with the dilemmas pertaining to such reforms of participatory practices. Thus, we argue that even within a reformed fisheries management system that allows greater participation of stakeholder groups, there can hardly be one European model that fits all.     

Category, narrative, and value in the governance of small-scale fisheries

Since the 1970s, small-scale fisheries have had an important place in fisheries social science and in fisheries management. While there has been substantial discussion of what constitutes the category of small-scale fisheries, its considerable ambiguity is nevertheless often passed over. This paper argues that while the category of scale fisheries can be best understood in terms of scale, the underlying reason for the power of the category lies in the values of social justice and ecological sustainability that it has come to represent in response to dominant high modern narratives of change. Fisheries governance may better be served by prioritising these values rather than by making a fetish out of small-scale fisheries.     

Stakeholders’ participation in the fisheries management decision-making process: Fishers’ perceptions of participation

Public participation is a key ingredient of good governance and there are many advantages of involving stakeholders in the decision-making process. The European Commission identified the lack of stakeholder involvement as one of the major weaknesses of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). As such, the 2002 Reform of the CFP aimed to improve its system of governance by increasing the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making. Over the last decade, Scottish inshore waters have seen an increase in management measures focused on involving fishers, delegating responsibilities and decentralizing management. The present document investigates commercial inshore fishers’ perceptions of participation in the decision-making process and attitudes towards a new management regime – the Inshore Fisheries Groups (IFGs) – which aims to increase participation in and decentralization of inshore fisheries management. A survey was conducted, through face-to-face interviews, and ordered logistic and multiple regression models created to identify which characteristics influence fishers’ perceptions and attitudes. The present analysis concluded that, 5 years subsequent to the reform of the CFP, the majority of inshore fishers perceive themselves not to be consulted or involved in the decision-making process. However, and despite the fact that fishers are not completely certain of the potential of the IFGs to increase their participation in the management process, they have an overall positive attitude towards their implementation.     

Transboundary research in fisheries

Spatial boundaries have become an indispensable part of regimes and tools for regulating fisheries, with examples including marine protected areas, regional fisheries management organizations and Exclusive Economic Zones. Yet, it is also widely acknowledged that boundaries are a social construct, which may be resisted by both fishers and fish ecology. The ensuing spatial and institutional mismatches have been shown to frustrate management efforts, exacerbating issues of non-compliance and ultimately leading to conflicts and overfishing. Interestingly, the often static and rigid nature of these boundaries has also led to a concomitant research interest in ‘transboundary’. This paradoxical situation of more boundary-setting entailing more transboundary thinking warrants a deeper understanding about boundaries and the role of transboundary research in fisheries. The aims of this review article are twofold: (1) a theoretical clarification on the meanings and uses of spatial boundaries drawing on geographical “boundary studies” literature; and (2) a construction of a typology that outlines how transboundary research is being articulated and envisioned. Together, the study reveals that transboundary scholarship in fisheries are mostly related to resources, fleets, trade and governance aspects and that dealing with the “boundary paradox” encompasses re-incorporating, re-scaling and re-imagining of boundaries. This article provides a conceptual basis for reflecting upon boundaries in world's fisheries and opens up discussions for a more nuanced boundary application that can better cope with multi-level interactions and dynamicity.     

Contemporary challenges: globalisation,global interconnectedness and that ‘there are not plenty more fish in the sea’.: Fisheries,Governance and globalisation: is there a relationship?

The article offers an analysis of the globalisation debate in the context of international fisheries governance. It argues that there are significant transformations in fisheries policy-making in international economics, international institutions and international law-making which alter state authority in fisheries management. Thus, decision-making at international, regional and national levels is increasing, displaced from the state level. This ‘multi-level’ decision-making is exemplified in the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, 1995. The Code represents a sound instrument of fisheries governance, capable of responding to contemporary global transformations. Changes are illustrated by comparing the Code and the Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 1995, in the areas of international economics, institutions and law-making. Reference is made to interaction between a range of actors and to formal and informal procedures. In conclusion, a process of ‘fisheries governance’ is confirmed, emerging from a new environment of international fisheries relations.     

A communicative turnaround: Shifting the burden of proof in European fisheries governance

Current and prospective changes in European fisheries governance suggest not only a “communicative turn” but a complete turnaround in the relationships between government, science, and the fishing industry. At the heart of these changes are the so-called Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) and the idea of partially replacing the burden of proof on the resource users (fishing industry). This change entails new forms of interaction between fishers’ representatives, other stakeholders (e.g. NGOs), policy-makers and scientists. By drawing on experiences from the Baltic Sea RAC, the analysis focuses on two aspects of fisheries governance: institutional design and the process of negotiation and decision-making. It is concluded that to allow for a partial shift in the burden of proof, stakeholder organisations such as RACs need to adapt both institutionally as well as process-wise to enable a more constructive and responsible fisheries governance system.     

Constraints on community participation in salmon fisheries management in Northwest Russia

Salmon fishing used to be the primary source of income in many rural areas of Arkhangelsk oblast in northwest Russia. People who settled in the area received a name Pomory, from Russian po moriu, meaning by sea, because their subsistence activities became marine fishing and hunting and seafaring. Local fisheries have undergone significant changes as post-Soviet Russia embraced the market economy and the state introduced fishing concessions. The current Russian law only allows fishing for salmon through officially registered recreational or commercial fisheries. Both these options are often either unavailable or unaffordable to rural dwellers, which leaves them with limited or no legal access to their traditional salmon fisheries. There has been a growing concern for protecting communities’ fishing rights among wider society in Arkhangelsk oblast. City activists promoted Pomory identity and appealed to the Russian government to grant Pomory an indigenous status to secure their access to fisheries. Although Pomor activism did not reach most of its proclaimed goals, it has contributed to promoting the image of Arkhangelsk oblast as a homeland to Pomor fishing. This image has played an important part in what Arkhangelsk authorities have called socially-oriented fisheries management. Officials have made good attempts to better accommodate rural communities’ access to fishing resources. Yet, these attempts have failed to include fishermen as active participants in the process. This paper looks at constraints on community participation in fisheries management in Russia. It considers both historical and contemporary reasons for the low participation of local community in fisheries management.     

Assessing the significance of the economic impact of Marine Conservation Zones in the Irish Sea upon the fisheries sector and regional economy in Northern Ireland

This paper highlights the tension between advocacy for ‘Blue growth’ in maritime policy and efforts to safeguard future economic growth via the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. In 2015, policy-makers withdrew three of four proposed Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) in the Irish Sea from consideration for designation, due to concerns that they could significantly impact on the fisheries sector in Northern Ireland because they overlap with prawn fishing grounds in the Irish Sea. Although research has quantified the potential impact upon fishing vessels, none has quantified the impact upon the fisheries sector nor assessed the significance of this impact. Arguably, MCZ designations (or lack thereof) based on the ‘significance’ of an impact require robust underpinning evidence. This paper reports the findings of an Economic Impact Assessment, which has quantified the impact of a decline in landings upon the Northern Ireland fisheries sector and regional economy (data which is currently absent from the evidence base for the MCZ designation process in England). It finds that this will incur job losses in three fishing ports in Northern Ireland, but is unlikely to have a significant impact upon Northern Ireland's fisheries sector and regional economy in terms of jobs and Gross Value Added (GVA). In the worst case, the resulting economic impact is a decrease of £1.05–1.12 m/year GVA in Northern Ireland, which is 1.1% of the contribution of fishing and fish processing to the regional economy. Economic significance assessments, using this methodology, may be useful in supporting the evidence base underpinning MCZ designation and other aspects of marine planning.     

Governance structures and sustainability in Indian Ocean sea cucumber fisheries

Good governance is paramount to the sustainability of fisheries, and inclusiveness of stakeholder groups has become the centerpiece in the ethos of managing small-scale fisheries. Understanding the effect of governance network structures on fishery sustainability can help guide governance to achieve desired outcomes. Data on resource users, fishing methods, governance networks and classifications of stock health were compiled for 17 sea cucumber fisheries in the Indian Ocean. The subjective influence of the actors and the complexity of governance networks on the health of wild stocks were analyzed. The fisheries differed widely in their resource users, fishing methods and governance networks. Little correspondence was found between the number of nodes in the governance networks and the health (exploitation status) of wild stocks. Government entities dominated the networks but neither their relative influence in the networks nor their proportionate contribution to the number of entities in the networks greatly affected stock health. These findings do not refute the benefits of inclusive governance, but rather suggest that multiple other factors (e.g. inadequate regulations, weak enforcement, high number of fishers) are also likely to play a role in influencing sea cucumber fishery sustainability. These factors must be tackled in tandem with good governance.