Sharing responsibilities in Danish fisheries management—experiences and future directions

During the last decade, devolution of responsibilities of fisheries management has increasingly become an issue in the political debate. The CEC and national governments have expressed an interest in sharing responsibilities for fisheries management with stakeholders. This article investigates the dynamics and constraints of the devolution process in general and in relation to Danish demersal fisheries by answering the following questions: What are the important factors to consider with respect to sharing responsibilities in fisheries management; how can this delegation and/or devolution of responsibilities be institutionalised? And what kind of decisions should be delegated to stakeholders and to whom?     

Stakeholder objective preferences in Australian Commonwealth managed fisheries

Fisheries management is increasingly involving a wide range of stakeholders in the decision making process. However, in most fisheries, the set of management objectives are poorly defined, and the implicit importance placed on these objectives may vary considerably both between and within different stakeholder groups. This may lead to conflicts within management advisory groups where members from different stakeholder groups view potential management outcomes substantially differently, and inconsistencies in decision making when changes in stakeholder representation take place. In this paper, the institutional structure of fisheries management in Australia and the roles the different organisations play in shaping fisheries management plans are detailed. An explicit hierarchy of management objectives is developed in collaboration with key managers and policy makers. A large survey of stakeholders involved in Australian Commonwealth fisheries management was undertaken to determine stakeholder preferences relating to these objectives. The results highlight the differences in perspectives regarding the relative importance of the multiple objectives of fisheries management. While on average stakeholder preferences generally correspond with their expected preference set, the results also indicate that there is generally low coherence within stakeholder groups.     

Risk identification and perception in the fisheries sector: Comparisons between the Faroes,Greece, Iceland and UK

This paper presents the findings of risk identification and risk perception research conducted in relation to the fisheries systems of four distinct and diverse European countries: Faroes, Iceland, Greece and the UK. Risk research traditionally attempts to quantify the potential threat or consequences from a range of risk events or hazards. This research, however, adopted a social sciences perspective and so assumed that a risk event or hazard can mean different things to different people and that these perceptions are also context and culturally dependent. Risk perceptions were examined and risk registers developed in each country for a range of stakeholder groups. A ‘mental modelling’ approach was adopted in a series of qualitative interviews. Findings were examined in terms of a wide range of psychological, social and cultural risk theories. Differences in risk perceptions were noted between stakeholder groups and countries and contextual influences were examined such as the widely differing fisheries management systems used in each country. This research provides one of the first attempts to systematically evaluate risks and perceptions across a range of fisheries-systems. The findings support social science theories which argue that risk is a subjective, as opposed to objective, concept and that this subjectivity will therefore affect our attempts to assess and manage those hazards we think we can potentially influence or control.     

Trust in the fisheries scientific community

This paper explores the issue of “trust” in the fisheries science community, a key corollary of effective risk communication. It presents the findings of a survey undertaken in Iceland, Greece, Spain, United Kingdom and Faroe Islands during 2008. The findings reveal differing levels of trust and mistrust in the fisheries science community between countries and between stakeholder groups, demonstrating areas for future attention in the interests of improving fisheries science and management. As this paper explores, unfortunately the “trust” necessary for effective stakeholder cooperation and participation within current fisheries science is currently somewhat lacking. The cited reasons behind this lack of trust include: a lack of soundness, credibility, responsiveness, flexibility and stakeholder involvement, flawed data and weak science, poor communications and political and lobby group interference. Notable from the results is a lack of consensus on the existence of a common language and vision. It is evident, however, that certain aspects of fisheries science are strong contributors to trust and that there are opportunities for improvement.     

From user-groups to stakeholders? The public interest in fisheries management

Fisheries management has long been characterised by strong user-group involvement, created to enhance the legitimacy and proficiency of decisions. Due to perennial problems of overfishing and resource depletion, the privileged position of users are increasingly being challenged, and there have been calls for more inclusive and democratic institutions. Fish, it is argued, is a public resource and should be managed through institutional arrangements that take the public interest into account. Taking the demands for more inclusive and transparent management institutions as our starting point, the article addresses some of the issues emanating from a stakeholder approach to fisheries management. Against the backdrop of stakeholder theory, as it has been developed in the literature on business management, we attempt to identify—and classify—those with a legitimate stake in the fisheries. We also address some of the problems and complexities of stakeholder management, and conclude with a discussion of some of the central issues and challenges pertaining to the creation of more inclusive and transparent institutions in fisheries management.     

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.     

Management objectives of Queensland fisheries: Putting the horse before the cart

A review of future management arrangements for the Queensland East Coast Trawl fishery was undertaken in 2010 to develop a management plan for the next 10 years. A key question raised at the start of the review process was: what should the management plan achieve? As with fisheries management in most countries, multiple management objectives were implicit in policy statements, but were poorly specified in some areas (particularly social objectives) and strongly identified in others (e.g., an objective of sustainability). As a start to the management review process, an analysis of what objectives the management system should aim to achieve was undertaken. A review of natural resource management objectives employed internationally was used to develop a candidate list, and the objectives most relevant to the fishery were short-listed by a scientific advisory group. Additional objectives specific to Queensland fisheries management, but not identified in the international review, were also identified and incorporated into the objective set. The relative importance of the different objectives to different stakeholder groups was assessed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. As with other studies, the relative importance of the different objectives varied both within and between the different stakeholder groups, although general trends in preferences were observed.     

Moving beyond a top-down fisheries management approach in the northwestern Mediterranean: Some lessons from the Philippines

The management of fisheries resources in the northwestern Mediterranean is traditionally centralized and developed within the framework of coastal states and European Union common policies. In general, it has not been sufficiently effective in reversing the declining situation of fisheries resources and fishers in this region. This paper discusses the feasibility of moving away from a top-down approach in fisheries management towards a more participative and convergent mode of governance in the region. More specifically, the study focuses on MPAs as a fisheries management tool and evaluates their current establishment and management system in the French Mediterranean as a case study for the region. A brief review of the experiences on fisheries and MPA management in the Philippines is also presented to obtain insights on bottom-up and collaborative management approaches. Finally, possible opportunities for adopting a more decentralized and coordinated approach in fisheries management within the French socio-political system, and possibly in the northwestern Mediterranean region, are discussed. These include the existence of fishing community organizations in the region, such as the prud'homies in France and cofradias in Spain, starting with management strategies that are simpler to enforce and more acceptable to direct users, e.g., fishery reserves, and exploring co-management arrangements to manage fisheries at ecologically meaningful but operationally manageable scales as has been proposed by some development organizations. However, effective changes in the system would require major national policy and institutional reforms, social preparation and organizational strengthening which would take time and resources.     

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?     

Management systems in the EU fisheries

In the different proposals about fishing resources management systems there is a trend to consider that some incompatibilities exist between forms of management (public intervention or co-management) and the use of instruments based in creating market of fishing rights. In this paper, we will try to leave behind this incompatibility by means of a new concept of management system, which distinguishes accurately the instrument from the institutional framework under which the former is applied. We can see the usefulness of our concept in the European Union fisheries management. Although there is a common policy for all Member States, the way some countries have implemented the Community Regulations has changed the institutional framework which determines the fishermen's activity. The results of our analysis become more outstanding since The Green Paper on the Future of the Common Fisheries Policy emphasises the need to share with the fishermen the drawing-up of the fisheries policy.     

Constraints and solutions for managing Pacific Island sea cucumber fisheries with an ecosystem approach

The ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) is a holistic paradigm that considers stocks of exploitable species, marine ecosystems and stakeholders. Management agencies must strike a balance between their capacity constraints and the requisites of management measures. Most small-scale sea cucumber fisheries of Pacific Islands have been plundered while others are being opened to commercial exploitation. Data from fishery managers and a regional workshop were used to assess the current problems, institutional constraints and solutions to the management of sea cucumber fisheries in 13 Pacific Island countries (PICs). Technical capacity was often strong for some management actions such as developing marine reserves but weak for others, such as enforcement. Using multi-disciplinary indicators, half of the fisheries were diagnosed by their managers as being overfished or depleted, despite evidence of optimistic bias. Fishery governance varied greatly among the PICs, and co-management frameworks were not typical of any cultural region. Management objectives were prioritised differently among managers but most highly ranked was to protect ecological resilience. The fishery managers proposed different sets of regulatory measures and various management actions, such as surveys to collect socio-economic and fishery-dependent data, support for local governance and strong enforcement – all widely under-practised. Pacific sea cucumber fisheries exemplify how the transition to an EAF by management institutions must involve reorganisation of their technical and human-resource capacities among management tasks. Levies on exports need to be internalised to fund improved management. Management agencies should consider a shift in resources from developing marine reserves, conducting underwater surveys and aquaculture-based restocking to strengthening enforcement capacity, stakeholder involvement and communication with fishers. In concert with these actions, short fishing seasons, shortlists of allowable species and tighter enforcement at export points may serve to turn the tide on boom-and-bust exploitation and safeguard biodiversity.     

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.     

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.     

On the role of consulting in fisheries development

Fisheries development programmes should explicitly build capacity of local and regional consultants. These consultants should be integral components of strategies to make efficient use of expertise. Their importance as a source of expertise will increase as small fisheries departments reorient towards people-based approaches to management. They are presently undervalued and underdeveloped for several reasons, such as donor country preferences for using their own nationals and lack of support within their own countries and regions, often due to misconceptions regarding what is involved in being a self-employed consultant.     

Stakeholder participation in ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management: A synthesis from European research projects

In this synthesis article, we claim that institutional innovation is required for ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management (EBAFM), and that such innovation can best be achieved by engaging in a delicate process of societal decision making. Current instances of participation in fisheries shed light on the societal processes required for such institutional innovation. We apply the IBEFish analytical frame to examine findings from recent European research on participation in fisheries management at different jurisdictional levels. We distil several issues of major concern for institutional innovation towards EBAFM. These concern information management, legitimacy, social dynamics and costs, as well as aspects of cross-scale and cross-sector integration of fisheries governance.     

The added value of participatory modelling in fisheries management – what has been learnt?

How can uncertain fisheries science be linked with good governance processes, thereby increasing fisheries management legitimacy and effectiveness? Reducing the uncertainties around scientific models has long been perceived as the cure of the fisheries management problem. There is however increasing recognition that uncertainty in the numbers will remain. A lack of transparency with respect to these uncertainties can damage the credibility of science. The EU Commission's proposal for a reformed Common Fisheries Policy calls for more self-management for the fishing industry by increasing fishers' involvement in the planning and execution of policies and boosting the role of fishers' organisations. One way of higher transparency and improved participation is to include stakeholders in the modelling process itself. The JAKFISH project (Judgment And Knowledge in Fisheries Involving StakeHolders) invited fisheries stakeholders to participate in the process of framing the management problem, and to give input and evaluate the scientific models that are used to provide fisheries management advice. JAKFISH investigated various tools to assess and communicate uncertainty around fish stock assessments and fisheries management. Here, a synthesis is presented of the participatory work carried out in four European fishery case studies (Western Baltic herring, North Sea Nephrops, Central Baltic Herring and Mediterranean swordfish), focussing on the uncertainty tools used, the stakeholders' responses to these, and the lessons learnt. It is concluded that participatory modelling has the potential to facilitate and structure discussions between scientists and stakeholders about uncertainties and the quality of the knowledge base. It can also contribute to collective learning, increase legitimacy, and advance scientific understanding. However, when approaching real-life situations, modelling should not be seen as the priority objective. Rather, the crucial step in a science–stakeholder collaboration is the joint problem framing in an open, transparent way.     

A decade of ITQ-management in Icelandic fisheries: consolidation without consensus

Icelandic fisheries have been managed by individual transferable quotas (ITQs) for a decade but there is still no consensus about the quota issue. Distributional effects of ITQs, in terms of income distribution between owner and crew, and the vulnerability of fisheries communities short of quota, have been in the centre of the debate.The author discusses changes in stakeholder involvement in policy-making, conflicts of interest and legal disputes linked to the ITQ-system. By way of conclusion, some options for resolving conflicts and reaching consensus on the fisheries management issue are discussed.     

Natura 2000 and the European Common Fisheries Policy

The implementation of the Natura 2000 network of marine protected areas under the European Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) has far-reaching implications for fisheries. To date, no consistent approaches have been established to develop fisheries management measures in Natura 2000 areas, and no European member state has proposed any fisheries measures to the European Commission for consideration under the Common Fisheries Policy. Four key issues are identified in the relationship between fisheries and Natura 2000, and the possible role that the future Common Fisheries Policy could have in this context is discussed. There is a need (1) for a consistent framework to integrate scientific advice, stakeholder participation and management in the management process; (2) for a common methodology to prioritize conservation objectives, in particular for transboundary protected areas; (3) for a consistent framework to assess and evaluate fisheries impacts to define management measures; and (4) to define spatial properties for fisheries. The results from the projects EMPAS (Germany), FIMPAS (the Netherlands), and INDEMARES (Spain) and the Dogger Bank case are discussed.     

Community involvement in fisheries management: Experiences in the Gulf of Thailand countries

This paper examines the involvement of coastal communities in fisheries management among the countries of the Gulf of Thailand—Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand. Initiatives to decentralize management to local governing bodies, to utilize traditional management methods and to engage in community agreements to protect local resources are explored. An examination of recent experiences indicates some movement toward more local involvement in management. However, the study also leads to several suggestions for the future: in Vietnam and Cambodia, there is a need for significant legislation to control fisheries operations and greater clarity of the role of communities in management; in Malaysia, there is an overall need for more support to local fisheries management; and in Thailand, the need is for greater support of local-level enforcement and monitoring activities.