Sustainable Fishery Systems [2 ed.] 1119511798, 9781119511793

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
Preface and Guide to the Book
Acknowledgements
Part I Fishery Systems
Chapter 1 Introducing Fishery Systems
1.1 Sustainability and Resilience
1.2 Rationale for a Systems Approach
1.3 Fishery Systems as Social-Ecological Systems
1.4 Depicting Fishery Systems
1.4.1 Fishing Effort
1.4.2 Adding Dynamics
1.4.3 Adding Complexity
1.4.4 The Fishery System
1.4.5 Alternatives
1.5 Characterising Fishery Systems
1.5.1 Small-Scale Versus Large-Scale Fishery Systems
1.5.2 Spatial Scale and Time Scale
1.5.3 Other Approaches to Characterising Fishery Systems
1.6 Complexity
1.7 Next Steps
Chapter 2 The Natural System: The Fish
2.1 What Is Caught in Fishery Systems?
2.1.1 Fishes
2.1.2 Shellfish
2.1.3 Characteristics
2.2 Spatial Distribution of Fished Resources
2.3 Fish Dynamics
2.3.1 Single-Species Dynamics
2.3.2 Multi-Species Dynamics
Chapter 3 The Natural System: Fishery Ecosystems
3.1 Ecosystems
3.1.1 Aquatic/Fishery Ecosystems
3.1.2 A Typology of Fishery Ecosystems
3.2 Biodiversity
3.3 The Physical–Chemical Environment
3.3.1 The Winds
3.3.2 Ocean Currents
3.3.3 Upwellings
3.3.4 Other Relatively Localised Phenomena
3.3.5 Physical Features
3.4 Dynamics of Fishery Ecosystems and the Biophysical Environment
Chapter 4 The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers
4.1 Fishers and Fishworkers
4.1.1 A Typology of Fishers
4.1.2 Women in Fishing
4.1.3 Fishworkers in the Post-Harvest Sector
4.1.4 Fisher Organisations
4.2 Fishing Methods
4.2.1 A Typology of Fishing Methods
4.2.2 The Choice of Fishing Method
4.3 Fisher and Fleet Dynamics
4.3.1 Dynamics of Fishing Effort
4.3.2 Capital Dynamics and Fishing Capacity
4.3.3 Technological Dynamics
4.3.4 Fleet Dynamics
Chapter 5 The Human System: Post-Harvest Aspects and Fishing Communities
5.1 The Post-Harvest Sector of the Fishery
5.1.1 Processing
5.1.2 Marketing and Markets
5.1.3 Distribution and Trade
5.1.4 Consumers
5.1.5 Food Security
5.2 Fishing Households and Communities
5.2.1 Households
5.2.2 Communities
5.3 The Socioeconomic Environment
5.3.1 Links of Fishery Systems and Their Socioeconomic Environment
5.3.2 Labour
5.4 Post-Harvest and Fishing Community Dynamics
5.4.1 Dynamics of Markets and Consumer Demand
5.4.2 Dynamics of Communities and the Socioeconomic Environment
Part II The Fishery Governance and Management System
Chapter 6 Fishery Governance
6.1 Rationale for Governance and Management
6.1.1 Open Access
6.1.2 The Need for Management
6.1.3 The Need for Participatory Management
6.2 Governance and Management
6.3 Fishery Values and Objectives
6.3.1 A Portfolio of Fishery Objectives
6.3.2 Objectives, Priorities, and Conflict
6.4 Fishery Management Institutions
6.4.1 Types and Roles of Institutions
6.4.2 The Choice of Institutions
6.4.3 Examples of Institutions
6.5 Governance of International Fisheries
6.6 Legal Framework
6.6.1 Legal Pluralism
6.7 Dynamics of Fishery Governance
Chapter 7 Fishery Management
7.1 Time Scales of Management
7.2 Spatial Scales of Management
7.2.1 International Coordination
7.2.2 Decentralisation/Devolution
7.3 Appropriate Fishing Effort and Catch Levels
7.3.1 The Yield-Effort Curve
7.3.2 The Gordon–Schaefer Graph
7.3.3 Fishery Objectives Influence the Choice of Effort Levels
7.4 Developing a Portfolio of Fishery Management Measures
7.5 Implementation at the Operational Level
7.6 Fishery Enforcement
7.7 A Survey of Fishery Management Measures
7.7.1 Input (Effort) Controls
7.7.2 Output (Catch) Controls
7.7.3 Technical Measures
7.7.4 Ecologically Based Management
7.7.5 Subsidies
7.8 Dynamics of Fishery Management
Chapter 8 Fishery Development
8.1 Rationale for Fishery Development
8.2 Objectives of Fishery Development
8.3 Strategic Choices in Fishery Development
8.3.1 New Fisheries
8.3.2 Existing Fisheries
8.3.3 Integrated Development
8.4 Targeting Fishery Development
8.4.1 Needs Assessment
8.4.2 Positive Signs
8.4.3 Other Considerations
8.5 Options for Fishery Development
8.5.1 Direct Support to Fishing Activities
8.5.2 Institutional Enhancement
8.5.3 Training and Human Resource Development
8.5.4 Economics and Planning
8.5.5 Scientific, Assessment, Statistical, and Information Support
8.5.6 Fisheries Management and Monitoring/Control/Surveillance
8.5.7 Post-Harvest Support
8.6 Participatory Fishery Development
Chapter 9 Fishery Knowledge
9.1 The Nature of Fishery Knowledge
9.2 The Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples, Fishers, and Communities
9.2.1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)
9.2.2 Indigenous Knowledge
9.2.3 Fisher Knowledge and Local Knowledge
9.3 Connecting Fisher/Local/Indigenous Knowledge with Fishery Science/Research
9.4 Knowledge Within Institutions
9.4.1 Governments
9.4.2 International Agencies
9.4.3 Universities
9.4.4 Private Sector and Nongovernmental Organisations (NGOs)
9.5 Fishery Knowledge: The Natural System
9.5.1 Stock Assessment
9.6 Fishery Knowledge: The Human System
9.7 The Nature of Knowledge Production
9.7.1 Disciplinary Knowledge
9.7.2 Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary, Transdisciplinary Approaches
9.7.3 Pure (Basic) and Applied (Targeted) Knowledge
9.8 The Structure of Knowledge Production
9.8.1 Organized by Species
9.8.2 Organized by Function
9.8.3 Organized on a Geographical/Ecosystem Basis
9.9 Dynamics of Fishery Knowledge
Part III Three Major Challenges in Fishery Systems
Chapter 10 Uncertainty in Fishery Systems
10.1 Sources of Uncertainty in Fishery Systems
10.1.1 Sources in the Natural System
10.1.2 Sources in the Human System
10.2 A Typology of Uncertainty
10.2.1 Introduction: The Stock–Recruitment Relationship
10.2.2 Randomness
10.2.3 Uncertainties in Data and Parameters
10.2.4 Structural Uncertainty
10.3 Linking Uncertainty and Dynamics
Chapter 11 Conflict in Fishery Systems
11.1 Conflict over Priorities: Fishery Paradigms
11.1.1 The Conservation Paradigm
11.1.2 The Rationalisation Paradigm
11.1.3 The Social/Community Paradigm
11.1.4 Fishery Paradigms in Practice: Efficiency and Allocation
11.2 A Typology of Fishery Conflicts
11.2.1 Fishery Jurisdiction
11.2.2 Management Mechanisms
11.2.3 Internal Allocation
11.2.4 External Allocation Conflicts
Chapter 12 Attitudes (The Story of a Fishery Collapse)
12.1 The Cod Collapse Experience
12.1.1 The Collapse
12.1.2 The Aftermath
12.1.3 Understanding the Collapse
12.1.4 Recovery?
12.1.5 The Future
12.2 Attitudes Underlying the Cod Collapse
12.2.1 The Role of the Regulator
12.2.2 Blame for the Collapse
12.2.3 The Burden of Proof
12.2.4 Conservation Can Wait
12.2.5 The Illusion of Certainty and the Fallacy of Controllability
12.2.6 Synthesis on Fishery Attitudes
Part IV Modern Strategies for Fishery Systems
Chapter 13 Sustainability and Resilience
13.1 Sustainability
13.2 Resilience
13.3 The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
13.4 Components of Sustainability and Resilience
13.5 Sustainability and Resilience of Institutions
13.5.1 Institutional Sustainability
13.5.2 Institutional Resilience
13.5.3 Institutional Effectiveness
13.6 Sustainability and Resilience within the Fishery System
13.6.1 Biodiversity
13.6.2 Fishing Fleets, Capacity, and Subsidies
13.6.3 Efficiency
13.6.4 Livelihood Diversity
13.6.5 Post-Harvest and Fishing Communities
13.6.6 Fishery Objectives and Principles
13.6.7 Managing Conflict
13.7 Assessing Sustainability and Resilience in Fishery Systems
13.7.1 Sustainability Indicators
13.7.2 Resilience Assessment and Indicators
13.7.3 Developing a Framework of Indicators
Chapter 14 Adaptive, Robust, and Precautionary Management
14.1 Uncertainty and Risk
14.2 Risk Assessment
14.3 Risk Management: Analytical Approaches
14.4 Adaptive Management and Robust Management
14.4.1 Adaptive Management
14.4.2 Structural Uncertainty and Robust Management
14.5 Moving to Robust, Adaptive Management
14.5.1 Avoiding the Illusion of Certainty
14.5.2 Avoiding the Fallacy of Controllability
14.5.3 Avoiding Lack of Robustness (Using a Management Portfolio)
14.6 The Precautionary Approach and the Burden of Proof
14.6.1 Approach Versus Principle
14.6.2 Implementing the Precautionary Approach
14.6.3 The Burden of Proof
14.6.4 Possible Applications of the Precautionary Approach and the Burden of Proof
Chapter 15 The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries
15.1 Rationale for an Ecosystem Approach
15.2 History of an Ecosystem Approach
15.3 Scope of an Ecosystem Approach
15.4 The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF)
15.5 Implementing EAF
15.5.1 Principles
15.5.2 Entry Points
15.5.3 Resources for Implementation
15.6 Implementing EAF: Human Dimensions
15.6.1 Components of Human Dimensions
15.6.2 Human Dimensions Across Scales
Chapter 16 Rights-Based Approaches to Fisheries Management
16.1 The Rationale for Fishery Rights
16.2 Use Rights
16.3 Management Rights
16.4 Use Rights and Management Rights in Context
16.5 Rights Versus Ownership
16.6 The Commons
16.7 Human Rights
16.8 Practicalities of Use Rights
16.9 Forms of Use Rights
16.9.1 Customary Tenure/Territorial Use Rights in Fishing (TURFs)
16.9.2 Limited Entry
16.9.3 Effort (Input) Rights
16.9.4 Catch (Output) Quotas
16.9.5 Community-Based Use Rights
16.10 Use Rights Issues: Initial Allocation
16.11 Use Rights Issues: Transferability
16.11.1 Efficiency
16.11.2 Social Cohesion
16.11.3 Concentration of Rights
16.12 Choosing a Use Rights System
Chapter 17 Co-management and Community-Based Management
17.1 Fishery Co-management
17.1.1 Who Is Involved in Co-management?
17.1.2 Goals of Co-management
17.1.3 Forms of Co-management
17.1.4 Levels of Co-management
17.1.5 Co-management and Components of Fishery Management
17.1.6 Discussion
17.2 Community-Based Fishery Management
17.2.1 What Is Community-Based Fishery Management?
17.2.2 Rationale for Community-Based Fishery Management
17.2.3 What Is Involved in Community-Based Fishery Management?
17.2.4 Experiences with Community-Based Fishery Management
17.2.5 Community-Based Conservation
17.2.6 Community Science
17.2.7 Factors of Success in Community-Based Fishery Management
Part V Fisheries and the Bigger Picture
Chapter 18 Fisheries and Marine Protected Areas
18.1 Fishery Closed Areas
18.2 Nongovernmental (Informal) Protected Areas
18.3 Marine Protected Areas and OECMs
18.4 International Agreements
18.5 Types of MPAs and OECMs
18.5.1 No-Take MPAs
18.5.2 Zoned MPAs
18.5.3 Local/Community MPAs
18.5.4 Large-Scale MPAs
18.5.5 MPA Networks
18.6 Design of MPAs
18.7 Fishery Benefits and Costs of MPAs and OECMs
18.7.1 Examples of Possible Benefits of MPAs
18.7.2 Examples of Possible Costs of MPAs
18.8 Interactions of MPAs and OECMs with Fisheries
18.8.1 Objectives
18.8.2 Policy Linkages
18.8.3 Governance
18.8.4 Rights
18.8.5 Participation and Co-management
18.8.6 Community-Based Approaches
18.8.7 Knowledge
18.8.8 Livelihoods
18.9 MPAs as a Fisheries Management Tool
Chapter 19 Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation
19.1 Introduction
19.2 A Brief History of Biodiversity Conservation in a Fishery Context
19.3 Fisheries and Endangered Species
19.3.1 Bycatch
19.3.2 Turtles
19.3.3 Marine Mammals
19.3.4 Seahorses
19.4 Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation
19.4.1 The Fisheries ‘Stream’ and the Biodiversity Conservation ‘Stream’
19.4.2 Tensions Between the Fisheries and Biodiversity Streams
19.4.3 Common Ground of Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation
19.5 Opportunities Across Scales for Linking Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation
19.5.1 Global
19.5.2 Regional
19.5.3 National
19.5.4 Local
19.6 Incentives and Opportunities
19.7 CBD and IPBES
Chapter 20 Fisheries and Multi-Sectoral Management
20.1 Fisheries, Competing Uses and the Need for Management of Multiple Sectors
20.2 Integrated Management
20.3 Marine Spatial Planning
20.4 Ocean Zoning
20.5 Blue Economy
20.6 Some Common Features of Multi-Sectoral Approaches
20.6.1 Rationale
20.6.2 Institutional Framework
20.6.3 Spatial Delimitation
20.6.4 Scale
20.7 Fisheries and Multi-Sectoral Management
20.7.1 Benefits of Linking Fisheries and Multi-Sectoral Management
20.7.2 Concerns in Fisheries about Multi-Sectoral Management
20.7.3 Linking Fisheries and Multi-Sectoral Management
Chapter 21 Fisheries and Climate Change
21.1 Impacts of Climate Change
21.1.1 Physical, Chemical, and Biological Impacts of Climate Change
21.1.2 Effects of Climate Change on Human Dimensions of the Fishery System
21.1.3 Differential Impacts of Climate Change
21.2 Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity
21.3 Responses to Climate Change: Mitigation and Adaptation
21.4 Responses to Climate Change: Mitigation
21.5 Responses to Climate Change: Adaptation
21.5.1 Types of Adaptation
21.5.2 Community-Based Adaptation
21.5.3 Differential Impacts and Benefits of Climate Adaptation
21.5.4 Adaptation of Fishery Management and Governance to Climate Change
21.5.5 Making Management and Governance more Adaptive, Flexible, and Robust
Part VI Conclusions
Chapter 22 Sustaining Fisheries into the Future
22.1 A Review of Fishery Systems
22.2 A Review of Fishery Sustainability and Resilience
22.3 Making Fishery Governance and Management Effective
22.3.1 Institutions
22.3.2 Robust, Adaptive, and Precautionary Management
22.3.3 Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries
22.3.4 Rights
22.3.5 Co-management
22.3.6 Community-Based Management
22.4 The Bigger Picture Around the Fishery System
22.4.1 Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation
22.4.2 Fisheries, MPAs, and OECMs
22.4.3 Fisheries and Multi-Sectoral Management
22.4.4 Fisheries and Climate Change
22.5 A Closing Note
Appendix A Atlantic Canada’s Groundfish Fishery System
A.1 The Fish
A.2 The Ecosystem and the Biophysical Environment
A.3 The Fishers
A.4 The Post-Harvest Sector
A.5 Fishing Communities
A.6 The Socioeconomic Environment
A.7 Fishery Policy and Planning
A.8 Management Institutions
A.9 Fishery Management
A.10 Fishery Development
A.11 Fishery Knowledge
Appendix B Models of Fishery Systems
B.1 Integrated Fishery Models
B.2 Bioeconomic Models
B.3 A Behavioural Model
B.4 An Optimisation Model
B.5 Summary
Appendix C Developing a Framework of Fishery Indicators
C.1 Process for Indicator Development
C.1.1 Participants
C.1.2 Indicator Identification
C.1.3 Classification
C.1.4 General Quality Criteria
C.1.5 Context-Specific Criteria
C.1.6 Data-Specific Criteria
C.2 Ecological, Socioeconomic/Community, and Institutional Sustainability Indicators
C.2.1 Aggregation
References
Index
EULA

Citation preview

Sustainable Fishery Systems Second Edition

Anthony Charles

Saint Mary’s University Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

This edition first published 2023 © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Edition History Blackwell Science Ltd (1e, 2001) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions. The right of Anthony Charles to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with law. Registered Office(s) John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-­on-­demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats. Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data Applied for: Hardback ISBN: 9781119511793 Cover Design: Wiley Cover Image: Courtesy of Anthony Charles Set in 9.5/12.5pt STIXTwoText by Straive, Pondicherry, India

iii

Contents Preface and Guide to the Book  xv Acknowledgements  xviii Part I  Fishery Systems  1 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4 1.4.5 1.5 1.5.1 1.5.2 1.5.2.1 1.5.2.2 1.5.3 1.6 1.7

Introducing Fishery Systems  3 Sustainability and Resilience  3 Rationale for a Systems Approach  6 Fishery Systems as Social-Ecological Systems  7 Depicting Fishery Systems  10 Fishing Effort  10 Adding Dynamics  11 Adding Complexity  12 The Fishery System  13 Alternatives  14 Characterising Fishery Systems  18 Small-Scale Versus Large-Scale Fishery Systems  18 Spatial Scale and Time Scale  21 Spatial Scales  21 Time Scales  22 Other Approaches to Characterising Fishery Systems  23 Complexity  24 Next Steps  25

2 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.1.1 2.1.1.2 2.1.1.3

The Natural System: The Fish  27 What Is Caught in Fishery Systems?  28 Fishes  30 Inland (Freshwater) Fish  31 Pelagic Marine Fish  31 Demersal Marine Fish  32

iv

Contents

2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2

Shellfish  33 Characteristics  37 Spatial Distribution of Fished Resources  38 Fish Dynamics  41 Single-Species Dynamics  41 Multi-Species Dynamics  45

3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.4

The Natural System: Fishery Ecosystems  48 Ecosystems  48 Aquatic/Fishery Ecosystems  50 A Typology of Fishery Ecosystems  52 Biodiversity  55 The Physical–Chemical Environment  58 The Winds  58 Ocean Currents  59 Upwellings  61 Other Relatively Localised Phenomena  61 Physical Features  62 Dynamics of Fishery Ecosystems and the Biophysical Environment  62

4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.1.1 4.2.1.2 4.2.1.3 4.2.1.4 4.2.1.5 4.2.1.6 4.2.2 4.2.2.1 4.2.2.2 4.2.2.3 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4

The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers  65 Fishers and Fishworkers  65 A Typology of Fishers  66 Women in Fishing  70 Fishworkers in the Post-Harvest Sector  73 Fisher Organisations  73 Fishing Methods  75 A Typology of Fishing Methods  75 Seines/Encircling Gear  77 Trawls and Other Towed/Dragged Gear  77 Gill Nets and Entangling Nets: Drift and Static Gear  77 Traps and Pots  78 Lines  78 Other Methods  78 The Choice of Fishing Method  79 Biological  80 Economic  80 Social and Governance  80 Fisher and Fleet Dynamics  80 Dynamics of Fishing Effort  81 Capital Dynamics and Fishing Capacity  83 Technological Dynamics  85 Fleet Dynamics  86

Contents

5 5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.2.1 5.1.2.2 5.1.3 5.1.3.1 5.1.3.2 5.1.4 5.1.4.1 5.1.4.2 5.1.5 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.2.1 5.3.2.2 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2

The Human System: Post-Harvest Aspects and Fishing Communities  89 The Post-Harvest Sector of the Fishery  89 Processing  92 Marketing and Markets  95 Marketing  95 Markets  96 Distribution and Trade  98 Distribution  98 Trade  98 Consumers  99 Consumer Preferences  99 Consumer Demand  100 Food Security  101 Fishing Households and Communities  102 Households  102 Communities  105 The Socioeconomic Environment  108 Links of Fishery Systems and Their Socioeconomic Environment  108 Labour  108 Labour Mobility  109 Effects on the Fishery  110 Post-Harvest and Fishing Community Dynamics  111 Dynamics of Markets and Consumer Demand  111 Dynamics of Communities and the Socioeconomic Environment  112

Part II  The Fishery Governance and Management System  115 6 6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.2 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.5 6.6

Fishery Governance  117 Rationale for Governance and Management  117 Open Access  118 The Need for Management  118 The Need for Participatory Management  119 Governance and Management  123 Fishery Values and Objectives  125 A Portfolio of Fishery Objectives  127 Objectives, Priorities, and Conflict  129 Fishery Management Institutions  131 Types and Roles of Institutions  131 The Choice of Institutions  132 Examples of Institutions  132 Governance of International Fisheries  137 Legal Framework  138

v

vi

Contents

6.6.1 6.7

Legal Pluralism  139 Dynamics of Fishery Governance  140

7 7.1 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.7.1 7.7.1.1 7.7.1.2 7.7.1.3 7.7.1.4 7.7.1.5 7.7.1.6 7.7.2 7.7.2.1 7.7.2.2 7.7.2.3 7.7.2.4 7.7.2.5 7.7.3 7.7.3.1 7.7.3.2 7.7.3.3 7.7.3.4 7.7.4 7.7.4.1 7.7.5 7.8

Fishery Management  142 Time Scales of Management  143 Spatial Scales of Management  143 International Coordination  145 Decentralisation/Devolution  145 Appropriate Fishing Effort and Catch Levels  147 The Yield-Effort Curve  147 The Gordon–Schaefer Graph  149 Fishery Objectives Influence the Choice of Effort Levels  150 Developing a Portfolio of Fishery Management Measures  153 Implementation at the Operational Level  154 Fishery Enforcement  156 A Survey of Fishery Management Measures  157 Input (Effort) Controls  158 Limited Entry  158 Limiting the Capacity per Fisher or per Vessel  158 Limiting the Intensity of Operation  158 Limiting Time Fishing  158 Limiting the Location of Fishing  159 Challenges with Input Controls  160 Output (Catch) Controls  160 Total Allowable Catch  161 Individual Quotas  162 Community Quotas  162 Escapement Controls  163 Challenges with Output Controls  163 Technical Measures  164 Gear Restrictions  165 Size Limits  166 Closed Areas  166 Closed Seasons  167 Ecologically Based Management  168 Taxes and Royalties  169 Subsidies  170 Dynamics of Fishery Management  172

8 8.1 8.2

Fishery Development  174 Rationale for Fishery Development  174 Objectives of Fishery Development  175

Contents

8.3 8.3.1 8.3.2 8.3.3 8.4 8.4.1 8.4.2 8.4.3 8.5 8.5.1 8.5.2 8.5.3 8.5.4 8.5.5 8.5.6 8.5.7 8.6

Strategic Choices in Fishery Development  178 New Fisheries  178 Existing Fisheries  179 Integrated Development  180 Targeting Fishery Development  181 Needs Assessment  181 Positive Signs  181 Other Considerations  182 Options for Fishery Development  183 Direct Support to Fishing Activities  183 Institutional Enhancement  183 Training and Human Resource Development  183 Economics and Planning  184 Scientific, Assessment, Statistical, and Information Support  184 Fisheries Management and Monitoring/Control/Surveillance  184 Post-Harvest Support  185 Participatory Fishery Development  185

9 9.1 9.2 9.2.1 9.2.2 9.2.3 9.3

Fishery Knowledge  187 The Nature of Fishery Knowledge  188 The Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples, Fishers, and Communities  189 Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)  190 Indigenous Knowledge  190 Fisher Knowledge and Local Knowledge  192 Connecting Fisher/Local/Indigenous Knowledge with Fishery Science/ Research  195 Knowledge Within Institutions  198 Governments  198 International Agencies  199 Universities  199 Private Sector and Nongovernmental Organisations (NGOs)  200 Fishery Knowledge: The Natural System  200 Stock Assessment  201 Stock Assessment Process  201 Evolution of Stock Assessment: Single Species and Multi-Species  202 Fishery Knowledge: The Human System  205 The Nature of Knowledge Production  208 Disciplinary Knowledge  208 Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary, Transdisciplinary Approaches  209 Multidisciplinary  209 Interdisciplinary  209 Transdisciplinary  209

9.4 9.4.1 9.4.2 9.4.3 9.4.4 9.5 9.5.1 9.5.1.1 9.5.1.2 9.6 9.7 9.7.1 9.7.2 9.7.2.1 9.7.2.2 9.7.2.3

vii

viii

Contents

9.7.3 9.8 9.8.1 9.8.2 9.8.3 9.9

Pure (Basic) and Applied (Targeted) Knowledge  211 The Structure of Knowledge Production  211 Organized by Species  211 Organized by Function  212 Organized on a Geographical/Ecosystem Basis  213 Dynamics of Fishery Knowledge  213 Part III  Three Major Challenges in Fishery Systems  215

10 10.1 10.1.1 10.1.2 10.2 10.2.1 10.2.2 10.2.3 10.2.4 10.3

Uncertainty in Fishery Systems  217 Sources of Uncertainty in Fishery Systems  218 Sources in the Natural System  218 Sources in the Human System  218 A Typology of Uncertainty  219 Introduction: The Stock–Recruitment Relationship  219 Randomness  220 Uncertainties in Data and Parameters  221 Structural Uncertainty  222 Linking Uncertainty and Dynamics  224

11 11.1 11.1.1 11.1.2 11.1.3 11.1.4 11.2 11.2.1 11.2.2 11.2.3 11.2.4 11.2.4.1 11.2.4.2 11.2.4.3

Conflict in Fishery Systems  227 Conflict over Priorities: Fishery Paradigms  229 The Conservation Paradigm  230 The Rationalisation Paradigm  230 The Social/Community Paradigm  231 Fishery Paradigms in Practice: Efficiency and Allocation  232 A Typology of Fishery Conflicts  234 Fishery Jurisdiction  235 Management Mechanisms  236 Internal Allocation  236 External Allocation Conflicts  237 Domestic Versus Foreign Fisheries  237 Fishers Versus Fish Farming (Aquaculture)  238 The Fishery Versus Competing Industries  239

12 12.1 12.1.1 12.1.2 12.1.3 12.1.4 12.1.5 12.2 12.2.1

Attitudes (The Story of a Fishery Collapse)  242 The Cod Collapse Experience  242 The Collapse  242 The Aftermath  243 Understanding the Collapse  244 Recovery?  245 The Future  246 Attitudes Underlying the Cod Collapse  246 The Role of the Regulator  247

Contents

12.2.2 12.2.3 12.2.3.1 12.2.3.2 12.2.4 12.2.5 12.2.6

Blame for the Collapse  248 The Burden of Proof  250 Stock Assessment  250 Fishing Gear  251 Conservation Can Wait  252 The Illusion of Certainty and the Fallacy of Controllability  254 Synthesis on Fishery Attitudes  256 Part IV  Modern Strategies for Fishery Systems  259

13 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.5.1 13.5.2 13.5.3 13.6 13.6.1 13.6.2 13.6.3 13.6.4 13.6.4.1 13.6.4.2 13.6.4.3 13.6.5 13.6.6 13.6.7 13.7 13.7.1 13.7.2 13.7.3

Sustainability and Resilience  261 Sustainability  262 Resilience  265 The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)  268 Components of Sustainability and Resilience  268 Sustainability and Resilience of Institutions  273 Institutional Sustainability  273 Institutional Resilience  274 Institutional Effectiveness  275 Sustainability and Resilience within the Fishery System  277 Biodiversity  278 Fishing Fleets, Capacity, and Subsidies  279 Efficiency  282 Livelihood Diversity  283 Encourage Multi-Species Fisheries  284 Encourage Multiple Sources of Livelihood for Fishers  284 Diversify (Broaden the Base of) the Fishery-Dependent Economy  284 Post-Harvest and Fishing Communities  285 Fishery Objectives and Principles  285 Managing Conflict  286 Assessing Sustainability and Resilience in Fishery Systems  287 Sustainability Indicators  288 Resilience Assessment and Indicators  294 Developing a Framework of Indicators  296

14 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.4.1 14.4.1.1 14.4.1.2 14.4.2

Adaptive, Robust, and Precautionary Management  298 Uncertainty and Risk  298 Risk Assessment  299 Risk Management: Analytical Approaches  300 Adaptive Management and Robust Management  303 Adaptive Management  303 Flexibility  304 Adaptive Management Concepts and Methods  305 Structural Uncertainty and Robust Management  306

ix

x

Contents

14.5 14.5.1 14.5.2 14.5.3 14.6 14.6.1 14.6.2 14.6.3 14.6.4

Moving to Robust, Adaptive Management  307 Avoiding the Illusion of Certainty  307 Avoiding the Fallacy of Controllability  308 Avoiding Lack of Robustness (Using a Management Portfolio)  309 The Precautionary Approach and the Burden of Proof  313 Approach Versus Principle  314 Implementing the Precautionary Approach  315 The Burden of Proof  316 Possible Applications of the Precautionary Approach and the Burden of Proof  316 14.6.4.1 The Stock–Recruitment Relationship  317 14.6.4.2 Over-Fishing Versus the Environment  317 14.6.4.3 Habitat Protection  318 15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.5.1 15.5.2 15.5.3 15.6 15.6.1 15.6.1.1 15.6.1.2 15.6.1.3 15.6.1.4 15.6.1.5 15.6.2

The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries  321 Rationale for an Ecosystem Approach  321 History of an Ecosystem Approach  322 Scope of an Ecosystem Approach  325 The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF)  328 Implementing EAF  330 Principles  331 Entry Points  332 Resources for Implementation  333 Implementing EAF: Human Dimensions  334 Components of Human Dimensions  335 Social  335 Cultural  336 Economic  336 Political  336 Legal and Institutional  336 Human Dimensions Across Scales  337

16 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.8 16.9 16.9.1 16.9.2 16.9.3

Rights-Based Approaches to Fisheries Management  341 The Rationale for Fishery Rights  341 Use Rights  342 Management Rights  345 Use Rights and Management Rights in Context  346 Rights Versus Ownership  350 The Commons  351 Human Rights  353 Practicalities of Use Rights  358 Forms of Use Rights  359 Customary Tenure/Territorial Use Rights in Fishing (TURFs)  359 Limited Entry  363 Effort (Input) Rights  364

Contents

16.9.4 16.9.4.1 16.9.4.2 16.9.4.3 16.9.5 16.10 16.11 16.11.1 16.11.2 16.11.3 16.12

Catch (Output) Quotas  366 Individual Quotas and ITQs  367 Concerns with ITQs  369 Community Quotas  370 Community-Based Use Rights  371 Use Rights Issues: Initial Allocation  374 Use Rights Issues: Transferability  375 Efficiency  376 Social Cohesion  377 Concentration of Rights  377 Choosing a Use Rights System  379

17 17.1 17.1.1 17.1.2 17.1.3 17.1.3.1 17.1.3.2 17.1.3.3 17.1.4 17.1.5 17.1.6 17.2 17.2.1 17.2.2 17.2.3 17.2.4 17.2.5 17.2.6 17.2.7

Co-management and Community-Based Management  382 Fishery Co-management  382 Who Is Involved in Co-management?  383 Goals of Co-management  386 Forms of Co-management  386 Fisher–Government Co-management  387 Community-Based Co-management  388 Multi-Stakeholder Co-management  391 Levels of Co-management  393 Co-management and Components of Fishery Management  395 Discussion  397 Community-Based Fishery Management  397 What Is Community-Based Fishery Management?  398 Rationale for Community-Based Fishery Management  399 What Is Involved in Community-Based Fishery Management?  400 Experiences with Community-Based Fishery Management  401 Community-Based Conservation  403 Community Science  406 Factors of Success in Community-Based Fishery Management  407 Part V  Fisheries and the Bigger Picture  411

18 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.5.1 18.5.2 18.5.3 18.5.4

Fisheries and Marine Protected Areas  413 Fishery Closed Areas  413 Nongovernmental (Informal) Protected Areas  414 Marine Protected Areas and OECMs  415 International Agreements  417 Types of MPAs and OECMs  418 No-Take MPAs  419 Zoned MPAs  419 Local/Community MPAs  421 Large-Scale MPAs  422

xi

xii

Contents

18.5.5 18.6 18.7 18.7.1 18.7.2 18.8 18.8.1 18.8.2 18.8.3 18.8.4 18.8.5 18.8.6 18.8.7 18.8.8 18.9

MPA Networks  422 Design of MPAs  423 Fishery Benefits and Costs of MPAs and OECMs  424 Examples of Possible Benefits of MPAs  425 Examples of Possible Costs of MPAs  425 Interactions of MPAs and OECMs with Fisheries  426 Objectives  427 Policy Linkages  428 Governance  428 Rights  429 Participation and Co-management  429 Community-Based Approaches  431 Knowledge  432 Livelihoods  432 MPAs as a Fisheries Management Tool  433

19 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.3.1 19.3.2 19.3.3 19.3.3.1 19.3.3.2 19.3.3.3 19.3.4 19.4 19.4.1 19.4.2 19.4.3 19.5

Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation  437 Introduction  437 A Brief History of Biodiversity Conservation in a Fishery Context  437 Fisheries and Endangered Species  439 Bycatch  440 Turtles  441 Marine Mammals  442 Baleen Whales  442 Dolphins  443 Seals  444 Seahorses  444 Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation  445 The Fisheries ‘Stream’ and the Biodiversity Conservation ‘Stream’  446 Tensions Between the Fisheries and Biodiversity Streams  447 Common Ground of Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation  448 Opportunities Across Scales for Linking Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation  449 Global  449 Regional  451 National  451 Local  452 Incentives and Opportunities  453 CBD and IPBES  454

19.5.1 19.5.2 19.5.3 19.5.4 19.6 19.7 20 20.1 20.2

Fisheries and Multi-Sectoral Management  456 Fisheries, Competing Uses and the Need for Management of Multiple Sectors  456 Integrated Management  459

Contents

20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.6.1 20.6.2 20.6.3 20.6.4 20.7 20.7.1 20.7.1.1 20.7.1.2 20.7.1.3 20.7.2 20.7.2.1 20.7.2.2 20.7.2.3 20.7.2.4 20.7.2.5 20.7.3 20.7.3.1 20.7.3.2 20.7.3.3 20.7.3.4 20.7.3.5 20.7.3.6 20.7.3.7 20.7.3.8

Marine Spatial Planning  462 Ocean Zoning  464 Blue Economy  466 Some Common Features of Multi-Sectoral Approaches  467 Rationale  467 Institutional Framework  467 Spatial Delimitation  468 Scale  468 Fisheries and Multi-Sectoral Management  468 Benefits of Linking Fisheries and Multi-Sectoral Management  468 Dealing with Externalities  469 Highlighting the Fishery Voice  469 Spatial Management  469 Concerns in Fisheries about Multi-Sectoral Management  470 Access and Power  470 Funding  470 Time Constraints  470 Dilution  471 Environmental Concerns  471 Linking Fisheries and Multi-Sectoral Management  473 Objectives  473 Values  473 Boundaries  474 Spatial and Organisational Scale  475 Institutions  477 Human Angles and Participatory Approaches  477 Benefits and Costs  478 Knowledge  479

21 21.1 21.1.1 21.1.2 21.1.3 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.5.1 21.5.2 21.5.3 21.5.4 21.5.5

Fisheries and Climate Change  481 Impacts of Climate Change  481 Physical, Chemical, and Biological Impacts of Climate Change  482 Effects of Climate Change on Human Dimensions of the Fishery System  482 Differential Impacts of Climate Change  485 Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity  486 Responses to Climate Change: Mitigation and Adaptation  487 Responses to Climate Change: Mitigation  489 Responses to Climate Change: Adaptation  490 Types of Adaptation  492 Community-Based Adaptation  494 Differential Impacts and Benefits of Climate Adaptation  496 Adaptation of Fishery Management and Governance to Climate Change  498 Making Management and Governance more Adaptive, Flexible, and Robust  500

xiii

xiv

Contents

Part VI  Conclusions  503 22 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.3.1 22.3.2 22.3.3 22.3.4 22.3.5 22.3.6 22.4 22.4.1 22.4.2 22.4.3 22.4.4 22.5

Sustaining Fisheries into the Future  505 A Review of Fishery Systems  505 A Review of Fishery Sustainability and Resilience  506 Making Fishery Governance and Management Effective  507 Institutions  507 Robust, Adaptive, and Precautionary Management  508 Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries  509 Rights  509 Co-management  510 Community-Based Management  510 The Bigger Picture Around the Fishery System  511 Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation  511 Fisheries, MPAs, and OECMs  512 Fisheries and Multi-Sectoral Management  512 Fisheries and Climate Change  513 A Closing Note  514

Appendix A

Atlantic Canada’s Groundfish Fishery System  516

Appendix B Models of Fishery Systems  524 Appendix C

Developing a Framework of Fishery Indicators  538 References  547 Index  630

xv

Preface and Guide to the Book Decades have passed since the original edition of this book appeared, early in the 2000s. I am pleased to say that the content of that book has stood the test of time – the various themes that were covered in it remain valid today. That said, a great deal has happened over the decades. There has been widespread analytical focus on social-­ecological systems, and a global policy focus on ocean and biodiversity conservation. Those developments reinforce the crucial nature of the two areas emphasised in the original book – using systems approaches and moving towards sustainable fisheries. Along those lines, the emergence of conservation tools such as marine protected areas, and management tools such as marine spatial planning, has been so extensive that their interaction with fisheries needs to be examined. And without doubt, the dire worldwide threats of climate change have major impacts on fishery systems in many ways. Further, there has been an unprecedented spotlight in recent decades on small-­scale fisheries around the world, with what is likely the most important fishery document in that time period being the international Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-­ Scale Fisheries developed by FAO. This ties in with an increasing recognition of the impressive role fishers, fishworkers, and fishing communities play in managing their fishery resources and conserving their local aquatic environments. Related to this has been a major shift in how we consider the knowledge needed for fishery decision-­making – while in the past, the focus might have been on ‘fishery research’ we now see it is at least equally from the traditional, fisher, and community knowledge held by those engaged in the fishery. Shifts in fishery governance to more engagement and participation support these shifts over time. All the above newly prominent considerations call out for attention in a book such as this, and the second edition of Sustainable Fishery Systems covers them all. It has been a joy to write this second edition. Not all the time, mind you, but certainly overall. I imagine that writing any book is a labour of love, and this is no exception. What you have before you is in some ways a culmination of interests I have had, throughout my career, in the holistic and systematic analysis of fisheries, and in seeking out approaches to improving the sustainability and resilience of fisheries. I have sought, in writing this, to produce something accessible to everyone interested in looking at fisheries from an integrated perspective and in exploring the various routes to more sustainable fisheries. I hope that this would include undergraduate and graduate

xvi

Preface and Guide to the Book

students from various disciplines, as well as professionals in the fishery field, whether ­academics, those in science and management, or those within fisher organisations and the fishery sector itself. With that in mind, the aim here is to present a fairly comprehensive coverage of the many aspects of fishery systems, what fisheries are all about, and where they are heading (or should be heading). So, the content and organisation reflect the diverse nature of ­fisheries, the components of fisheries and their changes over time, the fishery governance and management system, the challenges in fishery systems and modern approaches to dealing with them, and the links of fisheries to major elements beyond the fishery. The ­various chapters of the book can be viewed as pieces of the puzzle, all adding up to give a full sense of the fishery system and how it can be sustained today. The following gives a short guide to the contents. . . ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Part I of the book (Chapters 1–5) focuses on Fishery Systems, their structure, and dynamics. This begins in Chapter 1 with an overview of fishery systems, emphasising how these systems are depicted, and how they are characterised. Chapters 2 and 3 provide an overview of the natural system: the fish, the ecosystems, and the biophysical environment. Chapters 4 and 5 explore the human system, including the fishers and fishworkers, the post-­harvest sector, households and communities, and the broader socioeconomic environment. Each of Chapters 2–5 discusses both the structure of the corresponding component of the fishery system, and its dynamics – how it changes over time. Part II of the book (Chapters 6–9) focuses on the Fishery Governance and Management System, providing a basis on the values, objectives, tools, and approaches that go into this – with Chapters 6 and 7 covering those two topics of governance and management, followed by Chapter 8 on ideas of fishery development, and Chapter 9 on the knowledge-­ building (and research) in fisheries. Part III of the book (Chapters  10–12) examines Three Major Challenges in Fishery Systems, namely (Chapter 10) the ubiquitous presence of uncertainty in fisheries, the various forms this uncertainty takes, and the connection between uncertainty and risk, (Chapter 11) the major role conflict plays in fishery systems, along with a typology of fishery conflicts, and (Chapter 12) the problems that can arise when those in the fishery have poor attitudes, and specifically the story of how such attitudes led to the massive collapse of Canada’s Atlantic cod fishery. Part IV of the book (Chapters  13–17) moves from challenges to solutions, namely ‘Modern Strategies for Fishery Systems’. The discussion begins in Chapter  13 with an examination of the nature of sustainability and resilience, and how to do sustainability assessment. Chapter 14 focuses on approaches to living with uncertainty through the use of adaptive management, robust management and a Precautionary Approach to fishery decision-­making. Chapter  15 discusses the benefits of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries, inherently based on a systems approach. Chapter 16 presents human rights and fishing rights (use rights and management rights, guiding the access to and use of fishery resources) as key ingredients for sustainability and resilience. Then Chapter 17 examines the widespread move to fishery co-­management and the longstanding and expanding role of community-­based management. Part V of the book (Chapters  18–21) looks at ‘Fisheries and the Bigger Picture’  –  the ­interactions of fisheries (and fishery governance/management) with four of the biggest

Preface and Guide to the Book

●●

drivers of change in today’s fisheries, ones from beyond the fishery system per se. These four are (Chapter 18) marine protected areas and ‘other effective area-­based conservation measures’ (OECMs), with a focus on their fishery interactions; (Chapter 19) biodiversity conservation, how its governance interacts with that of fisheries, and specific challenges of dealing with endangered species; (Chapter 20) multi-­sectoral management of oceans and other aquatic areas, including integrated management and marine spatial planning; and (Chapter 21) the omnipresent threat of climate change, and how responses in the form of mitigation and adaptation interact with fishery systems. Finally, Part VI of the book (Chapter 22) provides conclusions and a review of the key messages of the book.

A key goal for the book is to be widely accessible. The style of presentation is generally informal, with the aim of making the text easy to read. Technical aspects are sometimes placed in boxes, and mathematical details are either omitted, or placed in separate boxes or appendices. In order to be as accessible as possible, some topics are presented at a relatively basic rather than ‘expert’ level. For example, most of Chapters 2 and 3 will not be new to those familiar with biological and oceanographic aspects of fisheries, and similarly Chapters 4 and 5 will not be new to those familiar with the human dimensions of fisheries. Those familiar with certain topics are welcome to skip over the chapters (or sections of chapters) that cover those topics. The book is written in a non-­disciplinary manner. Each chapter, rather than focusing on a single discipline, draws on material from a range of disciplines. There are abundant references provided for those wishing to explore topics in further depth, and considerable use is made of ‘boxes’ throughout the book, often as case studies or more in-­depth illustrations of particular points, or as optional side-­trips from the main text. In many cases, the boxes are not referred to specifically in the text itself, but each box is titled, so the reader can decide whether to read the content or not, depending on the topic. The reader may wonder about the order in which topics appear in the book, and whether it is crucial to follow that order in reading. The answer is that the chapters can generally be read in any order desired – with four exceptions. Chapter 1 introduces the major ideas of the book and really should be read first. Chapter 6 provides a natural opening to Part II on the Fishery Governance and Management System. Similarly, Chapter 13 properly opens Part IV on ‘Modern Strategies for Fishery Systems’. And Chapter 22, the concluding chapter, can be read either last, as intended, or by itself, if the reader wishes to have a rapid sense of the ‘key messages’ of the book. While otherwise the order is not critical, the reader will see, in places, comments about how the current discussion is linked to what is coming up later in the book, or how it relates to what has come before, in previous chapters. Welcome to Sustainable Fishery Systems. I hope you find this book not only useful but also stimulating and perhaps even provocative. May 2023

Anthony Charles Saint Mary’s University Halifax, Canada

xvii

xviii

Acknowledgements I owe a debt of gratitude to many people. I am truly fortunate to have worked with so many wonderful colleagues, students, and collaborators over the years. Around the time the original edition of Sustainable Fishery Systems was published, I began a multi-­decade part of my career that engaged in a close and transdisciplinary way with many in Indigenous organizations and communities, fisher organizations and communities, and nongovernmental organizations – primarily on themes of community-­based fishery management, fishery governance, and community conservation. I am so grateful to all of those colleagues: Randy Angus, Sadie Beaton, Arthur Bull, Dan Edwards, Dawn Foxcroft, Don Hall, Peter Irniq, Russ Jones, Tawney Lem, Marla MacLeod, Sharmalene Mendis-­Millard, Richard Nuna, Ken Paul, Sherry Pictou, Maria Recchia, Hubert Saulnier, Kevin Squires. Four special individuals have played crucial roles in guiding and supporting me over the years. Colin Clark inspired me from the very beginning of my career, leading me to focus on fisheries and to do so in an interdisciplinary manner. Elisabeth Mann Borgese was very much a role model for me, in her deep caring for the ocean and ocean users, showing how to balance the local and the global, and protection for the natural world and for human communities. Serge Garcia is a broad-­thinking individual with whom I’ve had countless discussions and published together extensively, and from whom I continue to learn a great deal. Fikret Berkes has been, and continues to be, a much-­appreciated mentor and guide, a strong supporter, and a colleague I love working with, in many productive projects. I would also like to highlight Sherry Pictou who has taught me so much about Indigenous issues and analyses, and Jake Rice, for the many insights he has shared on national and international fisheries. I am grateful as well to Arthur Bull, John Kearney, Chris Milley, and Melanie Wiber for helping me learn the ropes of community-­based fisheries, and to my many collaborators at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) for years of productive connections. Several colleagues provided particular help with certain chapters, whether in the form of insightful reviews of chapters or giving extensive general guidance on a topic. This book would be far inferior without their contribution, and I would like to gratefully acknowledge them, while taking sole responsibility for any errors. The individuals are as follows, chapter by chapter: Chapter 1: Serge Garcia, Daniel Lane; 2,3: Bruce Hatcher, Jeff Hutchings, Brad deYoung; 4: Svein Jentoft, John Kearney, Sherry Pictou; 5: Melanie Wiber, 6: Derek Armitage, Fikret

Acknowledgements

Berkes, David VanderZwaag; 8: Minerva Arce-­Ibarra, Brian Davy; 9: Fikret Berkes, Jeff Hutchings, Ken Paul, Michael Sinclair; 11: Fikret Berkes; 12: Jake Rice, Michael Sinclair; 13: Chris Béné, Fikret Berkes, Heather Boyd, Angel Herrera, Jeff Hutchings, Gary Newkirk; 14: Kevern Cochrane, Michael Fogarty; 15: Kevern Cochrane, Cassandra de Young, Michael Fogarty, Serge Garcia, Jon Lien; 16: Maarten Bavinck, Parzival Copes, Serge Garcia, Ralph Townsend, Melanie Wiber, Rolf Willmann; 17: Fikret Berkes, Arthur Bull, Jennifer Graham, Melanie Wiber, John Kearney; 18: Lena Westlund, Silvia Salas, Jessica Sanders; 19: Serge Garcia, Jake Rice; 21: Daniela Kalikoski, Juan Carlos Seijo. Small-­scale fisheries throughout: Nicole Franz, Lena Westlund, Rolf Willmann. I have worked very closely with a wide range of colleagues in writing books, journal articles, and public reports over the course of my career. Every time that happens, and there have been many such times, I learn a great deal. I am grateful to all these co-­authors for their ideas and insights, many of which undoubtedly found their way into this book. As always, any errors are my own. Here is the extensive list of co-­authors, and I am sorry if I have missed anyone: Emelita Agbayani Renato Agbayani John Abraham Max Agüero Steve Alexander Eddie Allison Carol Amaratunga Tissa Amaratunga Randy Angus Joe Appiott Minerva Arce-­Ibarra Derek Armitage Robert Arthur Natalie Ban Hu Baotong Manuel Barange Devin Bartley Maarten Bavinck Jennifer Beckensteiner John Beddington Evelyn Belleza Chris Béné Cheryl Benjamin Nathan Bennett Samantha Berdej Fikret Berkes Alicia Bermudez Paul Boudreau Heather Boyd

Theo Brainerd Yvan Breton Arthur Bull Chris Burbidge Michael Butler Mark Butler Mauricio Castrejón Joseph Catanzano Omer Chouinard Patrick Christie Ratana Chuenpagdee Colin Clark Scott Coffen-­Smout Parzival Copes Mel Cross Iain Davidson-­Hunt Brad de Young Cassandra de Young Libby Dean Phil Dearden Paul Degnbol Ana Carolina Esteves Dias Cathy Dichmont Daniela Diz Rod Dobell Nancy Doubleday Bruce Downie Dan Edwards Alison Evans

Lucia Fanning Michael Fogarty Nicole Franz Kim Friedman Serge Garcia Maria Gasalla Razieh Ghayoumi Exequiel González Hugh Govan Jennifer Graham Leslie Grattan Chen Hailiang Marcus Haward Amy Heim John Helliwell Michael Henderson Angel Herrera Shannon Hicks Amber Himes-­Cornell Karla Infante Ramírez Simon Jennings Svein Jentoft Derek Johnson Michel Kaiser Daniela Kalikoski John Kearney Ahmed Khan Marloes Kraan Annie Lalancette

xix

xx

Acknowledgements

Daniel Lane Amanda Lavers Bertrand Le Gallic Jennifer Leith Marc Léopold Philip Levin Rachel Long Laura Loucks Pamela Mace Alison Macnaughton Mitsutaku Makino Marc Mangel Michael Margolick Melissa Marschke Jack Mathias Leigh Mazany Ian McAllister Patrick McConney Kathleen Miller Chris Milley EJ Milner-­Gulland Dan Mombourquette Hermie Montalvo Gordon Munro Cintia Nascimento Nopparat Nasuchon

Prateep Nayak Alfredo Ortega Jose Padilla Sean Pascoe Barbara Paterson Daniel Pauly Carolyn Peach Brown Ian Perry Randall Peterman Sherry Pictou Evelyn Pinkerton Ryan Plummer Robert Pomeroy Tavis Potts Melina Puley Maria Recchia Bill Reed Jake Rice Murray Rudd Silvia Salas Jessica Sanders Arif Satria Hubert Saulnier Juan Seijo Carlos Cristiana Seixas Merle Sowman

Dale Squires Kevin Squires Paul Starr Robert Stephenson Bozena Stomal Rashid Sumaila Larissa Sweeney Chris Taggart Olivier Thébaud Ralph Townsend Peter Tyedmers Raul Villanueva-­Poot Nireka Weeratunge Jean-­Yves Weigel Peter Wells Dirk Werle Lena Westlund Alan White George White Melanie Wiber Rolf Willmann Kate Wilner Xiongzhi Xue Chiwen Yang Becca Zimmerman

I am grateful as well for the wonderful collaborations and interactions with the following: Megan Bailey Kevern Cochrane Cathy Conrad Brian Davy Luciana de Araujo Gomes Alice R. de Moraes Roger Doyle Dachanee Emphandu Maren Headley

Karla Infante Ramírez Camila Islas Alvez Dominique Levieil Elisabeth Mann Borgese Philile Mbatha Rodrigo Menafra Ransom Myers Brenda Parlee Cristina Pita

Jeremy Pittman Ameyali Ramos Kaitlyn Rathwell Wayne Rice Trudy Sable Ann Shriver Kristen Walker-­Painemilla

I want to express my great thanks to all my research assistants, over the years, who provided invaluable support in the preparation of this book. A special note of thanks to Shannon Hicks for a wide range of support and to Larissa Sweeney for great assistance with the book’s figures.

Acknowledgements

Cheryl Benjamin Kristina Benoit Chris Burbidge Erica Escobar Shannon Hicks

Patrick Larter Trymore Maganga Robynique Maynard Nicole McLearn Erin Rankin

Ashley Shelton Larissa Sweeney Meagan Symington Rebecca Zimmerman

I appreciate the support of Wiley, (Rebecca Ralf, Antony Sami, Kerry Powell, Rosie Hayden, Joss Everett, Karthick Elango, Manju Pasupathy) and for the original edition, Blackwell Science (notably Richard Miles and Nigel Balmforth, as well as that of series ­editor Tony Pitcher). Finally, my greatest appreciation goes to my wife, Beth Abbott, for her longstanding and patient support of my work, and my now-­adult children  –  Ivy and Gavin  –  for being ­generally wonderful.

xxi

1

Part I Fishery Systems

3

1 Introducing Fishery Systems The title of this book  –  Sustainable Fishery Systems  –  reflects a combination of two ­inter-­related terms: ‘sustainable fisheries’ and ‘fishery systems’. An underlying premise of the book is that success in the pursuit of sustainability (and the related goal of resilience) is closely linked to adoption of a sufficiently broad conception of the fishery as a ‘system’ of interacting ecological, biophysical, economic, social, cultural, legal, and management components. This statement of purpose raises several obvious questions. What exactly is a ‘fishery system’ and how is a systems perspective connected with sustainability and resilience? Further, what are sustainability and resilience, and why are they important in fisheries? What might a sustainable, resilient fishery look like? These questions are explored in detail within the book, but the discussion is introduced here in this chapter.

1.1  ­Sustainability and Resilience First, consider the idea of sustainability. In recent years, it has become standard practice, in all sectors of economic activity, to emphasise the pursuit of sustainable development – through which the economy operates in such a way as to meet human needs now while safeguarding the future (World Commission on Environment and Development  1987; Kates et al. 2005; FAO 2019; United Nations 2020). This concept is by no means new to fishery, or to forestry and other renewable resource sectors, where the idea of achieving a sustainable yield from the resource – a level of output that can be maintained indefinitely into the future – has been central to discussion (if not action) for many decades. The sustainable development approach has, however, brought about an important ­evolution from a focus merely on ‘sustaining the output’ to a more integrated view in which sustainability is multifaceted, and emphasises the process as much as the output (Griggs et al. 2013). All this discussion of sustainability is timely, given the unfortunate reality that – despite the above-­noted history within fisheries of discussing sustainability, and despite the ­current worldwide focus on sustainable development – many fisheries are in a state of crisis, requiring urgent attention. Many international agencies and congresses (e.g. Charles et al. 2016;

Sustainable Fishery Systems, Second Edition. Anthony Charles. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

4

1  Introducing Fishery Systems

Asche et al. 2018; OECD 2019) are focusing on this and the consequent need for strategies to promote sustainable fisheries. This book explores that idea of sustainable fisheries. Certainly, sustainability concerns arise in terms of the abundance of fishery resources (whether there is plenty of fish in the sea) but there are other areas of concern as well: from the health of the fishery ecosystem to the state of the fishery’s social and economic structure to the well-­being of fishing communities and of management institutions. Given these diverse concerns, pursuing sustainable fisheries is best seen not only in terms of how much fish is in the sea (and keeping the catch of fish to a level ‘not too large’) but much more comprehensively (Charles 1994; Garcia et al. 2014a; Stephenson et al. 2019). As noted by Ravagnan et al. (2017, p. 2): . . .the increasing and diverse use of the marine resources calls for a holistic approach to seafood management that combines environmental, social and economic aspects for achieving sustainable development . . . The traditional sectorial approach has not been successful in marine management. . . Accordingly, sustainability can be usefully viewed as requiring the maintaining or ­enhancing all four key components: ecological sustainability (including maintaining and/ or enhancing the sustainability, resilience, and overall health of the ecosystem), ­socioeconomic sustainability (maintaining/enhancing long-­term socioeconomic welfare, including net benefits and reasonable distribution of benefits), community sustainability (sustaining communities as valuable human systems), and institutional sustainability (sustaining financing, administrative, and organisational capability). Aspects of these four components of sustainability will be discussed at various points throughout this book.

A Quick Introduction to Institutions Throughout the book, there will be mention of institutions, as in ‘institutional ­sustainability’ above. At times, this refers to an organisation of some sort such as a Department of Fisheries, a fishery co-­operative, a United Nations agency, a fish market, or a scientific research body. It can also refer to a set of rules or guidelines that regulate behaviour in a fishery. North (1990) takes that second view: ‘Institutions are the rules of the game in a society’. From a practical perspective, these two senses of ‘institution’ are related: a fishery management agency is an organisation that itself reflects ­society’s rules for managing fisheries. Similarly, an association of fishing people or a community organisation is an institution that can create local mechanisms for sharing fishery resources, or for responsible behaviour in fishing. Having the ‘right’ institution is needed for sustainability –  they need to be structured properly, with widespread support, and seen as fair and just. Other factors making a fishery ­management institution work effectively, and much more on institutions, will be ­discussed later in the book, in Chapters 6, 14, 16, 17, and elsewhere. Indeed, within this book, the term ‘institution’ is used often, and in either of the above senses, depending on the context.

1.1  ­Sustainability and Resilienc

Management and policy measures to promote fishery sustainability are certainly central to this book, and any attempt to analyse aspects of sustainability requires a broad, ­integrated view of the fishery. Specifically, sustainable development is not just a matter of protecting fish stocks but rather involves all aspects of the fishery. We cannot assess the state of ecological sustainability if we fail to look at the ecosystem beyond individual fish stocks, and we cannot enhance community sustainability if we restrict our attention solely to those catching the fish. In addition, complementary to sustainability is the fundamental goal of resilience – the ability of a fishery to absorb and ‘bounce back’ from perturbations caused by natural or human actions. Resilience can be defined more rigorously (Hughes et al. 2005, p. 380) as the ability of a system to ‘absorb recurrent natural and human perturbations and continue to regenerate without slowly degrading or unexpectedly flipping into alternate states’. (See also Armitage et al. 2017; Merrill et al. 2018.) As will be discussed, the idea of resilience, while first formulated with ecosystems in mind (Holling 1973), is of great relevance to all parts of the fishery. Indeed, resilience is needed in the human aspects of the fishery (e.g. the socioeconomic structure and fishing communities) and in the management infrastructure and governance institutions, as well as in the ecosystem. For example, management must be designed with resilience in mind, so that if something unexpected happens (as it will, from time to time), the management processes still perform adequately. Sustainability and resilience must go hand-­in-­hand in fisheries, with the two being mutually necessary and mutually supporting. The widespread range of experiences with fishery collapses worldwide clearly suggest a lack of both sustainability and resilience in these cases. Conservation The word ‘conservation’ will be used often in this book and is very widely used throughout all fishery discussions. However, the meaning of ‘conservation’ is not always clear. Following the early 1990s cod fishery collapse on the Atlantic coast of Canada (to be discussed at several points in this book – see especially Chapter 12), the government set up an organisation called the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council to give advice on what to do after that devastating fishery collapse. The first topic discussed on that council was the meaning of ‘conservation’ – or specifically, how did the name of the Council reflect its actual mandate. Some worried that conservation might mean ‘preservation’ in the sense of preserving the fish by keeping fishers away. But in fact, that advisory body’s mandate was focused on the idea of conservation as ‘sustainable use’. That reflects the links of conservation and sustainability, ones that will be important throughout the book. Wishing to ‘conserve the fish’ may suggest a desire to ensure healthy populations of fish, plenty of fish in the sea or the lake, at least avoiding the number of fish dropping too low. Pursuit of ‘marine environmental conservation’ may focus on efforts to have healthy ocean ecosystems with abundant life in them. These are two reasonable ways to look at ‘conservation’, which involves a complex mix of various activities. In some cases, it may involve an urgent act of ‘preserving’ (perhaps for threatened species or areas) while in other cases it is more a matter of ‘maintaining’ what we have (indeed, this often being the sense of ‘sustainability’) and in a third form, conservation can involve actively ‘rebuilding’ of fish stocks (Garcia et  al.  2018) or ­‘restoring’ (particularly used to refer to aquatic habitat or ecosystems).

5

6

1  Introducing Fishery Systems

1.2  ­Rationale for a Systems Approach The broad nature of sustainability and resilience in fisheries leads us to recognise the need for a ‘systems focus’ that looks comprehensively at the full fishery system. The idea of this approach is to envision fisheries as webs of inter-­related, interacting ecological, biophysical, economic, social, and cultural components – not as the fish separate from those doing the fishing, separate from the processors, and so on. A systems perspective is an integrated one, facilitating the assessment of management and policy measures in terms of implications throughout the system. The need for such a perspective has been put forward for many years (e.g. Berkes et al. 2002), but has particularly emerged as a key lesson in recent decades, as the reductionism at the heart of most scientific disciplines (the idea of dividing up the study of a system into small pieces for ease of analysis) has been seen to be useful but not sufficient. To put it simply, we cannot lose sight of the forest while we study the trees. A focus on systems avoids both an overly simplistic view of the fishery – ‘fish in the sea, people in boats’  –  and the contrasting view of the fishery as an unintelligible mess of ‘so many types of fish, so many ways of fishing, so many conflicts’. While fisheries certainly are complex, there is a pattern, a structure, and a set of fundamental themes that arise repeatedly in fishery discussions. A systems perspective aims to look at this ‘big picture’ in order to: (1) better understand the unique nature of the fishery as a human activity, and (2) through this, help make the fishery ‘work better’. For example, this can involve understanding the two-­way flow in which the natural aquatic systems produce benefits to humans, and in turn, conservation  work by humans improves ecosystem health, and using that understanding to develop  appropriate management measures and policies to support the two-­way flow (e.g. Charles 2021). As Stephenson et al. (2017, pp. 1986–1987) note, an integrated approach involves ‘a more diverse set of objectives that include the higher standards of ecological integrity and diverse social, economic and institutional aspects of sustainability’ and ‘promises better success at meeting objectives, fewer unintended consequences, better appreciation and support of management and increased management credibility’. In contrast, ‘Failure to adopt a more comprehensive integrated approach will perpetuate the focus on a subset of primarily ecological objectives and the neglect of many social, economic and institutional objectives. This will result in further unintended (or at least untracked) consequences, failure to achieve the diverse spectrum of objectives in legislation, and further loss of confidence in management systems’. An integrated approach represents ‘a solution to the overly-­narrow approaches that fed fisheries management crises’ through ‘recognition that fisheries issues, just as deforestation or climate change, are not merely ecological or scientific but also social and political, requiring strong socio-­political processes, laden with issues of social justice, societal ­values, and equity’ (Garcia and Charles 2008, p. 525). Indeed, Degnbol and McCay (2007) warned of ‘unintended and perverse consequences of ignoring linkages in fisheries systems’. With this rationale, a major focus of the book lies in developing an integrated view of the fishery system – exploring the nature, structure, and dynamics of the various components

1.3  ­Fishery Systems as Social-­Ecological System

of the fishery. The idea is to provide an idea of the ‘pieces of the puzzle’ in fisheries, and how they fit together to create a fishery system.

1.3  ­Fishery Systems as Social-­Ecological Systems This chapter begins the examination of fishery systems with an overview of their nature, structure, and characterisation, including the various approaches available for depicting fishery systems  –  in diagrams, words, or ‘pictures’. We then explore the various ways to define and characterise fishery systems, particularly in terms of their spatial scale, and the dichotomy between small-­scale and large-­scale fisheries. The discussion in this chapter is framed around the concept of ‘social-­ecological systems’ (SES). The SES approach is one of the most important developments in recent decades – see Berkes et al. (2002) and a range of other work, such as Wilson (2006), Ommer et al. (2012), Hunt et al. (2013), and Colding and Barthel (2019). The SES approach builds on a longstanding recognition of the systems nature of fisheries (Garcia and Charles 2008), in which eco-­and human systems interact in complex ways that affect overall governance. As Santos et  al. (2017, p.  60) note, ‘resources are embedded in complex, social-­ecological systems’ including such components as ‘resource system, resource units, users, governance systems’ and these ‘interact to produce outcomes at the SES level’ which in turn implies the need for ‘scientific knowledge that combine ecological and social sciences’. Indeed, the popularity of an SES approach has moved the longstanding systems approach into standard practice within environmental and natural resource fields, as a mechanism to integrate ecosystems, human systems (e.g. fisheries, fishing communities, and coastal regions), and governance systems. At this point, it is important to lay out some terminology and some assumptions that will continue throughout the book. These are described in the boxes below.

Fishers, Fishworkers, and Harvesters In French-­speaking places, a person who fishes is referred to as a ‘pêcheur’ and similarly in Spanish-­speaking locations, it is ‘pescador’. In the English language, figuring out what to call such a person is remarkably challenging, and can vary from country to country. In many places, those who go fishing professionally call themselves ‘fishermen’ (‘fisherman’ for one), including women who do so. However, current thinking about the use of words would consider ‘fisherman’ to be along the lines of ‘fireman’ for someone who fights fires – and over time, in many places, ‘fireman’ has been replaced with ‘firefighter’. There has been a similar effort to use different words for those who fish, but there are various options. For example, of the world’s two major organisations of fishing people, one (World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fish Workers, WFF) uses ‘fish harvesters’ while the other refers to ‘fisher peoples’ (World Forum of Fisher Peoples, WFFP). For fishery publications – books, journals, and reports – what term is used? That is perhaps most commonly the word ‘fisher’. Although when I am working with fishermen

7

8

1  Introducing Fishery Systems

colleagues, I will use the term they prefer, for this book, ‘fisher’ will be used throughout. Other options are ‘harvester’ or ‘fishworker’. However, ‘fishworker’ has its own range of definitions, sometimes referring to everyone working in the fishery (whether fishing or in other aspects, e.g. processing) and sometimes to those working in the fishery excluding fishers per se (usage adopted in this book). The term ‘harvester’ is used, as with the WFF above, by some fishing organisations to describe themselves, although others are less keen on the term. Further, it has another meaning, discussed below. While in this book, ‘harvesting’ will sometimes be used synonymously with fishing, ‘harvester’ will not be used, except in a certain context – those who harvest aquatic resources along the shoreline, e.g. on beaches, rocky coasts, etc. This can be a very important activity. In some cases, it is well documented as a livelihood especially of women harvesters (e.g. in some South Pacific islands). There are also formal ­organisations of harvesters – e.g. in Costa Rica, a network of those engaged in mollusc harvesting on the shore, and on the Atlantic coast of Canada, several local o ­ rganisations of professional clam harvesters. There is a tendency in fishery discussions to envision people in boats away from the land, casting lines or nets in the hope of catching fish. There is a risk of neglecting the above types of shoreline harvesting, and the harvesters involved. While this book will make explicit reference to such harvesting from time to time, it is important, all of the time, to recall that in discussing fisheries, harvesting on shorelines is included as well. (The same point can be made of recreational fishers, not at sea, but fishing from the shoreline or riverbank.) The governance aspects include, for example, the values held by people in relation to the sea and the various decision-­making fora and processes (Basurto et  al.  2013; Österblom et  al.  2017; Santos et  al.  2017). Furthermore, the ‘social’ in SES (including all human ­dimensions – not only social, per se, but also economic, cultural, institutional, and so on) is ­inextricably interconnected with the ‘ecological’ with both being influenced by a ­governance/management system. That reflects the fishery system idea that forms the foundation of this volume. With human systems as complex and in need of understanding as ecosystems, the importance of interdisciplinary approaches to spatially based and natural resource management is reinforced within an SES context, notably in fishery systems (Arlinghaus et al. 2017; Nielsen et al. 2018; Stephenson et al. 2018; Léopold et al. 2019). Kittinger et  al. (2013, p.  355) express the need for a multifaceted systems-­oriented approach to fisheries, with emphasis on social and institutional components: . . .successful policy approaches need to be tailored to the specific social-­ecological context of a given fishery. For policies to be effective, they must be based on a deep understanding of social context, institutional capacity, ecological dynamics, and potential external drivers, all of which may present challenges to successful implementation. One challenge in discussions of SES lies in connecting the lofty theoretical ideas involved in their study with on-­the-­ground realities of particular places – where people actually live,

1.3  ­Fishery Systems as Social-­Ecological System

Inland Versus Marine While it is common to speak of fisheries as SES, not only will the specific aspects of the fishery system vary from case to case, but there are also some major dimensions along which such systems are differentiated. As will be seen later in this chapter, fishery ­systems can vary by their spatial extent (local level up to multinational) and by their ‘scale’ –  i.e. small-­scale versus large-­scale fisheries. In later chapters, there will be ­discussion on other dimensions, notably among the ecosystems involved, the type of fishery operating, and many other aspects. All that said, there is one distinction that should be highlighted from the outset – between marine (ocean) fisheries and inland (usually freshwater) fisheries. As will be discussed in Chapter  3, on fishery ecosystems, there are many different ocean ­environments for fisheries (such as coral reefs versus offshore upwelling systems) and similarly, many inland systems (large lakes, small lakes, rivers, and human-­made reservoirs). Furthermore, both marine and inland systems vary with the latitude (notably, tropical versus temperate) and climate patterns. Given all this, clearly marine fisheries are not all the same, and nor are inland fisheries. It is not as if inland fisheries represent a single uniform entity and similarly for marine fisheries. Nevertheless, the inland-­marine dichotomy has some validity, for two reasons. First, there are some aspects that tend to be common across inland fisheries. For example, species within inland water bodies (e.g. in a lake) tend to have less mobility compared to marine species – a major issue as climate change takes place. On the human side, fishers and fishing communities may face more immediate conflicts with human settlements and terrestrial activities. And in fishery management, there may be larger issues with jurisdictional conflict. Many other aspects may be present as well. The second reason for recognising the inland-­marine dichotomy is that in the ‘fishery world’ broadly, there is a tendency to focus more on marine fisheries. The reason may be that, despite the fact that inland fisheries provide livelihoods to a very large number of people, the world’s largest fisheries are in the ocean, if measured by volume or value of catch. Another reason may be that in the popular consciousness, when thinking of fisheries, the tendency is to think of fishing boats out at sea, braving ocean waves. Whatever the reason for less attention going to inland fisheries, there is a widespread sense in many national and international organisations of the need to ensure that those inland fisheries are better recognised. To that end, this book integrates examples and illustrations of inland fisheries, along with those from marine settings, and most of the text is designed to apply to both, rather than separating inland from marine fisheries. When the text does refer to a marine setting, e.g. ‘vessels at sea’ or fishery interactions with ‘marine protected areas’, the language should be seen to apply to inland situations as well (e.g. vessels in the lake or fishing from the riverbank, inland aquatic protected areas, and so on). And throughout the book, it is important to keep in mind how the discussion applies to various different types of fisheries, notably those inland and those in the ocean.

9

10

1  Introducing Fishery Systems

and fishing actually takes place. It is important to connect the concepts with the reality of life in the ‘system’. Essentially, the key benefit of talking in terms of SES is to remind ourselves of the interconnectedness of human society, communities, and households with the natural world around us. Such a reminder may be especially important for researchers in disciplinary silos, and fishery managers in sector-­focused silos, while those in coastal communities typically live and work with that interconnectedness on a daily basis (e.g. Brueckner-­Irwin et al. 2019).

1.4  ­Depicting Fishery Systems What does a fishery system look like? How can we describe such a system in words or diagrams? Recall from the Introduction that the presentation of fishery systems in this book is organised around a certain set of components: ✽✽

The Natural System: The Fish ✽✽ The Ecosystem ✽✽ The Biophysical Environment ✽✽

✽✽

The Human System: The Fishers and Fisherfolk ✽✽ The Post-­Harvest Sector and Consumers ✽✽ Fishing Households and Communities ✽✽ The Social/Economic/Cultural Environment ✽✽

✽✽

The Fishery Governance/Management System: ✽✽ Fishery Governance (Policy and Planning) ✽✽ Fishery Management ✽✽ Fishery Development ✽✽ Fishery Knowledge

To see how these pieces fit together, and to build up a view of a full fishery system, let us begin with the simple idea noted earlier – fish in the sea, and a fleet of boats catching them. If we add to this the fact that the harvest is returned to land and sold in a market, we can envision a system as shown in Figure 1.1. This simple figure displays the fishery system as a basic set of inputs (fish and fleet) combining to generate an output (catch of fish).

1.4.1  Fishing Effort At this point, it is useful to note a fishery term that will arise throughout this volume, and indeed is used throughout fisheries generally. The term is ‘fishing effort’. Fishing effort tells us how much fishing takes place, and thereby the impact on the fish stocks – see Anticamara et al. (2011) and FAO.1 Although effort per se does not measure the specific impacts of that fishing, it is fair to say that ‘no effort implies no fishery’. 1  https://www.fao.org/faoterm/en/?defaultCollId=21

1.4 ­Depicting Fishery System

Figure 1.1  A highly oversimplified view of a fishery system: boats catch fish, and the harvest is sold in the market.

Fishing effort is an amorphous amalgam of inputs, made up of four major constituent elements that can be identified for any given component of the fishing activity: ●● ●●

●●

●●

the number of fishers or of fishing vessels; the average potential catching power per fisher, or per vessel, which takes into account average levels of fisher skill, vessel crew size, vessel dimensions, fishing gear, electronic gear, and other human and physical ‘inputs’ being used; the average intensity of fishing by a fisher, or a vessel, per unit time, measuring the fraction of the potential catching power that is actually realised; the average time ‘at sea’ for the average fisher or vessel in the fleet (e.g. whether the full fishing season is being utilised).

The total fishing effort for the particular component of the fishery is given by multiplying together these four ingredients, i.e. number of fishers or vessels, catching power, intensity, and time at sea. Note that if any one of the four ingredients was zero, there would be effectively no fishery (zero fishing effort). This would be the case if, for example, a fishery had no functioning vessels, or if there was no fishing gear (implying no catching power), or no fishing time. A key component in the catching power component of the above formula is the skill and experience of those doing the fishing. Both real-­world experience and research results have indicated that this is a major factor in determining the outcome of fishing, yet it is one of the most poorly analysed aspects – and indeed, typically is not considered in practice.

1.4.2  Adding Dynamics Suppose we now recognise that both the fish stock and the fishing fleet are subject to their own inherent dynamics  –  processes of change over time (Girardin et  al.  2017). The fish

11

12

1  Introducing Fishery Systems

Figure 1.2  A fuller view of a fishery system: the fish stock, the fishing fleet, and the market are all subject to dynamic processes, which in turn are influenced by the harvest of fish. Economic benefits are produced from the sale of the harvest.

are  driven by natural population dynamics, through the processes of reproduction (or ­‘recruitment’) and mortality. The fishing fleet varies according to capital dynamics – as fishers invest in new boats and fishing gear (physical capital), which then depreciates over time. Both the population dynamics and the capital dynamics are affected by the level of the catch. Clearly, the catch directly reduces the fish stock, but in addition, when that catch is sold in the market, the profits generated return to the fishers, who may adjust their investment (capital dynamics) as profits vary (depending on harvest and market conditions). These dynamic relationships can be incorporated by expanding the above system diagram to the one shown in Figure 1.2.

1.4.3  Adding Complexity There are still many aspects missing and/or oversimplified within this system diagram. For example, on the human side, it is useful to broaden from simply a ‘fishing fleet’ to highlight separately the fleet and the fishers, as well as the dynamics of each. More fundamentally, it is crucial to obtain a more complete sense of the fishery system by looking beyond the internal ‘core’ of the fishery  –  fish and fishers  –  shown in Figure  1.2, to incorporate

1.4 ­Depicting Fishery System

interactions with the many other elements of the ecosystem and the human system (Boumans et al. 2015; Weber et al. 2019). As Fogarty et al. (2016, p. 13) note: Fisheries lie at the intersection of an interwoven set of ecological, social, economic, and governance considerations. Although, fisheries are now widely recognized as a major social-­ecological system type providing a critically important ecosystem service, far less is known concerning the full implications of the interplay between ecosystem and social dynamics in this context. . . This more holistic, integrated, approach helps to overcome past tendencies to analyse and attempt to manage the fishery as if it were merely ‘fish in the sea, people in boats’. Instead, a broader perspective views fish as living in an ecosystem, within a biophysical environment (Skern-­Mauritzen et  al.  2016), and fishers as living in households within communities, within a broader socioeconomic environment. Harvests move into the post-­ harvest sector to be consumed in local households, providing an important food source, or transformed into products in the marketplace, in either case increasing the total benefits produced. Finally, it is important to recognise the multiplicity of these benefits accruing from the fishery system, and how they feedback into other aspects of the fishery. These various features can be added to Figure 1.2 to develop a fuller picture – see Figure 1.3. This figure provides a basis to engage in the task of examining the interactions amongst relevant components of the fishery system.

1.4.4  The Fishery System Expanding on Figure 1.3, adding in all the components of a fishery system listed above, we reach Figure 1.4, which also shows some of the interactions between the parts of the systems (although not reflecting the dynamics of the fishery as much as Figure 1.3). Figure 1.4, perhaps better than any number of words, contains the idea of the fishery system, especially its structure but also some of its dynamics within an SES perspective. Indeed, we will return to Figure 1.4 in subsequent chapters as we examine the details of each system component sequentially – the Natural, Human, and Governance/Management components. Note that these components of the overall fishery system can be referred to as ‘systems’ in their own right or as ‘sub-­systems’ of the fishery system as a whole. These two terms are generally used interchangeably in this book. A concern about the fishery system in Figure 1.4 relates to the relationship among the Natural, Human, and Governance/Management components or sub-­systems. In any fishery system, these are all closely interacting, yet Figure 1.4 shows these three sub-­systems as separate from one another, albeit with interactions among them. This separation may give the wrong impression about the fishery system, since (1) there is a strong view that humans are part of Nature, in which case the Human system could be seen as entirely contained within the Natural system, and (2) humans do all the governing and managing, so everything about governance and management is entirely contained within the Human system. Figure 1.5 provides a visual way to show this embeddedness, with Governance/Management lying within the Human system, and the Human system within the Natural system.

13

14

1  Introducing Fishery Systems

Figure 1.3  A substantially more complete view of a fishery system, beginning with the fish, the fleet, and the fishers, each subject to its own dynamics. The fish interact with the ecosystem and the biophysical environment, while the fishers interact with their households, communities, and the socioeconomic environment. The post-­harvest sector plays a role between the harvest and the market. The multidimensional benefits obtained from the fishery then feed back to the natural and human components of the system.

1.4.5  Alternatives While Figures 1.4 and 1.5 provide useful graphical description, there are other reasonable ways to provide a system description. A selection of approaches is given below. First, in contrast to the above diagrams, oriented ‘organisationally’ as flowcharts or ­structural schematics, an alternative approach to depicting fishery systems in a simple list of what are considered to be the main components, and the main considerations in each

Figure 1.4  The fishery system, showing the structure of the three major sub-­systems (natural, human, and governance/management), the major components within each of these, and the key interactions between sub-­systems and their components. Also indicated are the impacts of external forces on each part of the system. Figure 1.5  The fishery system is shown as a set of embedded sub-­systems, with the Governance/Management system logically included within the Human system (with fishery governance and management being human pursuits), and in turn, the Human system fully incorporated within the Natural system. The icons shown are just a small sample of what is included within each sub-­ system. Source: Figure design by Larissa Sweeney.

16

1  Introducing Fishery Systems

(and which can also include links to the socioeconomic and biophysical environments). This is essentially a structured listing of representative or particularly relevant components of the system, since it is never possible to include all elements of the system. An example of this is as follows: Fish and the ecosystem

Coastal; offshore/deepwater; migratory and high seas; habitat and environmental quality; ecosystem health and ecological interactions

Fishers

Subsistence; artisanal and small-­scale; indigenous; migratory; industrial; foreign fleets; women in fisheries

Post-­harvest and consumers

Processing; markets and marketing; distribution; domestic consumers; export market; eco-­certification

Communities and socioeconomic environment

Fishing households; communities; land-­based fishery activity; historical, cultural and legal factors; institutions

Fishery governance and management

Objectives, values, policy; management structures; management and enforcement; international commitments; institution building

Development and knowledge

Capacity development; resource assessment; knowledge-­building; information flows; economic diversification

Major external impacts

Interactions with other aquatic uses (aquaculture, tourism, shipping, mining, etc.); terrestrial sectors, e.g. agriculture; pollution and coastal development

Of the seven headings here, the first six are somewhat-­aggregated versions of the fishery system components used in this book (while the seventh focuses on external impacts that have an effect on fisheries but is not within the system per se). Of the top six, the first deals with the Natural system (fish and ecosystem), the next three with the Human system ­(fishers, post-­harvest and consumers, communities, and socioeconomic environment) and the following two with the Governance and Management system (governance and ­management, development, and knowledge). Each of these is followed by a number of ­elements, listed roughly in a logical order, whether sequential (as for post-­harvest and consumers, and for governance and management) or, as in the case of fish and fishers, from the more local-­level and/or internal to the fishery, to those of a larger spatial scale and/or greater external orientation. For example, the first of these covers the three main environments, from inshore (coastal) to offshore (deep-­water) to migratory and high seas situations, as well as aspects of fishery habitat and environmental quality, and ecological interactions. Running parallel to this, the fishers range from subsistence to artisanal/small-­scale to industrial, plus Indigenous, as well as foreign fleets. (Note that all of these terms are discussed in detail at a later point.) A simple listing such as this, while perhaps an oversimplified approach to a complex system, can be remarkably helpful in giving a broad approach to considering the fishery. It may also complement more extensive assessment tools, such as those discussed later in the book. For example, this listing can provide a way to indicate the components of the fishery system likely to be directly or indirectly affected by an intervention and to highlight the interactions which should be monitored.

1.4 ­Depicting Fishery System

Various other means are utilised in depicting fishery systems: ●●

●●

●●

●●

One of the most common is to depict a fishery system geographically, in the form of a map. This typically highlights specific fishing zones, ones designated for statistical purposes and often for fishery management. Indeed, maps showing the statistical areas developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations are widespread, and show boundaries between zones related to fishing activity. Maps may also be used to show such matters as fish migrations and fishing vessel locations. A map has the advantage of highlighting spatial features (and spatial heterogeneity), although it is less useful for dynamic aspects. The fishery can be shown through a visualisation approach, e.g. as an image, picture, or drawing (cf. Levontin et al. 2017) which can be particularly useful in community-­level management and education, or for publicity purposes. Visualisation may also be in the form of interactive maps, building on the above format. For example, Merrifield et al. (2019) discuss an approach in California (USA) in which ‘users are able to see logbook data rendered on an interactive map that allows users to query those data for specific species or windows in time’ as well as to see nautical charts, bathymetry, and local closures (p.  86). Similarly, Little et  al. (2015) present a spatial management tool used to communicate information between vessels in real time to more easily avoid unwanted species and reduce bycatch. Along similar lines, a fishery system can be depicted with a focus on the underlying ecosystem, in particular showing the food chain (food web). Fishery systems can be depicted using mathematical and computer models. In this approach, the most important features of the fishery are abstracted into mathematical (symbolic) language. Some examples of fishery models are discussed later in this book. Finally, a cultural perspective can be taken in depicting fishery systems. For example, Elisabeth Mann Borgese, in her ground-­breaking book The Oceanic Circle (Borgese 1998), draws on the images of Mohandas Gandhi (1947), describing a desired future for his home country of India. Borgese uses this poetic representation of a system as a means to describe the complex systemic interactions of the oceanic world, as well as the embeddedness of individuals (such as fishers) in coastal communities, and of the latter in the larger society: In this structure, composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever-­widening, never ascending circles, Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual, always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to perish for the circle of villages, till at last the whole becomes one life composed of individuals, never aggressive in their arrogance, but ever humble, sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle

17

18

1  Introducing Fishery Systems

of which they are integral units. Therefore, the outermost circumference will not yield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and will derive its own strength from it.

1.5  ­Characterising Fishery Systems While all fisheries share some common features (people catching fish, for example), there is also an amazing diversity between, and within, fishery systems. How can we characterise and differentiate between the various types of fishery systems? This question is explored here, with particular attention to the matter of scale – something arising in all aspects of the system and which may well impact on the success of fishery management.

1.5.1  Small-­Scale Versus Large-­Scale Fishery Systems There is a fundamental distinction in fisheries, and fishery debates, between small-­scale and large-­scale fisheries – a distinction relating to a range of organisational and structural factors. As Smith and Basurto (2019, pp. 2–3) note, ‘. . .the full spectrum of capture fisheries is often simplified and divided into “small-­scale” and “large-­scale” or “industrial” fisheries’. There has been a tendency in past decades for more attention to be paid to large-­scale fisheries, but today, small-­scale fisheries are deservedly received increasing attention, and will be the subject of ongoing discussion in this book. The differences between small-­scale and large-­scale fishers will be examined in Chapter 4, while here the focus is on the differences in the fisheries and the fleets overall. This depends on a range of factors, but in general: ●●

●●

●●

a small-­scale fishery is one with a small-­boat fleet. . . the difference between small-­scale and large-­scale can depend on the size of the typical fisher’s operation (e.g. vessel size). a small-­scale fishery operates ‘inshore’ with close ties to coastal communities, in contrast to the more ‘offshore’ nature of large-­scale fisheries.  .  . so the distance from shore at which the fishery operates and the extent to which it is connected to communities tend to be differences. a small-­scale fishery has a more artisanal than industrial ‘mode of production’ (an aspect most noticeable in developing countries, and widely discussed in the social science literature).

For each of these factors, however, there are no clear-­cut, universal boundaries between small and large scales. Smith and Basurto (2019, pp. 2–3) note that the distinction ‘is not a mere technical matter of where to draw the line between small-­scale and industrial fisheries; it is, rather, a value-­laden decision with political implications and material consequences both for the environment and for humans who depend on fishing for their livelihoods and food security’. There is a substantial literature relating to this challenge of classification (e.g. Carvalho et al. 2011; Soltanpour et al. 2017; Halim et al. 2019) which has led to the identification of

1.5 ­Characterising Fishery System

Table 1.1  Comparing small-­scale and large-­scale fishery systems. Small-­scale fisheries

Large-­scale fisheries

Alternative terminology

Artisanal (developing areas); Industrial (developing areas); inshore/small-­boat (developed areas) corporate (developed areas)

Fishing location

Coastal, including tidal, inshore and nearshore areas, as well as inland lakes and rivers

Offshore marine settings, with operations relatively far from the coast

Nature of objectives

Multiple goals (social, cultural, economic, etc.)

Tendency to focus on single goal (profit maximisation)

Specific objectives in developing regions

Food production and livelihood security

Export production and foreign exchange

Objectives relating to Focus on maximising employment utilisation of labour opportunities

Focus on minimising labour costs (i.e. employment)

Mode of production

Subsistence fisheries as well as commercial ones, selling into appropriate markets

Market-­driven commercial fisheries, often with a focus on export

Ownership

Typically individual/family; often small business in developed nations

Typically corporate; often based on foreign fleets in developing nations

Mix of inputs

Labour intensive, relatively low technological level

Capital intensive, emphasis on applying new technology

Rural–urban mix

Predominantly rural; located typically outside mainstream social and economic centres

Often urban or urban-­tied; owners within mainstream social and economic centres

Community connections

Closely tied to communities where fishers live; integral part of those communities

Relatively separate and independent of small-­scale communities

Common perceptions

‘Traditional’, romantic, technologically simple

Modern, impersonal, multinational corporations

certain key characteristics. Some of these are shown in the first column of Table 1.1, with relevant features of small-­and large-­scale fisheries also indicated for each characteristic. In the table, the first row simply indicates the terminology used to describe small-­scale and large-­scale fisheries, while subsequent rows show characteristics that relate to five key areas: 1) physical location of the fishing activity (row 2) 2) fishery objectives: nature of goals, developing region goals, and labour goals (rows 3–5) 3) economic factors: mode of production, ownership, and labour–capital mix (rows 6–8) 4) social factors: rural–urban mix, extent of local community ties (rows 9–10) 5) external perceptions – how the fishery is viewed from outside (row 11). Note that the specific characteristics indicated above, and in the table, are those that seem to have been most often discussed in relation to small-­scale and large-­scale fisheries, but this is by no means an exhaustive listing. The varying and confusing definitions of ‘small-­scale’ can be illustrated by looking at the groundfish fishery of the Atlantic coast of Canada, harvesting cod, haddock, redfish, and

19

20

1  Introducing Fishery Systems

other stocks. The term small-­scale is rarely used in this fishery, whether by fishers, managers, or scientists. Instead, the dominant dichotomy historically has been between inshore and offshore fisheries, a ‘split’ made traditionally on the basis of the size of the fishing vessels and the distance from shore at which fishing takes place. Note that both of these criteria are in Table 1.1. Further, the inshore fishery also has relatively more labour-­intensive operations and stronger connections with coastal communities. All of these indicators suggest that it can classify as small-­scale. On the other hand, this fishery is fairly heavily capitalised and many inshore fishers see themselves as businesspeople in an ‘industry’. While this fishery may be small-­scale relative to the offshore, its reality certainly confuses the small-­scale/large-­scale dichotomy. Given this complexity, fisheries may well be seen as small-­scale or large-­scale on a case-­ by-­case basis, or based on national perspectives, depending on an assessment of a set of relevant characteristics. Panayotou (1985, p. 11) noted long ago that ‘it is not unusual to find that what is considered a small-­scale fishery in one country would be classed as a large-­scale fishery in another’. Many fisheries in North America and Europe, for example, would be classified as large-­scale from the perspective of many countries of Central America, while at the same time, the ‘advanced artisanal’ shrimp fisheries of such countries would be large-­scale if viewed in terms of other less-­developed fisheries. The Nature of Small-­Scale Fisheries . . . from the Small-­Scale Fisheries Guidelines . . .small-­scale fisheries tend to be strongly anchored in local communities, reflecting often historic links to adjacent fishery resources, traditions and values, and ­supporting social cohesion. For many small-­scale fishers and fish workers, fisheries represent a way of life and the subsector embodies a diverse and cultural richness that is of global significance. . . . The health of aquatic ecosystems and associated biodiversity are a fundamental basis for their livelihoods and for the subsector’s capacity to contribute to overall well-­being. (p. x) Small-­scale fishing communities are commonly located in remote areas and tend to have limited or disadvantaged access to markets, and may have poor access to health, education and other social services. Other characteristics include low levels of formal education, existence of ill health (often including above average incidences of HIV/AIDS) and inadequate organizational structures. The opportunities available are limited, as small-­scale fishing communities face a lack of alternative livelihoods, youth unemployment, unhealthy and unsafe working conditions, forced labour, and child labour. Pollution, environmental degradation, ­climate change impacts and natural and human-­induced disasters add to the threats ­facing small-­scale fishing communities. (p. xi) FAO (2015a) / FAO

1.5 ­Characterising Fishery System

1.5.2  Spatial Scale and Time Scale 1.5.2.1  Spatial Scales

The spatial scale of a fishery system relates to its size, geographically and administratively. For example, the following are fishery systems of varying spatial scales: ✽✽

✽✽

✽✽

a small (coastal) community, together with its local fishery resources (e.g. the fish in a tropical coral reef, or the lobster off the coast of a New England fishing community, or fish in a lake or river) and the corresponding small-­scale management system; larger-­scale fishery systems, from a sub-­national to a national level, typically organised around formal jurisdictional boundaries, as would often be in place in many countries; regional fisheries, involving multiple nations, and corresponding fishery organisations, such as (1) the FAO’s Regional Fishery Bodies [e.g. the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, GFCM, and the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission, WECAFC (FAO 2021a)], and (2) structures of the European Union revolving around the Common Fisheries Policy (European Commission: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/ cfp_en).

Perhaps the spatial extent of the fishery is already determined, based on historical, sociocultural, administrative, or other considerations. Alternatively, if decisions about spatial scale are to be made, which spatial scale is to be preferred and what should be the appropriate boundaries of the fishery system? When is it best to focus on a small scale and when should we look at the fishery as a larger system? These are important questions, since the spatial scale at which the fishery system is examined will likely affect how interactions among fishery components and the dynamics of those components (discussed in each chapter) are addressed. Furthermore, given that a fishery system involves fish stocks and other natural components, fishers and other human components, and a variety of management components (including science, enforcement, policy, etc.), it is not surprising that the appropriate scale to view each of these might differ considerably, depending on the specific circumstances, whether a particular type of fishery (e.g. inland fisheries  –  Cooke et  al.  2016) or geographical region (e.g. Southeast Asia – Pomeroy et al. 2019). In addition, there may be a difference between the ‘natural’ ecological or physical boundaries for the fishery system, those most suitable from the perspective of the human system (involving economic, sociocultural factors) and the desirable boundaries for the management system (involving legal, institutional, or political factors). Should the fish and the ecosystem define the boundaries, or the human institutions and political divisions? How is it best to balance between the ‘natural’ delimitations of watersheds or coastal zones and the de facto boundaries of the system from the perspective of the human populations? Does this require apportioning ocean currents or water flow between human-­defined areas, or apportioning people between ecosystems? There are many questions and no universal answers when it comes to spatial scale, but certainly this is one of the key ingredients that must be decided upon in fishery planning and management (Berkes 2006). Figure 1.6 depicts the range of spatial scales in a fishery.

21

22

1  Introducing Fishery Systems

Figure 1.6  The various spatial scales relevant to fishery systems are shown, ranging from local to large-­scale. Aspects of the natural world are shown above the axis, while those of the human and management systems are shown below the axis. Note that the positioning of these relative to one another reflects a common situation, but one which is by no means universal; for example, a fishing ground may in fact encompass an ecosystem (such as the North Sea) and may involve multiple nations.

1.5.2.2  Time Scales

It is important, in examining fishery systems and each of their components, to be conscious of the many time scales over which change occurs. Five major time scales can be noted: ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

sub-­daily to weekly monthly to seasonal annual inter-­annual decadal or longer The nature of each of these, and relevant examples of each, are as follows:

Sub-­daily to weekly: Within the course of a fishing day, industrial fishers can move from one fishing location to another, searching for fish concentrations or maximal catch rates, while small-­scale fishers may head out to sea, fish for a few hours, and then return to port as part of a daily routine. In some fisheries, management also operates on a daily or sub-­daily time scale in decisions about opening or closing the fishery. For example, in British Columbia, Canada, salmon fisheries operate through openings determined on a day-­to-­day basis (Beacham et al. 2014) and the time scale is even shorter for the herring roe fishery, with openings occurring in even more localised geographical areas, and precisely when the roe (egg) content of the female herring reaches desirable levels. In this case, the fishery remains open until the allowable catch is taken, which may take as little as a few minutes or as much as a few hours. Fisheries that function in keeping with tidal cycles also operate on a short time scale. The post-­harvest sector can also do so, for example in terms of the rapid processing of fish as it is landed, and the equally rapid search for markets when fish is to be sold fresh. Monthly to seasonal: Within the course of a fishing season, temporal constraints may exist. For example, migrating fish stocks move across the range of the stocks, managers open and close the fishery in appropriate areas, and fishers shift between open fisheries, either physically moving from a fishery that closes to one that is opening, or perhaps changing gear to fish for a different species. On a seasonal basis, fishers and those in post-­harvest activities will shift between occupations, temporarily leaving and re-­entering the fishery as opportunities change. Natural cycles within the biophysical environment – temperatures, salinity, and currents varying by season, for example  –  are crucial at this time scale and may

1.5 ­Characterising Fishery System

well underlie fishery dynamics through their impact on such factors as fish migrations and life cycle development. Annual: At an annual time scale, fishers make decisions about whether to take part in the fishery (which may involve an annual licence), how many crew to hire, what fisher organisation to join that year, etc. In many fisheries, harvesting plans are developed, whether by government or by fishers themselves, on an annual basis. In Europe, for example, an elaborate annual process takes place involving Total Allowable Catch (TAC) determination, allocation among nations, and development of national fishing arrangements. It should be noted that there may be a tendency to see management plans developed on an annual basis as unchangeable within the fishing season, something dangerous from a conservation perspective (Chapter 12). Inter-­annual: In the longer term, over time periods ranging from a few years to a decade or more, fishers make investment and career decisions – increasing their financial stake in the fishery, or perhaps exiting completely. The institutional structure of the fishery ­system changes over this time period, with fisher organisations forming and dissolving, new forms of management appearing, new legislation being passed by governments, etc. On this time scale, strategic and tactical plans are reviewed and reworked. At the ­strategic level this could involve reassessing the objectives being pursued and the overall policy framework. At the tactical level, the portfolio of management methods selected, and used within the operational aspects of management, is reviewed; this could lead to a shift in the mix of methods being utilised. At this longer time scale, fishery management also must respond to major trends impacting the fishery, such as changes in market conditions or environmental conditions, and new international conventions. Decadal and longer: The longest time scale considered here is one that may cover from one to several decades. Dynamics at this scale can have a major impact through (1) wide-­ ranging phenomena such as global warming and economic globalisation, and (2) high levels of uncertainty in the dynamics, and the corresponding severity of potential ­management failures. This time scale crosses human generations and thus is ­‘inter-­generational’ from a human perspective. Indeed, fishers often express concern about future generations, particularly in the sense that their children should have a chance to go fishing in a healthy fishery system. Dynamics at this time scale therefore underlie the concern for conservation in fisheries, reflecting what sustainable development is all about: using resources to meet the needs of the present generation while leaving enough to meet the needs of future generations. In practice, however, fishery management rarely deals explicitly at this time scale.

1.5.3  Other Approaches to Characterising Fishery Systems In addition to classifications on the basis of scale, as above, fisheries can be characterised in various other ways: ●● ●● ●● ●●

by their geographical location, particularly the latitude (tropical, temperate, and arctic); by the type of ecosystem in which they are located (upwelling, estuary, reef, etc.); by the physical environment in which they take place (rocky bottom, bay, lake, etc.); by the depth in the water column at which they take place (bottom versus surface);

23

24

1  Introducing Fishery Systems ●●

●●

by the nature and behaviour of the fishers (e.g. organised versus unorganised, multi-­ occupational versus specialised); by the socioeconomic environment (e.g. urban versus rural, developed versus undeveloped infrastructure, poor versus wealthy, level of local community involvement).

1.6  ­Complexity Fishing is not infrequently portrayed in the media as a ‘simple’ activity, one that evokes a bygone era, one not in keeping with the complex world in which we now live. That sense of ‘simplicity’ is reinforced by the stereotypical view of a recreational angler, travelling from an urban home to the countryside for the ‘simple’ life, sitting with a fishing rod beside a quiet pond. Yet as we will see throughout this book, viewing the fishery as a system leads to a recognition of multitude of interactions among all the dynamically varying components involved. Many different species of fish inhabit the aquatic ecosystem, living out of sight, their ­populations changing, sometimes dramatically, from year to year. A spectrum of ­fishers – including full-­timers and part-­timers, fixed gear (e.g. hook-­and-­line or gillnets) and mobile gear (e.g. trawlers), small-­scale (artisanal, usually close to shore) and large-­ scale (industrial, typically offshore) – try to find the fish and catch them, using a fleet that changes in number and power over time. Beyond the harvesting sector, the system includes processors, distributors, marketing channels, consumers, government regulators, and support structures, all interacting together, along with coastal communities and human institutions. In the background, but of great importance as well, are the social/economic/ cultural and the biophysical environments within which the fish and the fishers live – and with which they also interact. Even the recreational angler noted above is part of a closely interacting system of components that include the pond ecosystem, sport fishery outfitters, managers, researchers, transportation infrastructure, and so on. This is what is meant by a complex system – one comprised of many components, with many interactions among those components (Cilliers et al. 2013). Complexity is a characteristic of a system and arises because of the interaction between the components of a system . . . it is not so much the properties of the individual components, but their relationships with each other that cause complex behavior. . . Thus, complex systems, such as the brain, living organisms, social systems, ecological systems, and social–ecological systems, must be studied as intact systems. (Cilliers et al. 2013, p. 2) In this light, the greater the number of species in a system, the greater is the complexity, other things being equal. And a system with a given set of species is more complex, the more intricate are the interactions among those species. A variety of more elaborate definitions of complexity have been developed (e.g. Ladyman et al. 2013) but from an informal perspective, a complex system is often one that contains so many components and interactions, with limited knowledge of these, such that we do not understand well its structure

1.7 ­Next Step

and functioning, an aspect that certainly fits fishery systems (Cochrane  1999). Another related term increasingly used in research on fishery systems, and elsewhere, is ‘complex adaptive system’ which essentially combines together the idea of complexity with those of adaptation and ‘self-­organization’ (e.g. Mahon et al. 2008; Arlinghaus et al. 2017). The recognition that complexity depends to a considerable extent on the number of entities involved in a system, and the extent of interactions amongst them, implies that many factors contribute to the complexity of fishery systems. Some of these are outlined in the box below, and will be discussed in detail at various points in the book.

Some Sources of Complexity in Fishery Systems ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

multiple and conflicting objectives multiple species, and ecological (trophic) interactions among them multiple groups of fishers, interacting with households and communities multiple fishing fleets, and conflicts among them multiple gear types, and technical interactions among them multiple post-­harvest stages: from fisher to consumer multiple ancillary activities, and interactions with the fishery the aquatic environment and biophysical influences on the fishery the social structure, and sociocultural influences on the fishery the institutional structure, and interactions between fishers and regulators the socioeconomic environment and interactions with the macro economy the coastal system and interactions among its components dynamics of fishers, fleets, technologies, and resources dynamics of fishery information and dissemination dynamic interactions among fish, fishers, and environment objectives and behaviour of fishery participants uncertainties in each component of the fishery system

It is important to note as well that the resolution with which a system is examined can influence the complexity we see. For example, what appears in aggregated form as a ­‘simple’ fishery, targeting a single fish stock with a single fleet of vessels, may, when viewed more closely, contain a complex mix of fishers within the fleet, complex spatial interaction among sub-­regions, and so on. The relatively simple ‘macro’ view in this case belies the complexity at the ‘micro’ level.

1.7  ­Next Steps The next four chapters provide an overview of what a fishery system looks like – the ­natural sub-­system (fish, ecosystems, and biophysical environment) and the human sub-­system (fishers and fishworkers, the post-­harvest sector, households and communities,

25

26

1  Introducing Fishery Systems

socioeconomic environment). This will give a sense of the nature, structure, and dynamics of fisheries, from a variety of angles. Those familiar with one or more of those aspects are welcome to forego that material and move directly to other parts of the book. Those parts of the book are described in some detail in the Preface, so here only a summary is given. Part B (Chapters 6–9) covers the Fishery Governance and Management System, logically starting with Chapter 6 on governance, then moving to management, development, and knowledge building. Beyond that is Part C (Chapters 10–12) on Three Major Challenges in Fishery Systems, namely uncertainty, conflict, and fishery attitudes (focusing on the story of the collapse of Canada’s Atlantic cod fishery). Part D (Chapters 13–17) moves from challenges to solutions, namely ‘Modern Strategies for Fishery Systems’. This starts logically with Chapter 13 on the nature of sustainability and resilience, moving on to approaches for living with uncertainty through adaptive and robust management and the Precautionary Approach; the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries; human rights and fishing rights (use rights and management rights); co-­management and community-­based fishery management. Later on, in Part E (Chapters  18–21), the book looks at ‘Fisheries and the Bigger Picture’ – the interactions of fisheries with drivers of change from beyond the fishery system per se. These include marine protected areas and ‘other effective area-­based conservation measures’ (OECMs); biodiversity conservation and endangered species; multi-­sectoral management of oceans and other aquatic areas; and how climate change interacts with fishery systems. The final chapter of the book, Chapter  22, provides conclusions and a review of the key messages of the book. The reader is welcome to choose from this, in most cases taking it in any order desired. Chapter 1.  Introducing Fishery Systems Key Messages ●●

●●

●●

●●

While there is no need to constantly refer to ‘systems’ when discussing fisheries, it is helpful to always have a systems perspective in mind, to ensure all relevant aspects and interactions are considered. An integrated systems approach to fisheries can be based in a SES framework. There are many ways for fishery systems to be depicted and characterised, e.g. by spatial scale and in terms of small-­scale and large-­scale, and using everything from graphs to poems. The various components of fishery systems are discussed sequentially, along with their dynamics in the chapters to come.

27

2 The Natural System: The Fish Fisheries catch not only ‘fish’ as such, but also many other types of animals that inhabit aquatic ecosystems. Seaweeds and other aquatic plants are also important. Nevertheless, the term ‘fish’ is typically used as shorthand to refer to the range of species caught in fisher­ ies, and this convenience is adopted here. It is not particularly profound to note that without fish (and other aquatic life), there can be no fishery system. Moreover, the fish are not isolated within their respective fisheries, but rather live together, and interact, with other fished and unfished species, in complex ecosystems. These ecosystems, in turn, involve not only living creatures but also the physi­ cal and chemical features affecting life. All this constitutes the fishery system’s natural sub-­system (or ‘natural system’ since the natural part of the fishery system is itself a system)  –  the subject of this chapter and Chapter 3. A reasonable understanding of this natural system is surely crucial to proper management of the fisheries that rely on harvests from that environment (e.g. Liu et al. 2016). Yet no attempt to cover the natural world in two book chapters can possibly do justice to the enormous diversity and complexity inherent in aquatic life, aquatic ecosys­ tems, and the aquatic environment. It is also an impossible task to compile, within a single chapter, the vast array of research undertaken on the natural system by biologists, oceano­ graphers, and many other natural scientists. While much remains to be explored and ­studied – and indeed, it is often suggested that the underwater world is less understood than the moon’s surface – nevertheless, far more work has been carried out in this area than for the human and governance/management sub-­systems of the fishery. Given all this, the goal of this chapter and Chapter 3 must be rather modest – to provide some sense of the structure and dynamics of the natural system, and how this relates to aspects of fishery management. The discussion begins in this chapter with an overview and classification of the various species caught in fisheries around the world, of popula­ tions, communities, and habitats. Chapter  3 focuses on fishery ecosystems and the ­biophysical environment. These various aspects of the natural system are shown visually in Figure 2.1, a redrawing of the natural sub-­system portion of the fishery system shown in Figure 1.4.

Sustainable Fishery Systems, Second Edition. Anthony Charles. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

28

2  The Natural System: The Fish

Natural System Ecosystem Community Aquatic Species

External Forces (e.g. climate change)

Habitat Aquatic Environment

Figure 2.1  The structure of the natural sub-­system is shown: fish species interact with the ecosystem, and in turn with the biophysical environment. External forces impact the entire system. Source: Figure design by Larissa Sweeney.

2.1  ­What Is Caught in Fishery Systems? A discussion of fish, whether in the sea or in other aquatic locations, must begin by acknowledging that there are significant concerns about the abundance of fishery resources worldwide – concerns that will permeate throughout this book. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO 2018, pp. 39–40) has noted: The fraction of fish stocks that are within biologically sustainable levels has exhib­ ited a decreasing trend, from 90.0 percent in 1974 to 66.9 percent in 2015. In con­ trast, the percentage of stocks fished at biologically unsustainable levels increased from 10 percent in 1974 to 33.1 percent in 2015, with the largest increases in the late 1970s and 1980s. With this as a backdrop, what can be said about the nature of the species that constitute fishery resources? Impressively, ‘more than 34,000 different fish species are known, and new species are being described every year. . . . Half of the fish species known today can be found in freshwater; the other half inhabit marine ecosystems’ (Klimpel et al. 2019). What sense of order is there among this wide range of species exploited in fisheries around the world? It has been noted that ‘In spite of the large diversity of marine species, most exploited species are contained in one of four large scientific groups’ (King 1995, p. 1). These groups are based on ‘having similar [morphological and reproductive] ­characteristics

2.1  ­What Is Caught in Fishery Systems

and larval stages, as well as having what is believed to be a common ancestor, perhaps many millions of years ago’. The four main groups of exploited species, as stated some time ago by King (1995) and repeated since, are: ✽✽

✽✽

✽✽

✽✽

Fishes: Including ‘bony fish’ with internal bony skeletons, fins, and scales (e.g. cod, her­ ring, salmon, tuna, carp, among many others), and elasmobranchs or ‘cartilagenous fish’ that include sharks and rays and have cartilage rather than bones in their skeletons Crustaceans: Invertebrates with external skeletons (e.g. prawns, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, and krill) Molluscs: Invertebrates with external or internal shells (e.g. clams, oysters, mussels, aba­ lone, and squid) Echinoderms: Invertebrates with tube feet, with or without external plates (e.g. sea cucumbers and sea urchins)

There are other groupings (taxa) as well that support fisheries to various degrees globally, and that can be very important locally. These include corals and sea sponges (Porifera). Aquatic plants, notably seaweeds, constitute another major category of harvested aquatic species – some of these are collected as they grow, but the vast majority of production arises in aquaculture (Cai and Zhou 2019). The set of ‘fished species’ can be organised into com­ mon groups, as in Figure 2.2 (or could alternatively be shown in terms of where the fish end up, e.g. along market lines).

Figure 2.2  A rough classification of those aquatic species harvested in fisheries.

29

30

2  The Natural System: The Fish

Table 2.1  Major fishery catches in the United States. Highest value species groups in 2020 commercial catch (landed value)

Millions of US $

Crabs

584

Lobster

563

Scallops

488

Salmon

478

Shrimp

435

US recreational fisheries – top species by numbers of fish (2020) including harvested and released

Millions of fish

Spotted seatrout

54

Atlantic croaker

53

Black sea bass

44

Gray snapper

42

Hardhead catfish

39

Source: Data from National Marine Fisheries Service (2022).

Table 2.1 shows the major commercial catches in the United States (noticeably all being invertebrates, except salmon as the only fish) and the major recreational catches (including both harvested and released fish). When aquatic plants and animals are harvested, they are collectively referred to as ‘sea­ food’. Granata et al. (2012) discuss the diversity of seafood around the world, along with current and historical trends.

2.1.1 Fishes Nine of the twelve common groupings of commercially important aquatic animals formu­ lated by Sainsbury (1996) are fin fishes, which can be divided into two common categories, according to the part of the ocean or lake where they spend their adult lives: pelagic fish and demersal fish. The Pelagic fish live principally in the upper layers of the ocean or lake, near the surface, and the Demersal fish live near the bottom of the ocean or other water body. Although written somewhat with marine settings in mind, the following descriptions of the two categories apply to both inland and marine: The term pelagic is derived from a Greek word meaning the sea or open ocean. When applied to fish, it generally means those species adapted to living not far from the ocean surface. . . pelagic fish of commercial interest may be found from top surface waters to depths as great as 200 metres (656.2 ft) or more (Douglas 2012, p. 48)

2.1  ­What Is Caught in Fishery Systems

In commercial fishing, groundfish (or bottomfish) are defined as those species that feed or swim near or on the bottom of a body of water. Sometimes referred to as demersal organisms because they live close to the bottom of a body of water that is limited by the continental shelf. (Flick and Douglas 2012, p. 25) 2.1.1.1  Inland (Freshwater) Fish

Some inland fish species are well known, such as tilapia, sturgeon, catfish, and bass, while there are many others that are less known on a global basis but nevertheless crucial on a more local scale for food security and livelihoods. Indeed, for inland species, there is a ­benefit to looking at the range of species within a specific geographical area. For example, Kolding et al. (2019) examined the pelagic fish found in African lakes and reservoirs. They highlight four specific groups: ●●

●●

●●

●●

The cyprinid (carp) species that are found largely in Lake Bangweulu, Lake Malawi, Lake Victoria, and the upper Congo River basin. The ‘clupeids (herring-­like) species.  .  . found in West Africa, the Congo River Basin and the coastal areas up to southern Africa, in addition to a few Malagasy species’. The family Alestidae (Characiformes) with ‘more than 100 species . . .widely distributed in nearly every country and freshwater habitat across Africa’. The cichlids which are ‘widespread and very successful in African freshwater lakes and reservoirs’ (e.g. Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria) including ‘many of the medium-­ sized tilapia species’ that ‘form the mainstay of several fisheries’.

There have been other, more local-­level, studies. For example, in a much smaller inland area, the Mayan region of Quintana Roo in southern Mexico, a study of the fish and fisher­ ies used by the Indigenous Mayan people (Arce-­Ibarra and Charles 2008, p. 154) provided new data on the fish caught by those who fished in the ‘cenotes’ (small lakes) of the area, for both subsistence and recreation: With respect to fish species supporting local fisheries, these were represented by 18 bony fish species belonging to seven families (Cichlidae, Eleotridae, Poeciliidae, Megalopidae, Characidae, Pimelodidae and Synbranchidae). The fish species, 50% of them being cichlids, included target species, by-­catch species, and species used as bait. The latter study is an example of research into inland fisheries that until recently had not been studied to any great extent. This is not uncommon with many inland areas. On the other hand, both the local people who fish for their livelihood in inland waters and the large numbers of recreational fishers also fishing in those waters may be very familiar with the local species. 2.1.1.2  Pelagic Marine Fish

Sainsbury (1996) provides the following main groupings for pelagic species in the ocean. Herrings and anchovies: This group of relatively small pelagics includes herring, pilchards, tropical sardines, menhaden, and anchovies. Sainsbury (1996, p.  8) notes that their

31

32

2  The Natural System: The Fish

spatial distribution typically ‘matches the areas having greatest levels of primary produc­ tion’ (i.e. marine plant production). For example, herring is important in the north Atlantic and north Pacific, while tropical sardines are found in areas such as southeast Asia and northwest Africa. Anchovies are a well-­known fishery product of the Pacific coast of South America. The various species in this group often support major industrial fisheries. Mackerels and tunas: Sainsbury (1996, p.  9) notes that these species ‘school in surface waters from tropical to temperate regions, are noted for rich, oily flesh and are the basis for major fisheries throughout the world’. Sharks: Many species of sharks are caught throughout the world. The overall high demand, and characteristically low fecundity, has led to the over-­exploitation of some shark species (Camhi et al. 2009). As with bony fish, the meat of the elasmobranchs is used for food, but in addition, the livers and skin of sharks are utilised for various products. Shark fins are sought after in some countries, with such a high price that in some cases, ‘finning’ occurs, with the shark’s fins removed and the animal left to die in the sea. Salmon and trout: These anadromous species breed in freshwater but spend most of their lives at sea. They are typically high-­valued, the subject of large recreational fisheries, and culturally important to Indigenous nations and communities in locations such as the northwest coast of North America (Connors et al. 2019). Salmon is also farmed in many countries, supporting a major aquaculture industry. 2.1.1.3  Demersal Marine Fish

Sainsbury (1996) provides the following main groupings for demersal species in the ocean. Cods and hakes: Species such as cod, haddock, and pollock are found particularly in ­temperate and boreal regions such as the North Atlantic, where they have great his­ torical importance, and support many present-­day fisheries. Hake species are wide­ spread in many parts of the world, and while lower-­valued, are often caught in abundance. Flatfishes: ‘There are over 500 species of these bottom dwellers. . . Flatfishes live in close association with the seabed on continental shelves from the tropics to the Arctic, and active fisheries exist worldwide. . .’. (Sainsbury 1996, p. 11) Spiny rayed fishes: The most highly prized as food fish are the reef-­dwelling snappers and groupers, which exist in tropical and subtropical regions worldwide (Sainsbury 1996). Ocean perch: ‘Considerable commercial fishing operations are directed towards the ocean perch of the North Atlantic and rockfish of the North Pacific’. (Sainsbury 1996, p. 11) Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus, POP) has a wide distribution in the North Pacific from southern California around the Pacific rim to northern Honshu Is., Japan, including the Bering Sea. The species appears to be most abundant in northern British Columbia, the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), and the Aleutian Islands (Allen and Smith 1988). Adults are found primarily offshore on the outer continental shelf and the upper continental slope in depths of 150–420 m (Hulson et al. 2017, p. 8)

2.1  ­What Is Caught in Fishery Systems

Catfish: ‘These are bottom feeders able to tolerate poor water conditions found in estuaries, deltas, along coasts and in fresh water worldwide. They have few bones in the flesh and are farmed extensively in North America’. (Sainsbury 1996, p. 10) Note that the above represents perhaps the most popular grouping of commercial fin fish species. Other taxonomic classifications are possible. For example, following Passino (1980) and Nelson (1994), one may also refer to Agnatha (e.g. lampreys) and Chondrichthyes (sharks, rays, skates, and chimaeras).

2.1.2 Shellfish Crustaceans and molluscs together comprise Sainsbury’s (1996) third grouping of aquatic species – the shellfish – which live largely on the seabed of the continental shelf, as well as in various inland freshwater systems. The following categorises the various shellfish and gives some examples of each category (together with the scientific names of species). Crustaceans: Thorp and Rogers (2011, p. 109) note for inland freshwater systems: Crustaceans are extremely important members of the planktonic and benthic com­ munities in almost all inland water ecosystems, including wetlands, freshwater and saline lakes, caves, and rivers . . . They are a vital food web link between primary producers (algae and aquatic weeds) and higher trophic levels. In a marine setting, crustaceans include ‘species (lobster, shrimp, and crabs) that are important economically in providing large harvests and high income. . . and ecologically as top predators in the marine benthic ecosystem’ (Radulovici et al. 2009). Among the specific species of crustaceans are shrimps and prawns, which swim just above the bottom – e.g. giant freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium resenbergi); sugpo prawn (Penaeus monodon) – and bottom-­dwelling animals such as the spiny lobster (Panulirus japonicus), American lobster (Homarus americanus), crayfish (Astacas astacas), Dungeness crab (Cancer magister), and snow crab (Chionoecetes bairdi). Also very important are small and often unharvested animals that are crucial to food webs, such as krill. Molluscs: There is a great diversity among these animals, as Ponder and Lindberg (2008, p. 1) state: The molluscan body plan is enormously varied, ranging from minute wormlike interstitial animals to giant squids and from microscopic snails to giant clams . . . Molluscs comprise some of the most diverse creatures in the sea and also have a significant presence in most terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Many have highly valued muscle tissue. Duncan (2003, p. 5222) noted that commercially important molluscs ‘belong to the classes Bivalvia, Gastropoda, and Cephalopoda’: ✽✽

Gastropods: Include those animals with a single shell that live on the bottom, includ­ ing the abalone (Haliotis rufescens), conch (Strombus gigas), and escargot (Helix aspera).

33

34

2  The Natural System: The Fish ✽✽

✽✽

Bivalves: Include clams, mussels, cockles, oysters, and scallops. Only a few of the several thousand species are commercially important. Examples of high-­value species are the Bay (or ‘blue’) mussel (Mytilus edulis), Japanese oyster (Crassostrea gigas), and giant clam (Tridacna gigas). These species ‘have two symmetrical shells. . . and live on the sea bed in shallow areas of the continental shelf, bays, and estuaries’ (Sainsbury 1996, p. 11). Cephalopods: Include the swimming molluscs with an internal shell: species such as ­cuttlefish (Sepia esculenta), squid (Loligo opalescens), and octopus (Octopus hongkongensis).

Marine Mammals Marine mammals tend to fit into three groupings: Carnivora (e.g. California sea lion, walrus, and harbor seal), Cetacea (e.g. sperm whale, blue whale, killer whale, common dolphin, Amazon dolphin), and Sirenia (e.g. manatee and dugong). All of these attract great attention from humans, who see marine mammals as special. They are not among the major harvested species of the world, but many people feel a particular attachment to marine mammals. As Würsig et al. (2017, p. xxvii) note, this is partly due to the many behavioural similarities marine mammals have with humans and partly because: Marine mammals are awe inspiring, whether one is confronted with the underwater dash of a sea lion, a breaching humpback or simply the size of a beached sperm whale. It is no surprise that we are fascinated and intrigued by these creatures. Indeed, the interest in marine mammals dates back millennia. Würsig et  al. (2017, p. xxvii) note that marine mammals have been studied ‘back at least to Aristotle’ who noted, more than two thousand years ago, that ‘dolphins gave birth to live young nursed with mother’s milk’. There is also another form of attention humans pay to marine mammals, a longstanding interest in them as the source of commercial products such as meat, oil, and fur. Some, notably Indigenous peoples rely on marine mammals for subsistence, and typically the harvesting has great cultural significance. In other cases, marine mammals are seen as being like fish – species in the sea to be exploited by humans. Various species of seals and whales, for example, are harvested in directed  –  and often controversial – fisheries. The controversy comes as a result of the two perspectives, or values, described above: marine mammals as a ‘natural resource’, or marine mammals as ‘awe inspiring’ species with some characteristics similar to humans. One of the most fundamental debates over human exploitation of the ocean revolves around whether or not marine mammals should be killed deliberately, or even inadvertently, in fisheries. As Würsig et al. (2017, p. 398) put it, ‘. . .hunting whales and other animals, including such marine mammals as seals raises numerous difficult ethical issues’. As a result of these issues, many major fishery efforts are undertaken to avoid mortality of marine mammals (e.g. tuna fisheries avoiding dolphins in their nets, and fishing vessels avoiding striking manatee and dugong).

2.1  ­What Is Caught in Fishery Systems

Figure 2.3  A wide range of aquatic species are harvested in the world’s fisheries.

Fish Stock Versus Fish Population In fishery systems, discussion of the fish is generally in terms of stocks and populations (Goethel et al. 2016; Hawkins et al. 2016). A population ‘includes all individuals of a given species when there are no subspecies or, if there are subspecies, when their distributions are not discrete’ (Iversen  1996, p. 106) – such that a population is a breeding unit that mixes only to a limited extent with other populations. Iversen (1996, p.  106) differentiates between the idea of a population and that of a sub-­population: ‘a fraction of a population that is genetically self-­sustaining’. Rossi et al. (2016, p. 2) differentiate between ‘open subpopulations that receive/export individuals from/to other subpopulations and closed subpopulations that do not exchange individuals to an appreciable extent’. Furthermore, given that in the ocean, it is common to have a certain level of ‘gene flow’ among geographically distant populations, it is important to consider the idea of meta-­populations (Gaggiotti  2017)  –  ‘any “assemblage of discrete local populations with migration between them”. . .’ (Hawkins et al. 2016, p. 334). The idea of a population contrasts with that of a stock. A stock need not be a well-­ defined biological entity. Rather, as Gulland (1983, p. 21) puts it:

35

36

2  The Natural System: The Fish

.  .  .the choice and definition of a unit stock can be considered as essentially an operational matter. . . a group of fish can be treated as a unit stock if possible differences within the group and interchanges with other groups can be ignored without making the conclusions reached depart from reality to an unacceptable extent. Given this flexibility in considering what is a fish stock, it is not surprising that a variety of definitions arise. Most commonly, a ‘stock’ is a geographically defined portion of a certain population, of a specific species. Vivekanandan (2017, pp.  115–116) notes that: The stock . . . is a subset of a species characterized by the same growth and mortality parameters, and inhabiting a particular geographical area . . . A biological fish stock is a group of fish of the same species that live in the same geographic area and mix enough to breed with each other when mature. In this sense, Vivekanandan (2017, p.  116) suggests that a ‘unit stock’ is ‘.  .  .a self-­ contained and self-­perpetuating group, with no mixing from outside. There are well-­ defined geographical limits of spawning and gene exchange within stocks of the non-­migratory or short distance migratory species unlike the highly migratory species’. This leads to a suggestion that it is ‘much easier to identify the stocks of such non-­ migratory species than those of the species undertaking long distance feeding and spawning migrations like the tunas’. The above focuses on a view of fish stocks as including fish of just a single species, in a certain geographical area. However, there is room for a broader view in practice. Vivekanandan (2017, pp. 115–116) differentiate a ‘biological stock’ and a ‘management stock’, which ‘may refer to a biological stock, or a multispecies complex that is managed as a single unit’. Cadrin (2020, p. 3) also reflects this idea: ‘In the practice of stock assessment and fishery management, some single populations contribute to multiple management units, and some management units include multiple distinct populations  .  .  .  or even multiple species’. Kerr et  al. (2016, p.  1709) indicate the same point: ‘In some cases, what is assumed to be a homogeneous stock may in fact be a mixed stock, composed of populations with unique demographics and dynamics’. Thus, in practice, a fish stock is whatever makes the most sense to manage and to assess. While fish populations are certainly of interest to scientists, it is fish stocks that are typically the focus of assessment and regulatory management. The important thing is that, to be useful for this, stocks need to be defined in a workable way – so variations ‘between’ them (differences across different stocks) clearly exceed variations within the stock. Since ‘stock assessment is about making quantitative predictions about population change in response to alternative management choices’ (Martell 2008, p. 1572), it follows, as Cadrin (2020, p. 1) puts it, that ‘in practice, stock assessments are applied to a wide range of fishery management units, from species complexes to local harvest stocks. . .’ .

2.1  ­What Is Caught in Fishery Systems

2.1.3 Characteristics There is clearly great diversity amongst the many aquatic species, only a small fraction of which is exploited in fisheries (but most of which are affected in some fashion by fishing). The range of variability for each of several key characteristics of fished species is outlined below, beginning with where the species are typically found (location and habitat), turning to biological features of the individual animals (lifespan, extent of migratory movement, and relative size), and finally trophic status (position in the food chain). A couple of marine species examples are given for each situation. Geographical location: e.g. cold waters (Antarctic krill), temperate waters (cod and American lobster), tropical waters (tiger shrimp and croaker) Habitat: e.g. tropical coral reefs (parrotfish and groupers), tropical mangroves (bivalves and juvenile fishes), tropical deep waters (tuna), temperate demersal (cod and flounder), temperate pelagic (herring and salmon) Lifespan: Short-­lived (shrimp, ~1 year) to intermediate (cod, ~15–20 years) to long-­lived (redfish, ~40+ years) Extent of movement: Sessile (mussels and sponges), sedentary (clams and sea urchins), site-­ attached (crabs and reef fishes), migratory (cod, herring, and mackerel) Size: Small (krill and shrimp), medium (herring and cod), large (tuna and whales) Trophic status: Herbivore (krill and abalone), omnivore (lobster), detrotivore (prawn and sea cucumber), first-­order predator (herring baleen whale), top predator (shark and killer whale)

Australia’s Fisheries Resources ‘The Australian EEZ including the Territorial Sea is about 9.0 million km2 in area. . . contains a wide range of tropical to sub-­Antarctic shallow water conditions and habitats [and] constitutes a vast array of highly diverse habitats and ocean features’ (Butler et al. 2010, p. 1). As a result of this diversity, ‘there may be as many as 250,000 species (known and yet to be discovered) in the Australian EEZ’. In contrast, Australian inland waters have comparatively few fish species: ‘Australia’s freshwater fish fauna, with about 300 native species, is the smallest for any continent of a similar size. . .’ (Bray  2018). This is ‘partly because Australia is the driest continent on earth’ (Bray 2018). As noted by Butler et al. (2010, p. 3) ‘the continent is mostly arid and there are no major coastal upwellings’. The Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) . . . covers Commonwealth waters – generally from 3 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles from the Australian coast . . . The AFZ covers an area of over 8 million square kilometres. (Australian Government 2021) Australia’s fish stocks are assessed regularly, with the results reported in the Status of Australian Fish Stock Reports (FRDC 2022). The 2020 report covers 148 species, in four main groups – molluscs, crustaceans, finfish, and sharks – ‘approximately

37

38

2  The Natural System: The Fish

90% of the total of Australia species commercially fished’. In total, 477 fish stocks are assessed, some being ‘biological stocks’, others being based on ‘management unit’ and still others defined by the jurisdiction within which they reside. The report looks at ‘biological sustainability.  .  . against a nationally agreed framework’, i.e. ‘whether the abundance of fish and the level of harvest from the stock are sustainable’.

2.2  ­Spatial Distribution of Fished Resources A number of factors influence the spatial arrangement of fished species. Classification of fishery-­related aquatic life with respect to their position in the water column – demersal versus pelagic – was noted above. Aquatic life ranges from that located essentially on the bottom of the ocean or other water body (benthos) to higher in the water column, from plankton to a range of fish and other aquatic life (e.g. Petrik et al. 2019; Ying et al. 2020). The plankton are particularly important members of the marine communities that sup­ port fisheries since, from a spatial perspective, such organisms low in the food web (and biophysical conditions that affect them) can strongly influence where fished species are concentrated. Brierley (2017, pp. 478, 479, 489) notes that ‘phytoplankton are the essential base of most pelagic ecosystems’, occur in ‘illuminated surface waters (the euphotic zone)’, and are ‘responsible for about 45% of global annual primary production and are grazed by zooplankton, which in turn are suitably sized food items for predators including commer­ cially important fish and great whales’. Another major factor that explains the spatial distribution of aquatic species is latitude. In the case of marine species, for example, Chaudhary et al. (2017, pp. 234–235) reviewed species richness, finding that for a dataset of 65,000 species, the results ‘were bimodal, with a dip in richness immediately south of the Equator. This was the case for benthic and pelagic, vertebrate and invertebrate, and all species together’. In broad terms, species diver­ sity tends to decrease with increasing latitude, although the explanation for this is not entirely clear. Furthermore, there is a greater tendency to observe ‘dominant’ species at higher latitudes as opposed to a more even mix of species in the tropics. Barnes and Kuklinski (2003, p. 24) discuss the ecology of species distribution: The proportion of total competitors meeting each other decreases with ­latitude . . . whilst that just involving the most abundant species increases . . . The diversity of competition is thus depressed at high latitude and raised at low latitude. They relate this to inter-­species competition, stating that ‘competition is hierarchical at high latitude. . . towards the poles the ‘pecking order’ is more severe . . . At equatorial lati­ tudes the structure of competitive interactions . . . more closely resembles a network with no clear ranking of competitors’ (p. 18). Physical and chemical factors that vary with latitude (e.g. temperature, light, and nutrients) also influence which species are caught where in the world’s fisheries. As noted by Chaudhary et al. (2017, p. 235) ‘Latitude is a surrogate for temperature and solar radiation (including day length and seasonality), which in turn influence primary and secondary productivity’.

2.2  ­Spatial Distribution of Fished Resource

Latitude can influence the richness of species even within a relatively narrow range of latitude. For example, in a study of the structure and composition of nearshore marine fish communities, along 700 km of the Portuguese coastline, Baptista et al. (2019, p. 173) found that in this ‘important geographical transition area between cold-­temperate and warm-­temperate regions’ of the Atlantic: Overall, species richness was higher in the southern seaports. . . . As expected, cold-­ temperate species presented higher abundance in the northern seaports, and both warm-­temperate and subtropical species increased in number towards the southern limits. Tropical species were only present in the southernmost area. The main driver for variations in the fish community structure and composition was the water tem­ perature gradient imposed by latitude, highlighting the environmental control in shaping marine biological communities.

Natural Capital A traditional economic analysis of automobile manufacturing might focus on how labour (workers) and capital (machines and materials) combine together to produce goods (cars). In this sense, the term capital refers to a physical stock of machines and material that is needed to generate a flow of output (automobiles). In this case, it is manufactured capital that we are discussing – the machines were made by people. If we now think of capital as being stocks of any inputs to a process, then we can view labour as human capital (including in that term not just a simple measure of person-­ hours of work, but also human ingenuity and other human attributes) (United Nations 2016). In a fishery, in addition to human capital and human-­ made capital (which together provide a flow of fishing activity), there is another key element – the natural capital of fish, water, ecosystems, and physical–chemical environment –  that provides flows of fish (through natural population dynamics) and of ecological services such as maintenance of the water cycle, biological diversity, and scenic beauty. Natural capital also combines with fishers and boats to generate a flow of seafood products. In the past, natural capital in the aquatic environment may have been viewed solely in terms of the fish stocks. These are important, certainly, from a fishery perspective, and considerable effort is put into measuring change in the biomass of key fish stocks. However, this is only part of the natural capital picture (Charles et  al.  2009, p.  12). Increases or decreases in the biomass of fished stocks do not necessarily reflect trends in the overall natural capital within the ocean or other aquatic area. As we will see, an ‘ecosystem approach to fisheries’ takes a more holistic perspective on natural capital. More is involved. Looking beyond fisheries, natural capital (and the associated ‘ecosystem services’) is what keeps the planet functioning, just as capital produced by humans –  roads and buildings and factories and fishing boats  –  forms the physical capital. Essentially,

39

40

2  The Natural System: The Fish

considering natural capital ‘has the potential to reconcile economic and environmental interests by integrating the value of natural capital in decision-­making’ (Voora and Venema 2008, p. 3). A focus on natural capital has proven useful in considering the ‘capital’ in the same way as we consider physical (built) capital, e.g. in terms of the ‘depreciation’ ­(reduction) of capital. Excessively large harvests, while looking positive in standard economic terms, lead to excessive depreciation of the natural capital. This is like spending more than we earn, so our savings account declines. Or not maintaining our machines, until eventually the factory falls apart. Indeed, the depreciation in value of natural capital (as for produced capital) can be ‘due to both quantitative depletion (e.g. fewer fish or trees) and qualitative degradation (the quality of a fish population or a forest)’ (Charles et  al.  2009, p.  20). This underlies the all-­too-­common fishery collapses around the world. A major issue with natural capital lies in how to measure it. We regularly put a monetary value on human-­made capital by measuring investment costs – the value of roads and bridges, office towers, and fish processing plants. With natural capital, however, it is not so easy: ‘in monetary terms, it must be acknowledged that there is no general agreement on how to measure these assets accurately. Indeed, some natural assets are truly invaluable and irreplaceable, thus, not conducive to quantitative valuation’ (Charles et al. 2009, p. 12). Accordingly, we can never measure the full value of natural capital in money terms. (This could be said as well for human-­ made capital: do we value the pyramids of Egypt merely by what it cost to build them? Or to replace them? Some things have a cultural value that transcends monetary accounting.) Yet it has proven useful to look at natural capital partly in monetary terms (Costanza et al. 1997; Voora and Venema 2008; Atela et al. 2018): . . .the policy arena is so dominated by budgetary considerations that valuation –­ particularly in monetary terms – is an important strategic tool to ensure that attention is paid to the sustainability of our natural wealth . . . and in particular, to ensure that changes in natural capital are not ignored, as has happened in the past. (Charles et al. 2009, p. 12) This helps to highlight that it is not just dead fish on boats that have value (as in a typical GDP accounting) – so do fish stocks and other natural capital in the sea, which serve as a ‘savings account’ from which interest may be harvested year after year. The monetary value of natural capital serves as a lower bound on the true value. Voora and Venema (2008, p. 3) illustrate this with an analogous forest example: Like a savings account, natural capital can pay interest or be liquidated. If a tree is chopped down for firewood, the capital has been spent. However, if the tree is retained and preserved, it can deliver (perhaps much higher) value through the ecosystem services of shade, air filtration, carbon sequestration and erosion control.

2.3 ­Fish Dynamic

2.3 ­Fish Dynamics Recruitment is one of the most variable biological processes driving fisheries popu­ lation dynamics and the characteristics and drivers of the variation differ among stocks. Understanding. . . and predicting (forecasting) this variation is essential to appropriate stock assessment and fisheries management. Maunder and Thorson (2019, p. 71) Dynamic analyses of fishery systems have a particularly long history in the natural sci­ ences, such as biology and oceanography. Notably, fish population dynamics  –  the pro­ cesses of change over time, arising through survival and reproduction of fish stocks – has been a key focus of biological studies, certainly the best studied dynamics within fishery systems. The motivation has been both in seeking to understand the causes of fish popula­ tion changes and in providing support for setting biologically sustainable harvests. This has involved the study of basic biological aspects of the fish (such as size-­at-­age, intrinsic growth rates, and carrying capacities) as well as the use of techniques such as virtual ­population analysis, simulation, time series analysis, and a variety of statistical techniques (see, e.g. Gallucci et al. 1996; Jurado-­Molina et al. 2016). This section reviews some key features of single-­and multi-­species dynamics, as well as a brief discussion of the dynamics of ecosystems and the biophysical environment. At this point, it is worth reiterating what was noted earlier: while uncertainty is a key aspect of the dynamics in all fisheries, to simplify the presentation here, its treatment is relatively brief, with a detailed discussion left to Chapter 10, as well as Chapter 14.

2.3.1 

Single-­Species Dynamics

To aid in the process of stock assessment, it is useful to have an idea (and predictive capability) of how individual fish species vary over time, affected by a combination of reproduction, survival, growth, and natural mortality. Maunder and Thorson (2019, p. 75) note that: Recruitment is often modeled via the combination of a function predicting average recruitment (e.g. either a constant or based on the stock-­recruitment relationship) and deviations of annual recruitment around this function. Fisheries scientists have modeled average recruitment as a function of spawning biomass since at least Beverton and Holt (1957). To this end, consider a fishery scenario in which, before the start of this year’s fishing season, a fishery management plan must be developed, designating how much fishing can occur – and this in turn requires a prediction of how much fish will be available to the fishery. This is referred to as the ‘fishable biomass’, i.e. how much fish is of a suitable size, and available to the fishery. It is important to differentiate this from the ‘adult biomass’, the total biomass of adult fish. As McClanahan (2018, p. 472) note, total biomass ‘differs from catchable and target biomass because not all biomass can be fished and portions of the fish­ able biomass are not targeted for the catch’.

41

42

2  The Natural System: The Fish

In simple terms, the population dynamics may determine this year’s fishable biomass as a combination of (1) the net survival of fish from last year, modified by the individual growth rate, plus (2) the new ‘recruitment’ of ‘fishable’ fish this year, resulting from the eggs laid by the adult spawning (reproducing) stock in past years, with intervening mortality arising from environmental/ecological effects: = Biomass this year (Average individual growth rate) ⋅ (Survival of last year’sbiomass) + Recruitment of newfish into the fishable biomass this year To use this equation, it is necessary to know the underlying connection between the size of the spawning stock and the subsequent recruitment – a connection referred to as the stock–recruitment relationship. If the relationship can be determined, it becomes possible to predict average future stock sizes (Maunder and Thorson 2019). This typically involves a positive connection between the number of spawning fish this year and the number of new fish expected in the future, through the reproduction process. The mathematical form of the stock–recruitment relationship is discussed in the box below for those interested. The Stock–Recruitment Relationship Population dynamics can be depicted, using our best knowledge of the dynamic process, in the form of mathematical ‘models’. Suppose that we use the symbol Xt to depict the number of adult (fishable) fish at the start of fishing season ‘t’ (where t is a number denoting the year) and Ht to denote the harvest of fish during the fishing season. For simplicity, let us assume that the fishing season is short relative to the calendar year (so that natural mortality during the fishing season can be ignored) and that spawning takes place immediately after the fishery. Then the adult fish stock remaining after fishing has taken place in year t is Xt − Ht, which is the spawning stock. The new recruitment, in the future, that will result from this spawning stock, depends on the specifics of the stock–recruitment relationship. We usually write this as a function F so that in symbols, the connection between the spawning stock Xt − Ht and resulting recruitment (R) in the future is: Rfuture = F(Xt − Ht). Note that in general, this is not the actual fish stock in the future, but just the ‘new recruitment’ into the fishable stock, as there will also be survival of existing fish in the stock. The above stock–recruitment relationship, although overly simplified, captures the key conservation issue in the sustainable use of renewable resources: if the harvest (Ht) is excessive, the spawning stock (Xt − Ht) will be less than would otherwise be the case, impacting negatively (on average) on the resource available in the future, due to there being fewer new fish (Rfuture).

The population dynamics become simplified in a number of special cases: 1) If the fish stock has non-­overlapping generations, there is no survival from year to year, and the first term in the equation above disappears. This does not apply to most fish stocks (where age structure is important) but is often the case, for example, with shrimp

2.3 ­Fish Dynamic

stocks and with pink salmon on the Pacific coast of North America, which follows a strict two-­year life cycle. In the latter case, for example, the above expression for this year’s biomass becomes: Biomass two years from now = Recruitment of fish into the fishable biomass, produced by the spawning stock this year Accordingly, what is left after fishing this year directly produces the adult (fishable) biomass two years from now. (For those who reviewed the box above, this is: Xt+2 = F(Xt − Ht).) 2) Simplified population dynamics are also produced if we assume a single pooled fish stock, with (1) a constant survival rate, independent of the age of the fish, and (2) so-­ called knife-­edge recruitment, in which all fish recruit to (i.e. join) the adult (fishable) stock at one specific age. (Note that the latter assumption is usually unrealistic since, in reality, fish mature at varying rates, and recruitment to a fishery often depends more on fish size than age, with the relationship between size and age varying over time.) Given these assumptions, the dynamics can be written: Biomass next year  (Average individual growth rate) (Survival of thisyear sbiomass)  Recruitment of newfish due to reproduction some years previously Figure 2.4 shows an example of how a fish population could change over time in such a situation. The dynamics shown are not based on a real-­world fishery, but produced 1000

Fish Stock Size

750

30% Harvest Rate

500

250 60% Harvest Rate 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Time (Years)

Figure 2.4  An example of the dynamics of a fish stock affected by natural population dynamics together with fishing activity. The population dynamics incorporate survival from the previous year and recruitment resulting from prior reproduction. The harvesting process is based on a fixed annual harvest rate, with two harvesting scenarios shown. This reflects the expected situation in which a low harvest rate leads to a rising stock while a high rate causes the stock to fall. In both cases, an equilibrium is eventually reached.

43

44

2  The Natural System: The Fish

using a model to illustrate a possible situation. Specifically, in this case, the bottom line shows dynamics with a relatively high rate of fishing, such that the fish stock declines over time, while the top line shows the outcome with a lower rate of fishing, producing a fish stock increase. In Figure 2.4, fishing is assumed to be with a fixed annual harvest rate, i.e. catching a constant fraction of the stock each year. A more technical discussion of this approach is given in the boxes below, for those who wish to explore the details. Age-­Structured Population Dynamics Model #1 The above scenario involves assuming that (1) the number of adult fish surviving to next year is a constant fraction ‘s’ of those fish left after fishing took place this year, Xt − Ht, and (2) young fish ‘recruit’ to the adult stock precisely at age ‘a’ (measured from year of reproduction). Then the recruitment of new fish this year is given by applying a stock–recruitment function F, as discussed in the preceding box, to the surviving fish ‘a’ years earlier than next year, i.e. in year t+1 − a. This is Xt+1−a − Ht+1 − a. In symbols, this dynamic connection between past, present, and future can be written: X t 1  s   X t  Ht   F  X t 1a  Ht 1a 

3) A third option for simplification is to assume the recruitment of new fish into the fish­ able biomass to be constant, perhaps equal to an historical average level, say over a previous five-­year period. This approach has been used in many fish stock assessment applications (Maunder and Thorson 2019, pp. 71–72), notably when attempts to statisti­ cally ‘fit’ a stock–recruitment relationship failed. In such cases, an implicit assumption that no such relationship exists leads to the assumption of constant recruitment. This has been common, for example, in shrimp fisheries (where the life cycle of the animal is a single year and environmental factors often seem to dominate recruitment). In such a case, the dynamics might be written: = Biomass this year

(Average individual growth rate) ⋅ (Survival of last year’sbiomass) + Constant recruitment

However, when a constant recruitment assumption is made, attention is usually focused on the age structure of the fish stock. It should be noted that drawbacks to assuming constant recruitment have proven considerable (as will be discussed later in this book) – an implicit assumption of no stock–recruitment relationship can lead to man­ agement that neglects the importance of maintaining a strong spawning stock. Some success has occurred in developing models that combine stock–recruitment and key environmental factors – greater research is needed in this direction. This situation is discussed in a rather complex modelling framework in the box below.

2.3 ­Fish Dynamic

Age-­Structured Population Dynamics Model #2 The third option above involves an age-­structured model in which each ‘age class’ of fish is treated separately. For simplicity, suppose that at an age a*, fish become mature and are first vulnerable to the fishery (although not all fish of that age will be vulnerable). Then the adult stock is comprised of all age classes from a* on, while the fishable biomass is made up of certain fractions of each age class from age a* on. Define Xa,t as the biomass of adult fish of age ‘a’ at the start of year t, Ya,t as the fishable biomass of age-­a fish at the start of year t, and Ha,t as the number of that age class caught during that season. Then, Xa, t − Ha, t is the number of fish of age ‘a’ at the end of year t. ●●

●●

●●

Applying the constant-­recruitment assumption, assume that Xa*,t = C, where C is the constant recruitment of fish entering the stock at age a*. Define sa as the age-­dependent survival rate of fish from age a − 1 to age a, so that a fraction sa of the Xa−1,t−1 − Ha−1,t−1 fish of age a − 1 at the end of year t − 1 will survive to remain in the stock in year t. Determine the fishable biomass by taking a fraction of the adult stock at each age, the fraction being given by a term in a so-­called partial recruitment vector, giving for each age ‘a’, the proportion (pa) of fish of that age that are actually vulnerable to harvesting (i.e. in the fishable stock). The proportion typically is around 0% for very young fish, rises to 100% at higher ages, and may decrease at very high ages if old fish become less available to the fishery.

Given all this, the population dynamics for this age-­structured model states that the adult biomass Xa,t of fish of age ‘a’ in year t and the corresponding fishable stock Ya,t are given by: X a , t   sa   X a 1, t 1  Ha 1, t 1 



Ya , t   pa  sa   X a 1, t 1  Ha 1, t 1  for a  a*

 

X a , t  C ; Ya , t  pa C *

2.3.2 

*

*

Multi-­Species Dynamics

It is relatively rare to find a fishery that exploits only a single species. Although one species may be considered of most importance, others are usually caught at the same time. For example, fishers in a shrimp fishery may be entirely focused on the catch of shrimp, yet the majority of the catch, by weight, is often comprised of other species. In such a case, these other species are considered lower-­valued by-­catch or even as ‘trash fish’. In many other fisheries, the species caught may be of somewhat comparable value to one another. In the North Sea, for example, various flatfish, cod, and other groundfish species are all important to the fishers. In this case, it is useful to be able to predict changes in abundances of several species over time, in other words, to predict the multi-­species dynamics. Mackinson et al. (2020, p. 181) note that the European Union’s Common Fishery Policy seeks to take into

45

2  The Natural System: The Fish 600 500

Fish Stock Size

46

400

Prey

300 200 Predator 100 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Time (Years)

Figure 2.5  An example is shown of predator–prey dynamics based on two species interacting within a Lotka–Volterra model, with no fishing activity occurring in this example. Cycles of the predator and prey occur, gradually declining in magnitude, tending towards an eventual long-­term equilibrium.

account multi-­species effects, which are seen to be ‘of particular importance in mixed fish­ eries where the catch includes multiple species caught at the same time, a good example being the North Sea mixed demersal fisheries for cod, haddock, whiting and saithe’. To assess and predict change over time in situations of multiple species, suitable models are needed. An example of the results of using such a model is shown in Figure 2.5, for two-­species predator–prey dynamics. In this particular case, so-­called Lotka–Volterra equa­ tions are used, to mimic up-­and-­down cycles of the predator and prey. The predator drives down the prey abundance, leading to a decline in the predators, which then allows an increase in prey, and so on, cycle after cycle. In this case, there is a gradual decline in the magnitude of the cycles and a slow approach to an equilibrium. (Note that there is no human harvesting in this example.) The key issue in considering this challenge is to determine whether interactions amongst species are: ✽✽

✽✽

ecological interactions, based, for example, on predator–prey effects, competition among species for habitat or food, or other food web interactions (such as the species being in the diet of a common predator, like seals), or technical interactions arising when the species are caught together in the fishing gear.

Ecological, particularly trophic, interactions have been heavily studied by biologists. There are many famous laboratory experiments and observational studies exploring inter­ actions of a predator and a prey (see box). However, within an aquatic environment, such interactions remain poorly understood.

2.3 ­Fish Dynamic

Predator–Prey Interactions In aquatic environments, understanding predator–prey interactions is crucial for ­effective and sustainable fisheries management. Overharvesting of one of the species, whether a predator or prey, can produce serious negative impacts. With respect to the overharvesting of predators, Selden et al. (2018, p. 11) note: In some marine ecosystems, overharvesting marine predators has triggered major changes in trophic structure and ecosystem function . . . Given the widespread, and potentially irreversible ecosystem consequences of depleting predators, it is critical to predict the conditions under which harvesting will disrupt predator–prey inter­ actions, whether the goal is to benefit from prey production or avoid adverse ecosystem outcomes. Conversely, Watters et  al. (2020, p.  1) focus on overharvesting of prey species: ‘To conserve large fishes, seabirds, and marine mammals, many stakeholders advocate precautionary management of fisheries that target forage species (e.g. krill, anchovies, and sardines)’ in order to prevent concentrated fishing on such species. Technical interactions have received considerable attention by fishery scientists, since problems of unwanted by-­catches, and in particular impacts of dumping fish of the ‘wrong’ species or size, can have major conservation implications. This arises particularly due to the intrinsic ‘mixing’ that occurs in an aquatic environment. This can arise as well in a ter­ restrial environment – analogies might be of a trapper catching an unwanted animal or a forestry firm discarding trees of a suboptimal size – but overall, since controls over harvest­ ing tend to be easier in such situations, the problem receives less attention than in the fishery context.

Chapter 2.  The Natural System: The Fish Key Messages ●●

●●

●●

Without fish (and fishers), there can be no fisheries. The fish lie at the heart of fishery systems. This chapter presents a brief overview of the natural sub-­system of fisheries, focusing on the structure and dynamics of these systems, and approaches to classifying the relevant species. While we may refer to ‘the fish’, in fact there is a wide range of harvested species, and many more that are not harvested. These include fin fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants, such as seaweeds. The great biodiversity among species is reflected in their appearances, life cycles, habitats, and more.

47

48

3 The Natural System: Fishery Ecosystems This chapter moves on from Chapter 2, which focused on the fish and other aquatic life, to examine fishery ecosystems – i.e. the various kinds of ecosystems, saltwater, or freshwater, in which those fish and other aquatic life live. This chapter also discusses the ­various biophysical environments relevant to fishery ecosystems. All of this lies within the fishery system’s natural sub-­system. As noted at the outset of Chapter 2, a single chapter cannot do justice to the diversity and complexity involved in aquatic ecosystems and environments, nor the array of research that has been carried out on these topics by natural scientists. In this chapter, the goal is to add to Chapter 2, on the structure and dynamics of the natural system, and how this relates to aspects of fishery management, with a focus here on ecosystems and the biophysical environment, as shown in Figure 3.1 (repeating Figure 2.1).

3.1 ­Ecosystems Chapter 2 highlighted that the populations of fished species do not live in isolation from one another. They interact in a complex manner – with each other, with populations of unfished plants and animals, with humans (the top predator), and with the physical– chemical environment in which they live. Predators eat prey. Species compete for common food sources. (Furthermore, with humans involved, by-­catch species are caught in the fishing gear targeted on other species.) Individuals, local populations, meta-­ populations, species, local assemblages of species, the communities they form, and the habitats, environments, and, ultimately, the oceans, lakes, and other water bodies they inhabit form a hierarchy of the sort fundamental to the science of ecology (Odum 1974). These various levels and components all influence the functioning of ecosystems. As Ward et al. (2016, p. 11) note, ‘it is not only diversity in community structure, but also diversity within constituent populations that drives ecosystem function’. The essential idea is that of multi-­scale linkages and interactions among the living and non-­living components within ecosystems and a hierarchy of organisation, both biological and functional (Endrédi et al. 2018).

Sustainable Fishery Systems, Second Edition. Anthony Charles. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

3.1 ­Ecosystem

Natural System Ecosystem Community Aquatic Species

External Forces (e.g. climate change)

Habitat Aquatic Environment

Figure 3.1  The structure of the natural sub-­system is shown (as in Figure 2.1). Fish species interact with the ecosystem and in turn with the biophysical environment. External forces impact on the entire system. Source: Figure design by Larissa Sweeney.

Ecologists are among those most accustomed to thinking about systems. A systems approach is, after all, at the heart of ecology. As López-­Delgado et al. (2020, p. 1) note: A major goal in ecology is to understand mechanisms that influence patterns of biodiversity and community assembly at various spatial and temporal scales. Understanding how community composition is created and maintained also is critical for natural resource management and biological conservation. The importance of an ecological perspective has been widely emphasised (e.g. Mangel and Levin 2005; Fogarty and Botsford 2007) and countless textbooks and research papers have been written about ecological systems, what they are, how to study them, and how to protect them. The discussion here gives only a cursory treatment of this important subject. Consider first the matter of defining what is meant by an ecosystem. Here are three ­possible definitions among many: 1) The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines an ecosystem as a ‘functioning, interacting system composed of living organisms and their environment’ (https://www. fao.org/3/t0715e/t0715e0c.htm) and notes that ‘Ecosystems may be considered at different geographical scales, from a grain of sand with its rich microfauna, to a whole beach, a coastal area or estuary, a semi-­enclosed sea and, eventually, the whole Earth’. (Garcia et al. 2003, p. 7) 2) The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines an ecosystem as ‘a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-­organism communities and their non-­living ­environment interacting as a functional unit’. (CBD 2022)

49

50

3  The Natural System: Fishery Ecosystems

3) Tsujimoto et  al. (2018, p.  50) view an ecosystem not only as ‘A biological system ­composed of all the organisms found in a particular physical environment, interacting with it and each other’ but also including consideration of its application beyond ­ecological communities into fields such as management and technological innovation. Some commentators suggest that the term ecosystem is bound to be ill-­defined (‘fuzzy’) and that the definition of an ecosystem is very dependent on the context – in particular on precisely what aspects are of interest and what boundaries we choose to draw. Others differ, pointing to the ability to define and operationalise ecosystems in practical circumstances (such as coral reefs) and to make use of certain characteristics of ecosystems, such as their hierarchical organisation. A ‘systems’ perspective on ecosystems, and on ecosystem-­human interactions, is shown in the box below. A Systems View of Ecosystems and Human Connections Stave and Kopainsky (2017) present a systems view of the environment and of the human–environment relationship: The systems view of the environment: social-­ecological systems consist of many different parts that interact in complex ways  .  .  .  The ecosystem dimension of an SES, for example, might be considered at five nested levels from micro-­habitat to patch, reach, river, and biogeographical region  .  .  .  System activities take place across dimensions and across levels  .  .  .  Through  interactions and feedback effects across subsystems and levels in response to internal or external pressures, social-­ecological systems can self-­organize (i.e., adjust themselves through interactions among their components), novel configurations can emerge, and adaptation is made possible. (Stave and Kopainsky 2017, p. 29) The systems view of the human-­environment relationship: Local environmental characteristics—­the quantities and quality of environmental resources—­constrain and provide opportunities for individual and community use of natural resources and ecosystem services. For example, the types of crops that can be grown or minerals that can be mined are a function of the resources that exist . . . Changes in environmental characteristics in response to disturbances from human activities are shaped by and further shape ecosystem structure and ecological processes. These causal influences underlie the dynamic behavior of all parts of the system, including the central human-­environment connection. (Stave and Kopainsky 2017, p. 26)

3.1.1  Aquatic/Fishery Ecosystems In discussing ecosystems of relevance to fisheries, we can speak broadly of aquatic ecosystems, or we may focus on marine ecosystems if our interest is in an ocean fishery, or we may highlight the connection between fisheries and aquatic ecosystems by referring to fishery

3.1 ­Ecosystem

ecosystems. Lenfest Fishery Ecosystem Task Force (2016, p. 7) considers fishery ecosystems in the context of fishery systems broadly, indicating that a fishery system consists of ‘linked biophysical and human subsystems with interacting ecological, economic, social, and cultural components’, where the fishery ecosystem consists of the biotic and abiotic components and processes occurring within the biophysical subsystem that supports fishery activity. Despite their obvious importance to fisheries, aquatic ecosystems are not necessarily well understood. As indicated earlier, it is often said that humans know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the bottom of the ocean. Many remarkable findings deep in the ocean have been only recently discovered, and undoubtedly many more are yet to be discovered. Biodiversity in the marine environment is not limited to the ocean floor, and aquatic biodiversity is, of course, found as well in freshwater lakes and rivers. What is common to many aquatic environments is our lack of understanding of the detailed nature and functioning of the relevant ecosystems (e.g. Link et al. 2012). Interactions are complex, poorly understood, and potentially bi-­directional. For example, suppose that in a particular ecosystem, we focus on a specific predator and prey pair. If a fishery targeting on the prey reduces its population through harvesting, this may imply a reduction in the food available for the predator. Should the allowable harvest of the prey be reduced below what would otherwise be the case to provide greater availability for the predator? Conversely, what would be the effect of a reduced catch of the predator? This would seem to imply greater mortality for the prey, and thus a reduced prey population. But at the same time, a larger predator stock may well produce more juveniles in the future, and it is sometimes the case that those juveniles are themselves a food source for the prey, as is the case with juvenile cod being eaten by herring. In such a case, the overall impact on the prey is uncertain  –  a balance between increased predation and increased food availability. This is potentially compounded by aspects of competition. An increased abundance of the predator may imply greater competition with other predator species that have the same prey as a food source. The impact of this on the prey will depend on the strength of competition between the predators and the preferences of each species for the specific prey as a food source. The interactions can be complex! Traditionally, assessments of fishery resources have been of a single-­species nature. In other words, the multi-­species fishery system is studied one species at a time. This has typically ignored the non-­commercial species, and generally not considered interactions among species – except in an aggregated form, as a natural mortality coefficient which is typically assumed to be constant. This is clearly a great over-­simplification of the range of factors known to affect the survival of fish (e.g. Gulland  1982; Thorpe et  al.  2017). Similarly, effects of the physical–chemical environment on the dynamics of fished populations are rarely incorporated in the models used to predict fish stock status, despite strong scientific reasons to do so (Longhurst  1981; Mann and Lazier  2005; Hamilton et al. 2016). In short, the fact that fish are small and integral parts of large marine ecosystems has rarely been incorporated in stock assessment and prediction for management decision making. While fishery scientists have always recognised the desirability of broadening to an ­ecosystem approach (e.g. Gulland  1982 FAO), this has rarely taken place due to the

51

52

3  The Natural System: Fishery Ecosystems

difficulties in doing so, a lack of resources, and an inertia that developed in some cases to perpetuate well-­accepted, if flawed, single-­species assessment methods. A new trend is developing, however, to find feasible methods for multi-­species and/or ecosystem-­level assessment within an ecosystem approach; this is discussed in detail in Chapter 15.

Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) are wide areas of ocean space along the Earth’s continental margins, spanning 200,000 square kilometres or more and extending from estuaries and river basins seaward to the outer margins of major currents or the edge of continental shelves. These are the world’s most productive areas of the ocean, where most (about 90%) of the world’s fish catch is taken. (IUCN 2020a) The 66 identified LMEs (IUCN 2020a) cover ‘large swaths of the world’s coasts, contain some of its richest marine biodiversity and provide goods and services to billions of ­people worth more than US $12 trillion annually’ (IUCN 2020b). They are ‘each defined by unique undersea topography, current dynamics, marine productivity, and food chain interactions’ (IUCN  2020b) and represent unique ecological units for assessment and  management. Some examples of LMEs currently defined include (Kelley and Sherman 2018): ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

Yellow Sea (Western Pacific Ocean) Indonesian Sea (at the confluence of the Pacific and Indian Oceans) Bay of Bengal (Northeastern Indian Ocean) Black Sea (Southeastern Europe) Baltic Sea (Europe, North Atlantic Ocean) Mediterranean Sea (Europe/Africa) Guinea Current (Gulf of Guinea) (West Africa, Atlantic Ocean) Benguela Current (Southern Africa, Southeast Atlantic Ocean) California Current (Western North America, Pacific Ocean) Northeast Continental Shelf (Eastern North America, Atlantic Ocean) Gulf of Mexico (Caribbean) Humboldt Current (Western South America) Patagonian Shelf (Eastern South America)

3.1.2  A Typology of Fishery Ecosystems How can fishery-­related ecosystems be classified? Mucina (2019), focusing on terrestrial ecosystems, noted that ecosystem types can be classified by biome, distinguished by unique biogeographic features that categorise each type (e.g. tundra, rainforest, desert biomes). Inland fishery ecosystems include lakes and rivers, notably: Oligotrophic lakes (located in cold environments, at high altitude or high latitude, often dominated by salmonids), meso and eutrophic lakes (located in warm, temperate to tropical areas, having high productivity,

3.1 ­Ecosystem

and often dominated by cichlids), cold-­water streams (located typically in higher altitude, forested areas, and often dominated by salmonids), warm-­water rivers (located in lower ­altitude, agricultural areas, typically with perciform and cyprinid fishes) (Royce 1996). Considering marine environments, Zhao et  al. (2020, p.  327) define an ecosystem as ‘enduring regions demarcated by environmental characteristics’, and with this definition, conclude that there are seven distinct marine ecosystems globally. Some of the world’s principal types of marine fishery ecosystems are as follows, drawing on brief descriptions in Royce (1996), with a variety of additional perspectives in quotations. ✽✽

Tropical reefs: The protein source for many of the world’s artisanal fishers is provided by the many species of fish and invertebrates in these topographically complex structures. coral reef fisheries . . . are estimated to generate revenue in excess of US$5.7 billion annually, supporting 6 million fishers distributed across nearly 100 countries . . . and providing a broad portfolio of ecosystem services. (Nash and Graham 2016, p. 1030)

✽✽

Estuaries: Home to major mollusc fisheries, spawning/nursery areas for crustaceans and fishes. Located at the interface between land and sea, estuarine ecosystems are strongly affected by natural and anthropogenic environmental pressures, with potential impacts on the services they provide. (Couillard et al. 2017, p. 268)

Figure 3.2  Mangroves are found in many bays, estuaries, and other coastal regions of the tropics. Along with coral reefs, they are of critical importance to the coastal environment, providing key habitat for juvenile fishes and other aquatic life.

53

54

3  The Natural System: Fishery Ecosystems

. . . estuaries have been claimed to be among the most productive natural habitats in the world. Estuaries and coastal waters and their shores provide a wealth of food and ecosystems which support fish, birds, and other wildlife . . . while estuaries and coasts make up only a small fraction of the total area of the world’s seas, they are not only responsible for much of the fish production that we consume but, just as important, are also essential for the quality of life of the 50% of the human population on Earth that lives near the coast. (Wolanski and McLusky 2011, p. xxxvii) ✽✽

Continental shelves: Include the major demersal fisheries of the world including cod and flounder in temperate areas and multiple species of groundfish in subtropical/tropical areas. As the interface between continents and the open ocean, ‘Most of the world’s major fisheries are on continental shelves in midlatitudes’, particularly in areas of ‘very high primary productivity’ such as the ‘Eastern Boundary Current upwelling areas in the Southern Hemisphere’ (Grassle 2001, p. 22).

✽✽

Continental slopes: Some key species include rockfish and hake. ‘Continental slopes cover around 5.4% of the global ocean floor  .  .  .  and play an important role for deep-­water fisheries’ (Vieira et al. 2019, p. 981) but the species there are vulnerable, being ‘long-­lived with relatively low fecundity and growth rates [so their] low biological productivity implies that these fish stocks can only sustain a low to moderate fishing mortality . . . i.e., the level of fishing mortality that slope stocks can sustain is lower than for shelf stocks’. (Vieira et al. 2019, p. 982)

✽✽

Oceanic surface waters: The sites of the world’s most extensive driftnet, mid-­water trawl and purse seine fisheries, targeting pelagic species such as herring, anchovy, and tuna. . . . the ocean–atmosphere interface is arguably one of the largest and most important interfaces on the planet. Every substance entering or leaving the ocean from or  to the atmosphere passes through this interface  .  .  .  [which can cause] both ­short-­term and long-­term impacts on various Earth system processes, including ­biogeochemical cycling and climate regulation. (Engel et al. 2017, pp. 1–2)

✽✽

✽✽

Oceanic near-­surface waters: These have substantial potential for fishery resources. These draw on the nature of phytoplankton which ‘live in the surface water of the oceans’ and are ‘at the base of the biogeochemical cycles in the ocean’ Belgrano (2001, p. 498). Deep sea: The deep sea has only a low probability of substantial fishery resources. Benthic deep-­sea communities are largely dependent on particle flux from surface waters . . . A small fraction (1–2%) of the arriving carbon is remineralized in surface sediments within a few days, while much of the remainder gets buried, turning the seabed into the globally most important long-­term sink for carbon. (Hoffmann et al. 2017, pp. 1–2)

3.2  ­Biodiversit

The Barents Sea The Barents Sea is a high latitude shelf ecosystem located between about 70 and 80°N in the northeastern Atlantic . . . The shelf area is relatively deep (mean depth of 230 m) and quite extensive (approximately 1.6 million km2 in area). The Barents Sea constitutes a biogeographical transition zone between a warmer boreal southern part and a cold Arctic northern part . . . The North Atlantic Current (partially a continuation of the Gulf Stream) flows north through the eastern Norwegian Sea and splits into two main branches, one flowing into and through the Barents Sea from southwest to northeast and the other flowing around the western and northern flanks of the Barents Sea as the West Spitsbergen Current . . . The inflow and throughflow of Atlantic water has a large impact on the ocean climate of the Barents Sea. (Eriksen et al. 2017, pp. 208–209) Zooplankton forms the main links between the phytoplankton primary producers and higher trophic levels of the food chains . . . The mesozooplankton in the Barents Sea is dominated by mainly herbivorous calanoid copepods with Calanus finmarchicus in Atlantic water in south and Calanus glacialis in Arctic water in north . . . The Barents Sea fish community is dominated by few large stocks, such as the Barents Sea cod (Gadus morhua), Barents Sea capelin (Mallotus villosus), Northeast Arctic ­haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), and Norwegian spring-­spawning herring (Clupea harengus). The Barents Sea serves as a nursery area for the offspring of ­several commercial fish stocks which spawn ‘up-­stream’ along the coast. (Eriksen et al. 2017, p. 210)

3.2  ­Biodiversity Underlying the above discussion of ecosystems is the importance of biodiversity, also referred to as biological diversity. As the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers puts it (ICSF 2021, p. v), ‘the health of the aquatic ecosystems and its associated biodiversity, are the fundamental basis for the livelihoods of marine and inland fishing communities and contribute to their overall well-­being’. ICSF writes this in the context of highlighting the importance of one of the world’s primary institutions dealing with biodiversity – the CBD. Indeed, ICSF (2021) notes that the crucial nature of biodiversity to fisheries ‘makes the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) highly relevant to these communities and their fisheries’. The other main biodiversity-­ oriented organisation is the Intergovernmental Science-­Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). IPBES (2021) defines biodiversity as: The variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part. This includes variation in genetic, phenotypic, phylogenetic, and functional attributes,

55

56

3  The Natural System: Fishery Ecosystems

as well as changes in abundance and distribution over time and space within and among species, biological communities and ecosystems. As such, biodiversity includes variations among individual animals, populations, and variations at the ecosystem level, as Turner (2018, p. 2) notes: There are three aspects to biodiversity: species diversity, genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity. All three interact and change over time from place to place. Species diversity refers to the variety of different living things. Genetic diversity refers to the variations between individuals of a species – characteristics passed down from parents to their offspring. Ecosystem diversity refers to the great variety of environments produced by the interplay of the living (animals and plants) and non-­living world (earth forms, soil, rocks and water) . . . Most countries of the world are signatories to the CBD, and as a result, take on the responsibility for biodiversity conservation within their jurisdiction. That includes parts of the ocean within the country’s 200-­mile limit (reflected in the Law of the Sea) and leads to a range of conservation measures (with some to be discussed in Chapter 18) and measures to directly link fisheries and biodiversity conservation (see below). However, while national 200-­mile limits cover a considerable part of the ocean surface, much more is ‘beyond national jurisdiction’  –  today’s ‘high seas’. Those parts of the ocean have biodiversity as well, which also needs to be conserved. Addressing that challenge is the subject of the box below.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) In recent decades, the challenge of biodiversity loss, exemplified in the reality of endangered species, has been addressed with greater urgency – including at the international level through the CBD. Such efforts covered important parts of the planet, but for years, there has been a nagging issue of what happens on the world’s high seas –  parts of the planet ‘beyond national jurisdiction’, lying outside the 200-­mile limits specified through the UN Law of the Sea. It has been noted (IISD 2022) about these areas: The high seas—­61% of the ocean that lies in areas beyond national jurisdiction—­are the quintessential global commons. Marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) has attracted international attention as scientists reveal the ­richness and vulnerability of such biodiversity, particularly around seamounts, hydrothermal vents, sponges, and cold-­water corals. Biodiversity in deep waters and the high seas has been discussed in a report of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP 2006), which notes some of the mobile and/or migratory species in these areas, such as bluefin tuna, orange roughy, manta rays, and the Northern Royal Albatross and Grey-­headed Albatross (pp. 51–52).

3.2  ­Biodiversit

That report goes on to highlight the importance of seamounts (submerged mountains in the ocean), which are centres of biodiversity in the high seas. UNEP (2006, p.  50) notes that ‘The number of large seamounts is estimated to be over 100,000, 54% are in international waters. Less than 200 have been studied’. The report highlights some key biodiversity facts about seamounts (UNEP 2006, pp. 51–52): ●●

●●

●●

‘So far, around 1970 species have been recorded from 171 seamounts, with a large number of new species. 16–36% of the 921 species of fish and other benthic macrofauna collected on 24 seamounts in the Tasman and Coral Seas in the South Pacific were new to science’. ‘Seamounts can have a high rate of species endemism, 35% on seamounts off Tasmania, 36% for seamounts on the Norfolk Ridge, 31% on the Lord Howe Island seamounts, and 44% for fishes and 52% for invertebrates on the Nasca and Sala-­y-­ Gomez seamount chain off Chile’. ‘Species richness on unfished seamounts in southern Tasmania was found to be 46% higher than on fished seamounts, and biomass was more than seven times higher’.

The UN’s FAO relates biodiversity and fisheries, in noting that ‘Fish are a major component of global biodiversity, with 70% of the biomass of animals on earth living in aquatic systems’ (FAO 2021b). How biodiversity considerations arise in fishery systems, and fishery management, will be the focus of Chapter 19. Certainly, as we shall see, one of the most prominent concerns relates to endangered species – species of animals, plants, and other life that are ‘threatened’, ‘at risk’, or ‘endangered’, in that their population has dropped or is

Figure 3.3  Conservation of biodiversity has become a major concern around the world, on land and certainly in the world’s oceans and inland waters. In the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador, as elsewhere, marine mammals are important to biodiversity – making their interactions with fish populations important to monitor and understand.

57

58

3  The Natural System: Fishery Ecosystems

dropping to a dangerously low level, even one at which extinction is a possible outcome. This has profound implications for fisheries and their management.

3.3  ­The Physical–Chemical Environment The discussion in this chapter began with an overview and classification of the various ­species caught in fisheries around the world. The obvious point was made that these individual species, far from sitting in isolation within their respective fisheries, live together with other fished and unfished species within complex ecosystems. The discussion proceeded to examine some characteristics and classifications of these aquatic ecosystems. This logic leads us to want to understand the fish and their ecosystem in order to manage the corresponding fishery. In discussing ecosystems, it is important to take note of not only the living creatures in the system but also the physical features affecting life in the ecosystem. Such features operate on various spatial scales. In a marine environment, these range from currents flowing across an ocean basin, to upwellings that affect specific segments of the ocean, to more modest (albeit locally important) effects driven by freshwater/saltwater interfaces. An example of the latter are river outflows, as for the St. Lawrence River on Canada’s Atlantic coast, variations in which can have a major impact on fish stocks in the ocean, i.e. the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Some types of forcing, such as the tides, can affect fishery systems on large spatial scales as well as very locally, within a given bay, for example. This section focuses on aquatic systems in the ocean environment, providing a brief overview of some of the most significant biophysical interactions, beginning at a large spatial scale and then turning to more localised phenomena.

3.3.1  The Winds A discussion of large-­scale physical impacts on fisheries logically begins outside the water. While fish stocks can be strongly affected by ocean currents, these in turn are driven by the winds, as Dohan (2017, pp. 2467–2468) notes: Alternating bands of planetary-­scale winds such as the jet stream and the trade winds drive large-­scale water circulation in the oceans. Because most oceans are bounded by the continents and because of the dynamics on a rotating Earth, the result is water circulations within ocean basins . . . The planet’s major wind systems are of two principal types: 1) ‘Continuous winds are the winds which flow incessantly during the whole year and are due to the average conditions of atmospheric pressure at the Earth’s surface  .  .  .’ (Lazaridis 2011). These include: ‘a system of northeastern winds at the northern hemisphere and southeastern winds at the southern hemisphere which are called Trade winds’, ‘a system of western winds (westerlies) which are known also as anti-­trade winds’, and ‘a system of eastern polar winds’.   As noted by Dohan (2017, p. 2467), the trade winds play a significant role in El Niño/ La Niña events: ‘Occasionally (every 3–7 years), the trade winds relax, reversing the

3.3  ­The Physical–Chemical Environmen

currents and creating an El Nino event. When the trade winds resume, westward currents restore conditions to normal. Unusually strong trade winds and currents create a La Nina event . . .’ 2) Periodic winds ‘flow due to changes of the zones of high and low pressure at specific time intervals which range from 1 year or lower time intervals. . . . Yearly winds include the monsoon and the annual (meltemi) winds’ (Lazaridis 2011). The important monsoon wind systems (in the northern Indo-­Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Arabian Seas) have dramatic impacts on the affected fisheries, and indeed are perhaps the dominant driving forces on both resource and human behaviour in these regions. As Lazaridis (2011) notes: ‘The monsoon is a wind that blows in India 6 months during winter as northeastern cold and dry wind, and 6 months during summer as southern warm and humid air’. In contrast, annual winds ‘prevail in the Aegean Sea region and are due to the combination of high pressure systems in southwest Europe with semi-­permanent low pressures the southeastern Mediterranean’. Agmour et al. (2020, p. 1008) note that winds often have significant effects on fishing: . . . fishing conditions can be improved in different ways thanks to wind currents. A  large quantity of zooplankton and phytoplankton organisms are accumulated near the downwind shoreline due to currents. In addition, the largest species of predators are attracted by small baitfish that gather near windblown shores due to the concentration of food. When the currents are caused by an angled wind direction, this influences conditions of fishing. Predatory fish often wait in calm waters where they can ambush their prey that runs in the current . . . The most significant direct effect of winds on fisheries is to limit fishing effort (and hence fishing mortality) through foul weather. The impact is most severe in small-­scale artisanal fisheries because of the vulnerability of their small, often poorly outfitted vessels. The most important indirect effect of wind on fisheries is on the eastern margins of the great ocean basins, influencing ‘coastal upwelling of nutrient-­rich subsurface water that supports high primary productivity and an abundance of food resources’. (Aguirre et  al.  2019, p. 1) – see below.

3.3.2  Ocean Currents Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a political scientist best known for her work on the Law of the Sea and her advocacy of peaceful and conservationist use of the oceans, summed up the essence of the world’s ocean currents (Borgese 1998, p. 28): Ocean space is traversed by a system of currents, driven by the temperature differences between equator and poles, by winds, and by the rotation of the earth which deflects their course (Coriolis force). Compared to the earth’s rivers, the quantity of water transported by these currents through ocean space is imposing . . . The volume of water that flows in the Gulf Stream is about 100 times that of all rivers on earth combined.

59

60

3  The Natural System: Fishery Ecosystems

Hays (2017, p. R470) describes ocean currents in a similar vein – ‘Solar heating and wind blowing over the ocean surface are two primary forces that provide energy for these ­currents’. – and noting that: Currents are found at a huge range of scales. For example, in the open ocean, currents may move around small sub-­mesoscale features, only a few hundred meters in size, around mesoscale features, a few tens of kilometers across, such as ocean rings and eddies, or may flow across or around entire ocean basins including well known features such as the Gulf Stream (North Atlantic), Kuroshio Current (North Pacific) and Agulhas Current (Indian Ocean). Ocean currents have many profound impacts on marine life, moving not only animals and plants around the ocean but also redistributing heat and nutrients. The role of currents in redistributing heat is discussed by Constantin (2021, p. 1): The tremendous ability to store and release heat over long periods of time gives the ocean a central role in stabilising the climate, with the ocean currents helping to counteract the uneven distribution of solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface . . . [and] heat transport due to surface ocean currents is also a key the factor in regulating the global climate. This behaviour leads to the existence of gyres, large-­scale circular flows of water around the various ocean basins (Mann and Lazier 2005). Those gyres, along with other aspects of the ocean’s currents, ‘are key determinants of the dispersal patterns of planktonic larvae/ propagules and species distributions for marine organisms’ (Wilson et al. 2016, p. 924). The world’s ocean contains a wide variety of gyres. For example, subpolar gyres are found in the North Pacific and Atlantic, while subtropical gyres lie between latitudes 15° and 45°. The latter include, on their western sides, strong poleward-­flowing boundary currents such as the Gulf Stream off North America and the Kuroshio current off Asia, which play a major role ‘in redistributing excess heat from the Equator toward the polar regions’ (Vernet et al. 2019, p. 633). Currents and gyres are important in affecting animal movement in the ocean. As described by Mann and Lazier (2005), some species ‘use the boundary currents for long-­ range transport between breeding grounds and feeding areas’ while others ‘make several circuits of an ocean gyre while growing to maturity’. Muhling et al. (2017) note that species such as the Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT) ‘leave the spawning ground and move south with the direction of flow of the Leeuwin Current’ (p. 700) where food sources are more abundant. Similarly, Trudelle et  al. (2016) found that humpback whales around Madagascar ‘tended to follow the prevailing currents when they moved away from Madagascar, thereby potentially using a strategy for minimizing their energy expenditure’ (p. 18). Ultimately, ocean surface currents connect populations of fish across space from spawning grounds to nursery grounds and among sub-­populations in a meta-­population. As noted by Van Gennip et al. (2017, p. 2604), the scale of dispersal can vary widely in marine environments ‘on scales stretching to hundreds and even a thousand kilometres . . .’. The transport of larvae blurs stock boundaries (confounding fishery models and management)

3.3  ­The Physical–Chemical Environmen

but also replenishes locally depleted stocks from afar (providing one of the major biological arguments in favour of marine protected areas – a subject explored in Chapter 18).

3.3.3  Upwellings Upwelling occurs when surface water is swept by the wind away from the coast, and this is replaced by deeper water rising to the surface close to shore. Bonino et  al. (2019, p.  1) describe how winds and planetary rotation lead to movement of water in the ocean, specifically ‘lifting nutrient-­rich deep waters’ which ‘in addition to the sunlight, sustains the blooms of phytoplankton that are the foundation of the aquatic food web’. In more localised settings, seabed topography (e.g. steep sided reefs) may deflect bottom currents towards the surface. In either case, such water, typically nutrient-­rich, supplies essential plant food to the lighted (euphotic) zone of the area, creating high fertility and consequently important fishing grounds. As Addison et  al. (2018, p.  98) note, ‘Many of the world’s major fisheries resources rely on upwelling which provides nutrients crucial to maintain high biological productivity’. Upwelling systems ‘are among the most productive marine ecosystems, supplying up to 20% of the global fish catches, although they only cover approximately 1% of the total ocean’ (Bonino et al. 2019, p. 1). Major coastal currents can be associated with upwellings, supporting very productive fishing areas, often dominated by fish that feed low in the food web, such as anchovy, sardine, pilchard, and mackerel. Examples include the Humboldt Current along the coast of Chile and Peru (e.g. Kelley and Sherman (2018)), the Canary current off northwest Africa, the Benguela current on the west coast of southern Africa, the California current on the west coast of North America, and the Somali current in the western Indian Ocean. Many other upwelling systems have been documented (e.g. Varela et al. 2018, p. 1502) such as those off the coasts of Spain/Portugal, Brazil, the Caribbean, Australia, and India.

3.3.4  Other Relatively Localised Phenomena In addition to upwellings, various other biophysical features may be found at local to intermediate spatial scales (i.e. smaller than that of continental margins). Among these are fronts, tidal currents, and various freshwater/saltwater interactions (Mann and Lazier 2005): ✽✽

✽✽

Fronts lie at the boundary between waters of differing characteristics, e.g. strongly mixed versus stratified, or lower-­salinity run-­off versus fully saline. Such fronts can occur between mixed and stratified waters on continental shelves (tidal fronts, due to tidal forces), between shelf and slope waters (shelf-­break fronts), or on boundaries due to upwelling or freshwater run-­off. Tidal currents can have several impacts. First, they can create vertical mixing in the water column, potentially allowing year-­round flow of nutrients and thereby particularly rich fishing grounds. Second, they may generate flows that affect spawning and larvae dispersal. Third, ‘internal waves’ can be generated, increasing nutrient levels in certain parts of the water column.

61

62

3  The Natural System: Fishery Ecosystems ✽✽

Freshwater/saltwater interactions occur within estuaries, where specific local water circulation patterns are found, in ‘plumes’ where freshwater from rivers and estuaries is carried onto the continental shelf, and more generally due to tidal mixing in coastal areas of the ocean.

3.3.5  Physical Features The discussion above has focused on the specific biophysical aspects of the ocean system that relate to flows – of winds, ocean currents, freshwater outflows, and tidal waters. These flows are certainly of fundamental importance to fisheries, but also worthy of note are the specific physical aspects of the coast and the ocean bottom. ✽✽

✽✽

The physical shape of a coastline – its curves and indentations, in the form of bays, inlets, estuaries, and the like – can be a dominant factor determining the behaviour of currents, tides, and fish migrations. For example, in Canada’s Bay of Fundy, known for the highest tides in the world, fishers operate ‘in tune with the tides’ by timing their fishing activity to the semi-­diurnal rhythm of the fishes’ lives (Dadswell et al. 2020). The physical nature of the coast and of the ocean bottom also influences the type of fish habitat available. As fishers are well aware, this largely determines which species are to be found where. Whether a tropical coastline supports coral reefs or seagrass meadows, or whether a temperate coastal area has sandy or rocky ocean bottoms, clearly plays a major role in determining the benthic/demersal life that can be supported in a particular location (e.g. Riehl et al. 2020). Some habitats appear to be critical to the survival of certain (usually juvenile) stages of life cycles and are hence candidates for special protection.

3.4  ­Dynamics of Fishery Ecosystems and the Biophysical Environment Defining precisely what constitutes the relevant fishery ecosystem in a given situation can be difficult (given a variety of spatial scales and the challenge of setting appropriate boundaries) (Borja et al. 2020). But let us assume that a suitable ecosystem has been defined. How does that ecosystem change over time? Certainly, changes in the presence of various species, as addressed by multi-­species dynamics, represent one specific form of ecosystem dynamics. Intensive fishing activity and the phenomenon of fishing down the food chain (Pauly et  al.  1998; McCann et  al.  2016) can have major ecological impacts. For example, in the northwestern Atlantic, off the coast of North America, fishing appears to have led to major changes over time in absolute and relative species abundances, changes in species composition at the various trophic levels, and even changes in relative biomasses of the various trophic levels (Dempsey et al. 2018). Other aspects of ecosystem dynamics could include those induced by natural or human impacts on the physical nature of the aquatic habitat (e.g. by trawling on the ocean bottom or by economic development beside a lake) and those caused by external forces in the  ­biophysical environment. Let us turn now to the latter impacts, beginning with an ­illustration – see box.

3.4  ­Dynamics of Fishery Ecosystems and the Biophysical Environmen

The Peruvian Anchovy Collapse and El Niño A famous case of a fishery collapse was the anchovy off the coast of Peru, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The cause of the collapse, in what had been the world’s biggest fishery, seems to have been the unfortunate combination of an excessive level of exploitation and a natural perturbation in ocean conditions known as El Niño (FAO 2005a). This phenomenon occurs generally every few years and involves a temporary altering of ocean currents, a resulting warming of the ocean off that coast, and dramatic impacts on fish stocks such as the anchovy, over much of the Pacific basin and beyond. A healthy fish stock should be able to handle the effects of El Niño, but excessive fishing left the stock unable to absorb the ‘shock’ of such a major oceanographic change. FAO (2005a) notes that the 1972–1973 El Niño was a cause of ‘recruitment failure and stock decline’, that in addition, ‘heavy fishing did play a major role in the collapse of the Peruvian anchoveta fishery in the early 1970s’ and further that a ‘lack of adequate management action to drastically reduce fishing pressure did the rest, contributing to aggravate and prolong the decline’. The devastation of the Peruvian anchovy collapse demonstrates clearly the need for effective management to limit fishing pressure, but in addition, the need to consider the impact of El Niño on the behaviour of fish stocks off the coast of Peru.

The El Niño phenomenon and its broader coupling with the Southern Oscillation (ENSO) are clear examples of dynamic change in the biophysical environment. These dynamics relate to what are already inherently dynamic features of the aquatic system, namely changes in flows (the movement of water) such as ocean currents, upwellings, and tides. However, the matter of time scales is useful in differentiating among these phenomena: while obviously tides vary on a short time scale, El Niño operates on a multi-­year cycle (though its impacts may well be most noticeable in a certain year, with correspondingly large-­scale effects) (Quispe-­Ccalluari et al. 2018). Another important large-­scale example of biophysical dynamics is that of global climate change (e.g. Payne et al. 2016; Hewitt et al. 2016; Bryndum-­Buchholz et al. 2019), which may have diverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems worldwide: Climate change effects on marine ecosystems include impacts on primary production, ocean temperature, species distributions, and abundance at local to global scales. These changes will significantly alter marine ecosystem structure and function with associated socio-­economic impacts on ecosystem services, marine fisheries, and fishery-­dependent societies. (Bryndum-­Buchholz et al. 2019, p. 459) At the more local level, an example of biophysical dynamics would be variations in river outflows, as noted earlier in this chapter. The case described there, on Canada’s Atlantic coast, applies here as well: a major river, the St. Lawrence, affects the ocean, namely the Gulf of St. Lawrence ecosystem, in terms of varying salinity levels, with resulting impacts on fish stocks (e.g. Couillard et al. 2017). Finally, biophysical dynamics also relate to aspects

63

64

3  The Natural System: Fishery Ecosystems

of aquatic systems that are stationary by nature, such as the shoreline, where discussion of dynamics may focus on changes in physical features, such as the occurrence of beach erosion.

Chapter 3.  The Natural System: Fishery Ecosystems Key Messages ●●

●●

●●

Aquatic species in fishery systems interact with one another within a range of ecosystems, of various spatial scales, from local coral reefs, bays, or lakes, through to large marine ecosystems. Fishery ecosystems (i.e. ecosystems viewed in relation to the fisheries within them) and their dynamics are influenced by the physical–chemical (or bio-­geo-­chemical) environment in which they are located. A fishery systems approach builds on an ecosystem approach to be explored throughout this book. This integrates the ecosystem and its dynamics into management, ­considering the impacts of human activity on the ecosystem and the role of the ecosystem in affecting fishery outcomes.

65

4 The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers This chapter and Chapter 5 examine the range of human elements in the fishery system, discussing those who do the fishing, fishworkers other than fishers per se, fisher organisations, and fishing methods, together with the fishery’s post-­harvest components, including processing, fishing households and communities, and the broader socioeconomic environment. Figure 4.1 depicts the human sub-­system (a re-­drawing of the human sub-­system shown originally within Figure 1.4) with emphasis on the structure within the fisher, technology, community, and post-­harvest elements, and the interactions between the various elements. The perspective on the human system presented here is an interdisciplinary one, placing the people in fisheries at the centre. That focus on the ‘people side of fisheries’ is a natural one within social sciences and within most developing country contexts – seeking to understand and improve the situation for those who fish, those on shore, fishing household and communities. In the past, there was, however, a different perspective in thinking about fisheries, one focused mostly on interactions between the fish and the fishing fleets, e.g. through conventional fishery science and economic analysis. People (fishery participants) were not part of the discussion (cf. Charles 1988) or to the extent they were, it was often ‘more about technology (types and sizes of vessels) than about people’ (cf. Hornborg et al. 2019). While that view still exists in some quarters, a broader approach is now prominent, with interdisciplinary ways of looking at fishery systems, often directly involving fishers and fishworkers. That broader reality is reflected in the discussion of this chapter.

4.1  ­Fishers and Fishworkers Like the fisheries in which they operate, fishers are diverse in their variety and widespread in their distribution around the world. Fishers are at the heart of the human sub-­system of the fishery. The following discussion focuses on two typologies, one of fishers and the other of fishing methods. Later in the chapter, the discussion moves ‘beyond the fishers’ to look at the many components of the post-­harvest sector, fishing households, and communities, and the broader socioeconomic environment in which the fishery operates.

Sustainable Fishery Systems, Second Edition. Anthony Charles. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

66

4  The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers

Human System

Fishers

Fisher Groups (1)

Fishing Technology (2)

Communities External Forces (e.g. macroeconomic policies)

P C

(3) R and Households

PostHarvest (4)

D

P = Processing D = Distribution M = Market W = Wholesale R = Retail C = Consumers (1) User conflicts (2) Gear conflicts (3) Community/Social interactions (4) Value chain (marketing)

M

W

Socioeconomic Environment

Figure 4.1  The structure of the human sub-­system is shown. Fishers interact with one another through fisher groups (sectors or organisations) and through their fishing technology. User and gear conflicts can arise as a result. The fishers also interact with their households and communities, where economic and social interactions are important. The post-­harvest sector involves a flow of activities from processing to consumers. Finally, these various components interact with the socioeconomic environment, and external forces impact on the entire system. Source: Figure design by Larissa Sweeney.

4.1.1  A Typology of Fishers Fishers around the world seem to fit within four principal categories based on the nature of, and background to, their particular fishing activities: ●● ●● ●●

●●

subsistence fishers (those catching fish as their own source of food) recreational fishers (those catching fish principally for their own enjoyment) commercial fishers (those catching fish for sale in domestic or export markets; these ­fishers are traditionally viewed as falling into small-­scale/artisanal and industrial ­categories – see below) Indigenous fishers (those belonging to Indigenous nations and/or groups, whether fishing for subsistence or commercially).

These are indicated in Figure 4.2. It should be noted, however, that these are not mutually exclusive groupings. The relative presence of each of these fisher categories varies from fishery to fishery. For example, in developing regions, small-­scale fishers (subsistence and artisanal commercial) are typically prevalent in the nearshore coastal fisheries, while industrial (including foreign ‘distant water’) fleets may dominate fisheries further from shore, exploiting offshore

4.1  ­Fishers and Fishworker

Figure 4.2  A simple classification of the fishers into four main groupings, with the commercial sector further sub-­divided; note, however, that there is considerable diversity within any single group, there are gradations between groups, and in many cases, some fishers may fit into more than one group.

resources (e.g. Dacks et  al.  2020). The presence of recreational fishers also varies widely – being particularly notable in developed regions (where disposable incomes are on average higher) and in developing regions where both the natural conditions and tourist infrastructure are suitable. Indigenous fishers may play a major role in specific locations, typically where a segment of a nation’s citizenry is of much longer historical standing than the now-­dominant population groups (i.e. those most often of European decent). In some cases, Indigenous fishers have played a large role in the local fishery over long periods of time, while in other cases, recent agreements with governments have greatly increased their role – a notable example is that of the Maori in New Zealand (e.g. Bodwitch 2017). In some settings, all four of these categories of fishers are found. For example, on the Atlantic coast of Canada, where a range of fisher groupings operate (DFO 2020a), there is also considerable mixing of fishing activities and modes: ●●

●●

●●

The Indigenous Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) people fished for subsistence over many thousands of years and have fished commercially at least since the beginning of colonial times – as recognised by Canada’s Supreme Court in 1999. In many areas, such as coastal Newfoundland, fishing is primarily a small-­scale commercial activity, but coastal residents also have a long-­standing use of fish resources as a subsistence food source. Throughout the region, some species are caught in industrial and small-­scale fishing, operating side-­by-­side, as well as in recreational fishing (notably for Atlantic salmon).

There is also diversity of fishers even within a given fishery system – i.e. a degree of internal heterogeneity. This will arise in a number of respects, such as: ●●

Within any given group of fishers, there are variations in many social and demographic aspects, such as age, education, social status, and religion. Between fisher groups, there may be differences in internal social cohesion (how attached the fishers feel to their group) and in community connections (attachment to their local community).

67

68

4  The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers ●●

●●

●●

In commercial fisheries, there is also variation by occupational commitment (e.g. full-­time versus part-­time) and the level of occupational pluralism (with some fishers specialised entirely in fishing for a single species, some utilising a range of resources, and others drawing income from outside the fishery as well as from fishing). As noted in Chapter 1, there is a category of fishers (whether subsistence, commercial, or Indigenous) that can be referred to as ‘harvesters’ – those who harvest aquatic resources (such as clams, molluscs, seaweeds) along the shoreline, e.g. on beaches, rocky coasts, etc. As noted earlier, this can be a very important activity, and often particularly for women (e.g. in the South Pacific islands) though men are also involved (e.g. clam harvesters on beaches of the Atlantic coast of Canada). Along similar lines, and similarly countering the tendency in fishery discussions to focus on those fishing in boats, it is also important to note that many recreational fishers operate not at sea but from the shoreline or riverbank. Fishers vary in their motivation and behaviour. For example, on the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, in the Gulf of Nicoya area, a study of the fishing community Puerto Thiel found that some fishers are profit-­maximisers (individuals behaving as conventional economic ‘firms’), while others are ‘satisficers’ (fishing to obtain ‘enough’ income, not to maximise something) – (e.g. Breton 1991; Charles and Herrera 1994). Motivations of fishers in the Gulf of Nicoya can also be community-­centred and with a priority on conservation (e.g. Lozano and Heinen 2016; Alms and Wolff 2019). Small-­Scale Fisheries As discussed in Chapter  1, the dominant dichotomy in fisheries globally is between small-­scale fisheries and large-­scale fisheries (also referred to, in some contexts, as artisanal and industrial fisheries, respectively). In that chapter, we discussed the principal characteristics of small-­scale fisheries, while here the focus is on the fishers involved. The nature of small-­scale fishers has received considerable attention over the years. For example, many decades ago, Panayotou (1985, p. 11) described small-­scale fishers as ‘those who, by virtue of their limited fishing range and a host of related socioeconomic characteristics, are confined to a narrow strip of land and sea around their ­community, faced with a limited set of options, if any, and intrinsically dependent on the local resources’. This contrasts with large-­scale fishers: ‘those who have a broad spectrum of options both in terms of fishing grounds and nonfishing investment opportunities’. Just as small-­scale fisheries are diverse and difficult to concisely define at the global scale, so too is defining the line between small-­scale and large-­scale fishers. Like fisheries, we can instead keep in mind a certain set of characteristics or attributes of small-­ scale fishers, which are relevant across diverse contexts. Typically, in small-­ scale fisheries, ‘fishers operate close to shore and are dependent on local resources, . . . fishers use vessels that are relatively small and individually-­owned . . . [and] the fishery constitutes an integral part of the coastal communities where fishers live’ (McConney and Charles 2010, p. 1).

4.1  ­Fishers and Fishworker

Small-­scale fishers may share such characteristics as: 1)  A high level of dependence on the fishery for their livelihood, with few other job opportunities, and often with relatively low net incomes; 2)  Vessels with relatively low individual harvesting levels (in contrast with large-­scale fishers, often corporately owned and comprised of relatively capital-­ intensive vessels); 3)  A tendency towards use of a ‘share’ system to divide fishing income among boat owner, captain, and crew, rather than a wage system (as is common in industrial fisheries); 4)  Traditionally outside the centres of economic and political power, and on the periphery of society, whether due to location (e.g. in rural or remote areas) or membership in particular minority groups (e.g. Indigenous peoples) – although in some industrialised countries, the political influence of small-­scale fishers has been considerable; 5)  The subject of many analyses, viewing the fishers in opposing ways: as participants in an activity ‘ripe for modernisation and rationalisation’ or as people (and communities) threatened by external economic forces and in need of protection. Some initiatives have been taken to systematically identify the small-­scale fishers in a region. For example, in the European Union, an effort to characterise the ‘artisanal’ fishers, in contrast to more industrial ones, used a rating scheme, applied to individual fishing units (García-­Flórez et al. 2014, pp. 153–154). This is based on seven indicators, with four of these relating to the vessel (overall vessel length, gross tonnage, engine power, type of gear) and three to other aspects of the fishing activity (fishing licences allowed, number of crew members, and daily landings). However, as Jadhav (2018) ­highlights, it is always important to recognise the nuances involved in considering small-­scale fisheries and fishing communities.

Indigenous Fishers – An Example from Northern Canada Islam and Berkes (2016) describe the fishing activities and traditions of the Cree community of Norway House in the northern part of the province of Manitoba: Fishing is an important part of livelihood in Norway House, similar to many other Indigenous communities elsewhere in Canada. Community members engage themselves both in commercial and subsistence fishing. Norway House Fisherman’s ­Co-­op . . . owns and controls all commercial fishing licences . . . Commercial fishing in Manitoba is regulated and fishers have to sell their catches to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation located in Winnipeg. Norway House fishers sell their catch through the Co-­op.   There are two commercial fishing seasons spring/summer and fall . . . The majority of the commercial fishing takes place in Lake Winnipeg (the 10th largest lake in the world), Playgreen Lake and Kiskittogisu Lake. Historically fishing was considered as a family activity and this tradition still continues. Community members of all ages

69

70

4  The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers

go food fishing throughout the year. People mostly use angling [hook and line], or gillnets and boats and go to nearby rivers for subsistence fishing. (pp. 817–818) ‘In our community everybody shares food with somebody. When a person is not ­fishing, he is getting fish from somebody else. And if a person fishes, he shares his catch with somebody else. Everybody is sharing’ – a quote Islam and Berkes provide from a commercial fisher. (p. 820) Even though the commercial fishery involves a relatively small number of fishers and is primarily carried out to produce a profit  .  .  .  it plays a major role in food ­security. Commercial fishers and their helpers share their catch with a large network of other households. The sharing ethic in the community results in an infusion of high quality protein mostly from species other than those that have a high market value, reaching about half of the Norway House resident population. (p. 824)

4.1.2  Women in Fishing A key consideration in fishery systems is the gender of fishers and other fishery participants, and specifically the role of women. The reality in much of the world is that women are either involved in fishing itself or play a major role in the onshore components of the fishery system (such as processing, in industrial contexts, or marketing, in small-­scale fishery settings, as well as in supporting fishing households). As Harper et al. (2013, p. 56) put it: The term ‘fisherman’ implies that fishing is performed by men. Closer inspection of fisheries globally, however, indicates that while certain fishing activities are more commonly undertaken by men, others are dominated by women. Women are involved in the capture, processing and sale, as well as finance aspects of fisheries, yet many of these roles have been overlooked and continue to be under-­acknowledged in fisheries management and policy development. However, in much of fishery discourse over history, it was assumed that men go fishing and women play no role. This was very much a false assumption. The problems arising from neglecting the role of women in fishery systems extends to fishery management itself. For example, in Europe, ‘women are still largely excluded from fisheries management systems, such as fisheries cooperatives and policy development . . . much of the informal work that they do to support family fishing businesses goes unrecognized’. (Harper et al. 2013, p. 57) and in Africa: While women are fundamentally involved in fishing activities for survival and for livelihood, their contributions go largely unseen. Consequently, women are excluded from fisher organizations, ignored by creditors and receive little training to improve fishing techniques, opportunities and conditions. (Harper et al. 2013, p. 58)

4.1  ­Fishers and Fishworker

Figure 4.3  Women play a crucial part in many aspects of small-­scale fisheries. Here, women sell shrimp at the market in coastal Chennai, India, and dry their catch on the great inland lake of Tonle Sap, in Cambodia.

Along similar lines, Kleiber et  al. (2015) note that ‘lack of attention to women’s fishing undercuts the possibility of women being full stakeholders in fisheries management and decision-­making’. They highlight the need to ‘overcome the well-­documented marginalization of women in fisheries related management institutions and practices, including both international programs  .  .  .  as well as more localized community-­based management initiatives’ (Kleiber et al. 2015, p. 557) It might be added here that a further important role of women in the fishery lies in organising the community to respond to threats to fishery livelihoods. Neglecting the role of women in fisheries also negatively impacts the knowledge base required for good fishery decisions. To illustrate this, consider the fishery activity of women in the South Pacific (Oceania). Golden et al. (2014) conclude that not only does this provide a major and especially regular source of food protein, contributing greatly to the social structure of local communities, they also provide evidence that women are often more knowledgeable than men on fisheries and ecological matters in this region. Despite this, women fishers’ ‘knowledge has typically been discounted in studies of traditional ecological knowledge in the Pacific region, despite their important contribution to subsistence fisheries’ (Golden et al. 2014, p. 3). Harper et al. (2013, p. 60) highlight the important role of women in the building up and holding of fishery and environmental knowledge within the community: the frequency and regularity of women’s fishing activities likely translates into ­valuable insight into the state of nearshore resources and how these may have changed over time . . . it seems women’s knowledge is an obvious, yet highly under-­ utilized, asset in fisheries management. The clear importance of considering the role of women, as well as the effects of gender distinction in fisheries, implies that it is important to examine exactly where and how women are involved in fisheries. Some research has been done on this, and in particular,

71

72

4  The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers

a review examining more than 100 case studies across most continents of the world (Kleiber et al. 2015) indicates that ‘women and men often interact with different parts of the marine ecosystem’ with differences ‘most commonly described in terms of methods, animals targeted, and habitats used’ (p. 550). According to this research, women are most often found to participate in intertidal invertebrate fisheries known as gleaning while men were more likely to participate in offshore fin fisheries: The general observation that ‘Shells are for women, fish are for men’ . . . is well ­documented throughout the Pacific, and is a distinction we found repeated in South Africa, Egypt, Spain, and the United States . . . Across the data sampled, gender patterns in the types of marine fishing habitats exploited emerged, with near-­shore habitats such as estuaries, mangroves and intertidal flats being more frequently described as either women-­only or shared spaces. Most case studies described habitats such as reef edges or pelagic offshore to be exclusively fished in by men. (p. 552) Kleiber et al. (2015) also warn about a bias in how fishery data is collected, notably because women fishers were more likely than male counterparts to use their catches to provide for family and community members rather than as a source of income. This poses data problems: Data collection methods often rely on centralized landing sites such as markets, ports, or fish vendors. This may bias sampling towards men’s catch because women’s catch is often exclusively for family consumption and does not travel through these sites making them invisible to the researchers (p. 557)

Small-­Scale Fisheries and Gender Global Guidance from the Small-­Scale Fisheries Guidelines Gender equality and equity is fundamental to any development. Recognizing the vital role of women in small-­scale fisheries, equal rights and opportunities should be promoted. (p. 2) Efforts to mainstream gender should include the use of gender analysis in the design phase of policies, programmes and projects for small-­scale fisheries in order to design gender-­sensitive interventions. Gender-­ sensitive indicators should be used to monitor and address gender inequalities and to capture how interventions have contributed towards social change. (p. 17) FAO (2015a) / FAO

4.1  ­Fishers and Fishworker

4.1.3  Fishworkers in the Post-­Harvest Sector The above discussion of women in fishing focused on involvement in the harvesting ­activity. It is well documented, however, that women often play a particularly major role in the post-­harvest parts of the fishery system. In the next chapter, we look at the processing sector in terms of the material being processed, and the processes involved, but it is also important to look at those doing the work: . . . in coastal communities, household members not involved in harvesting are frequently involved on the postharvest side, working in processing plants, for instance, or marketing and distributing the catch. (European Commission 2016a, p. 5) Women play a major role in on-­shore fish plant work (European Commission 2016a). There is also an important relationship between the work environment and the corresponding productivity of fish plants (Garcia and De Castro 2017). As an example, Garcia and De Castro (2017) discuss the situation of migrant Filipino processing workers in fish plants of a small rural subarctic Alaskan (USA) island, and interactions of health, work stress, and effects of relocating.

4.1.4  Fisher Organisations Fishers organise themselves in many ways – through unions, cooperatives, associations, and a range of other organisational forms, at scales from a local community to a region within a country, to a national organisation, to ones for a large geographical region or for the entire globe. It is impossible to over-­state the importance of these organisations, to the wellbeing of the fishers themselves and their communities. That is why such organisations arise around the world, from the National Fisheries Solidarity Organization in Sri Lanka to the United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union in Canada, from the fisher organisation of the Tárcoles community in Costa Rica to the many fishery cooperatives across the coast of Japan. A special note should be made of the two global organisations made up themselves of individual fisher organisations, working in a given country or a region within a country – the World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP) and the World Forum of Fish Harvesters & Fish Workers (WFF). Indeed, at the global level, the importance of fisher organisations is reflected in the commitment of Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in implementing the Small-­Scale Fisheries Guidelines (FAO  2015a) to engage not only with States (countries) but also directly with those fisher organisations. (The boxes below discuss fisher organisations in two example countries, Norway and Belize.) To foreshadow discussions to come later in this volume, fisher organisations not only provide essential support to fishers and fishing communities, but they are also crucial to the success of fishery management and governance – and specifically to many of the modern approaches utilised in fishery policy and management. For example, management approaches aiming to move fisheries to sustainability (Chapter 13) rely on having sustainable institutions, with strong fisher organisations typically a core component.

73

74

4  The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers

Similarly, implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF, Chapter  15) relies on the support of fishers, which is most effective through fisher organisations. Fishery ­co-­management, the sharing of management responsibilities between government and fishers (Chapter 17) will not work without the support of fisher organisations. Similarly, specific conservation initiatives such as Marine Protected Areas (Chapter 18) and more general biodiversity conservation measures (Chapter 19) have proven to be much more successful when fisher organisations are closely involved. The latter point serves to motivate my own work, with FAO, to support and highlight the efforts of fisher organisations in conservation and stewardship of fish stocks and aquatic environments – SSF-­Stewardship at https://ssf-­stewardship.net.

Fisher Organisations in Norway Norway provides an illustration of many common features concerning fisher organisations in a major fishery jurisdiction, notably multiple organisations that engage in multiple ways with the fishery sector, the government, and fishery management broadly. The Norwegian Fishermen’s Association (NFA) is the largest and longest standing fisher organisation formed in 1926 (Jentoft and Finstad 2018). The NFA describes itself (NFA  2022) as ‘politically independent, professional national organisation based on voluntary membership of fishermen’ that is ‘based on memberships in local and regional fishermen’s associations, with a total of 100 local chapters, and two semi-­independent group organisations’ and having ‘approximately 4300 members from across the country’. Viet Thang (2018, p. 130) notes that the NFA ‘. . . plays an important role in Norwegian fisheries co-­management in a close working relationship with the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs and the Directorate of Fisheries . . .’. A newer organisation is the Norwegian Coastal Fishermen’s Association (NCFA), formed in 1987 as an alternative to the NFA (Jentoft and Finstad 2018). The NCFA is an ‘independent, democratic and politically independent trade union for Norwegian coastal fishermen’ that ‘offers membership for crew and vessel owners in the coastal fleet’ – its membership is much smaller than that of the NFA, with ‘around 700 members throughout the country’ (NCFA 2022). Both organisations seek to both represent and advocate for fishers. As the NFA puts it, that organisation ‘is an active participant in national and international fisheries management’, ‘contributes actively in setting the agenda for the authorities in negotiations of quotas and trade policies’, ‘has a central position and great responsibility in terms of activity and settlements in the coastal districts’, and is ‘an active proponent of environmentally sound fisheries, both in terms of equipment, fuel, methods and ­efficiency of the fishery’. Also important in Norway are the Sami Indigenous people, who hold fishing rights and are themselves organised and advocating for those rights (Jentoft and Søreng 2017).

4.2  ­Fishing

Method

Fisher Organisations in Belize Alves (2021, p. 9) notes that: .  .  .  the fishers sector represents a complex arrangement of cooperatives, fisher ­associations, and individual interest groups, which demonstrates the varying degrees of self-­organization and collective action potential of the actors here . . . Individual fishers may be members of one fisher association, 1–2 cooperatives, and the BFF [The Belize Federation of Fishers] (by way of their fisher association), any combination, or not represented by any of these organizations. Membership to a fisher ­association and/or cooperative is voluntary.

Figure 4.4  Fisher organisations are a crucial means for fishers to improve their well-­being but are also important in supporting the sustainability of fisheries.

4.2  ­Fishing Methods 4.2.1  A Typology of Fishing Methods Fisheries vary according to the technology used, both in terms of the vessel (size and ­construction) and the gear type. Cashion et al. (2018, p. 57) states: There is a wide diversity of fishing gears that have been employed by fishers around the world . . . from simple small-­scale gears operated with one’s hands like spears, traps, handlines or a variety of beach seines and gillnets, to industrial-­scale

75

76

4  The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers

bottom-­ and midwater-­trawls the size of large aircrafts, and mechanically powered seine nets that can match the size of several Olympic swimming pools Although there is a well-­established set of gear types globally, there is great variation in uses between fisheries and countries. For example, Indonesian fisheries have ‘four main registered gear type categories: trawlers, longliners, pole-­and-­liners, and purse seiners’ (Marzuki et  al.  2017, p.  690). Meanwhile, Monroy et  al. (2010, p.  1188) describe a ­semi-­industrial multi-­species fishery in Mexico with four main gear types, all of these being variants of the longline. Bjordal (2002) describes the range of fishing gear in terms of the difference between ‘passive’ and ‘active’ gears: Fishing gears are commonly classified in two main categories: passive and active. This classification is based on the relative behaviour of the target species and the fishing gear. With passive gears, the capture of fish is generally based on movement of the target species towards the gear (e.g. traps [and lines]), while with active gears capture is generally based on an aimed chase of the target species (e.g. trawls, dredges). A parallel on land would be the difference between the trapping of and hunting for animals. (Bjordal 2002) Cashion et al. (2018) categorise gear types differently, in terms of small-­ and large-­scale fishing activity, considering that fishing methods and associated impacts are distinct between these. In a global review of fisheries data from 1950 to 2014, Cashion et al. (2018, p. 57) found that among industrial gear types, ‘bottom trawling and purse seining, jointly account for over 53% of all catches’, while for small-­scale fisheries, ‘over 60% of catches were caught by gillnets, various line gear, and encircling nets’. Aggregating the two scales of fisheries, Cashion et al. (2018, p. 60) note that ‘industrial bottom trawl and purse seine gears, jointly with small-­ scale gears accounted for over 75% of total global catch from 1950 to 2014’. The authors list a number of fishing gears typically used in large-­ (industrial) and small-­scale fisheries, with trawls, purse seines, longlines, and gillnets, for those fisheries they considered large scale; and nets, lines, harpoons, traps, and pots in small-­scale fishing (Cashion et al. 2018, pp. 58–59). They go on to emphasise (Cashion et al. 2018, p. 60) that these different gears are likely to result in different impacts on aquatic environments, and thus sustainability of the fishery, depending very much on the selectivity of the gear. Focusing on discarding from the fishery, they state: While accounting for only around 23% of fisheries landings, bottom trawls (including shrimp trawls) accounted for nearly 60% of fisheries discards . . . Thus, bottom trawling disproportionately contributes to discarding. Purse seines, on the other hand, displayed the opposite, being responsible for nearly 29% of landings but only 8% of discards. Discarding translates into significant socio-­economic outcomes, e.g. (Cashion et al. 2018, p. 62): ‘Notably, the unrealized economic value of discards from bottom trawling from 1950 to 2014 exceeds the value of all catches from longline fisheries ($560 billion and $432 ­billion, respectively)’.

4.2  ­Fishing

Method

4.2.1.1  Seines/Encircling Gear

Seines are encircling nets that ‘are usually set from a boat to surround a certain area and are hauled either from the shore (beach seines) or from the boat itself (boat seines)’ (FAO 2022a). They can be used for pelagic species or bottom-­dwelling fish (FAO 2022a). In the former case, the fishers set a purse seine to encircle a school of fish, and the net is then closed (‘pursed’) from below to trap the fish, which are then removed into the vessel. FAO (2020b) notes that seines ‘are the most important and most effective gears to catch aggregated pelagic species both large (tuna and tuna-­like species) and small’ – see also the related ‘surrounding nets’ (FAO 2022b). Another form of seine net, the Danish seine, can be used for groundfish, particularly flounders; it is placed in a circular arrangement on the ocean floor and is gradually closed by towing; the fish therein are then brought to the surface. 4.2.1.2  Trawls and Other Towed/Dragged Gear

Trawling is ‘the operation of towing a net to catch fish and/or shellfish. The trawls are towed either with bottom contact or in midwater’ (FAO 2022c). This uses ‘cone-­shaped nets (made from two, four, or more panels) which are towed, by one or two boats’ (FAO 2022c) with various technologies used ‘to keep the trawls open horizontally (otter boards, beams and two vessels) and vertically (floats and weights)’ (FAO 2022c). For example, beam trawls use a beam to hold the net open, while otter trawls use ‘otter boards’. The gear may be pulled over the ocean bottom, to harvest benthic/demersal species (such as cod), or used as a pelagic trawl, towed in mid-­water (e.g. for redfish/perch). Dredges can also be included in this category as these ‘are gears which are dragged along the bottom’ (FAO 2022d). These are often used to target certain shellfish such as scallops. ‘There are two main types of dredges; heavy dredges towed by boats (boat dredges), and lighter ones operated by hand in shallow waters (hand dredges)’. (FAO 2022d) 4.2.1.3  Gill Nets and Entangling Nets: Drift and Static Gear

Gillnets and entangling nets are strings of single, double or triple netting walls, vertical, near by the surface, in midwater on the bottom . . . These nets can be used either alone or, as is more usual, in large numbers placed in line (‘fleets’ of nets). (FAO 2022e) The essential idea of a gill net is to catch fish by their gills when they swim into the net, with entangling nets designed to catch fish that become entangled in the mesh netting when trying to swim through it. Compared to other fishing methods ‘gillnets, at least those with a single netting, are, in general, considered as having a high degree of selectivity’ as the size of the mesh netting can be adjusted specifically to match that of the target species, thereby reducing the unintended catch of non-­target species (FAO 2022e). Gillnets are popular in coastal areas since they ‘can be hauled by hand, at least from shallow or moderate depth, in small-­scale fisheries (when the total length of net is not too large)’ (FAO 2022e). This is particularly the case with set nets ‘attached to posts or other fixed objects’ (FAO 2022e). On the other hand, gill nets in the form of large-­scale drift nets, several kilometres in length, are also used in industrial settings in deep sea locations. Due to concerns surrounding the impact of ‘ghost fishing’ by lost or abandoned netting, ‘the use of

77

78

4  The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers

large-­scale high seas driftnets over 2.5 kilometers long’ was banned by the United Nations in 1991 (FAO 2022e). 4.2.1.4  Traps and Pots

Considered a passive (and ‘static’) fishing technique, traps and pots are gears which are designed to allow ‘fish to enter the trap but making it impossible to leave the catching chamber’ (FAO 2022f). Traps may be baited or not and can be made of materials such as wood or metal wire. Baited traps are often placed on the ocean floor (e.g. metal or wooden traps for lobster and crab), while barrier traps are placed at varying depths (e.g. traps for cod) (Sainsbury 1996). Fishermen visit traps regularly for collecting the catch and replacing bait, if any, leaving the gears set in the same place for several days. Traps like pots can more easily be moved from one fishing location to another . . . Large stationary nets or barrages are used to catch migrating fish (pelagic and demersal). Pots are used for catching lobster, crabs, shrimps, octopus, eels, and all kinds of reef fish and euryhaline species. (Sainsbury 1996) 4.2.1.5  Lines

Use of ‘hook and line’ is a particularly ancient method of fishing and remains perhaps the most common fishing method today. With this set of gears, ‘fish are attracted by the natural or artificial bait (lures), hooked, and held by the mouth until they are brought aboard the operating vessel’ (FAO 2022g). Hook-­and-­line gears are commonly used in both small-­scale and large-­scale fishing. They may be ‘hauled by hand in small-­scale fisheries whilst in large-­scale fisheries vessels are usually provided with powered line haulers, automatic jiggers, line reels, line coilers and automatic hook handling and baiting systems’. (FAO 2022g) An example of a small-­scale approach is handlining for bottom fish in shallow areas, while an intermediate form of hook-­and-­line is that of ‘trolling’ for salmon in a moving boat (Royce 1996, p. 294). A common commercial fishing technique is longlining, involving the use of lines of baited hooks, either placed along the ocean bottom (e.g. for groundfish) or suspended in the water column (e.g. for swordfish). Hook-­and-­line fishing is prominent in recreational fisheries as well. Indeed, the classic picture of a recreational angler in many locations might be someone with a ‘fishing rod’ by a river or lake, casting the line into the water, hoping for a fish to bite. 4.2.1.6  Other Methods

Beyond the above, an amazing range of fishing methods are used around the world. These include some of the most selective approaches – such as harpooning (swordfish, whales) and diving/spears (conch, reef fishes, sea urchins), as well as particularly nonselective and destructive methods (notably poisons, dynamite, and small-­mesh nets). Some of the fishing methods described above are displayed graphically in Figure 4.5. Table 4.1 shows how the fishing fleets of the European Union and its member countries, in 2021, are distributed across the major gear types (using the EU’s categories). Note how the total fishing fleet size varies greatly across countries, but in addition, the proportions of

4.2  ­Fishing

Method

Figure 4.5  A schematic of some fishing methods, showing where in the water column they apply. Each pair (shown vertically) has a similarity in methodology; for example, gillnets and traps are both ‘fixed gear’, while divers often use spears, not unlike harpooners.

Table 4.1  European Union Fishing Fleet (2021): total fleet numbers and by gear type, for a selection of countries.

Trawls Dredges

Gillnets and entangling nets Traps

Hooks and lines

624

6982

1869

40,621

5733

15,021

210

250

35

8909

336

4565

Total fleet Surrounding by country nets

Seines

EU

74,556

3370

Greece

14,551

244

Ireland Italy Netherlands

2032

16

15

272

410

463

768

79

12,179

1879

1

2442

720

2286

0

4851

832

9

16

374

140

108

85

100

Notes: The United Kingdom is excluded here as it had left the EU by 2021. Source: Adapted from European Commission (2022a).

the total number made up of the various gear types is very different for different countries. For example, the most common gear is gillnets and entangling nets in Greece, hook-­and-­line in Italy, traps in Ireland, and trawls in the Netherlands.

4.2.2  The Choice of Fishing Method The choice of which fishing method to use in a given circumstance will depend on a wide range of factors. Indeed, in any fishery system, the fishers will likely have experimented over the years to determine a suitable gear to catch the desired mix of species, within the  constraints of available financial and technological resources. The choice of fishing method can also be influenced by changes in the distribution and abundance of fishes.

79

80

4  The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers

Gamito et  al. (2016, p.  100) note, in the context of climate change vulnerability and ­adaptations by fishing fleets on the Portuguese coast, that ‘Most multi-­gear fishermen interviewed declared that they were willing to fish a new species, even if it was necessary to change fishing gear in order to do it’. The choice may also be viewed in terms of a balancing of factors related to the biological nature of the fish being harvested, the economic nature of the technologies (and markets), and the social and governance considerations underlying the fishery. 4.2.2.1  Biological

A sedentary, bottom-­dwelling species such as lobster, on a seabed that is sufficiently flat, might be caught with traps. On the other hand, flatfish such as flounder are also bottom-­dwelling, but being more mobile, they are caught not with traps but with gear such as otter trawls and Danish seines. Meanwhile, a migratory species might be caught using gillnets laid along the migration paths (as with salmon, for which the migration routes are relatively clear, especially when the salmon enter rivers, e.g. Knudsen and McDonald 2020) or by using highly mobile vessels to chase the fish, as with tuna or swordfish that roam widely. Finally, some species seem to be amenable to capture using a wide variety of gear. For example, cod is caught using fixed traps, gill nets, Danish seines, handlines, longlines, bottom trawling, midwater trawling, and various other methods (Rouxel and Montevecchi 2018; Sogn-­Grundvåg et al. 2020). 4.2.2.2  Economic

Economic realities will prevent low-­valued species from being harvested using high-­cost methods, unless there are economies of scale – such as with harvesting done in large quantities, as for some small pelagics, such as sardines (e.g. Roeger et al. 2016). The ‘bottom line’ is that the net economic benefits from harvesting must be positive. However, several perspectives on this are possible. A focus on short-­term versus long-­term benefits will affect the level of concern for conserving fish and habitat (e.g. destructive methods can be very profitable in the short term). An emphasis on private profit (market value of the catch minus the cost of the fishing activity) versus a balance of multiple objectives (benefits of income and food production minus the time, energy, and cost expended in fishing) may also influence the choices made. 4.2.2.3  Social and Governance

The human aspects, and the decision-­making considerations, can both be crucial in the choice of fishing methods (Pascoe et al. 2017). For example, bottom trawling as a method to harvest lobsters is used in the United States but is not permitted on the coasts of Canada; these differing choices relate to the social dynamics and the perception of the importance of ecological considerations in the two jurisdictions.

4.3  ­Fisher and Fleet Dynamics Relative to the study of fish population dynamics, considerably less attention has been paid to addressing the dynamics of the fishers, fishworkers, and fishing fleets. Yet understanding such changes over time is essential both to the study of fishery systems and to their

4.3  ­Fisher and Fleet Dynamic

management and conservation. Accordingly, social scientists have paid attention to dynamics of the human system, especially processes of change in fishing activity, such as fishing effort and technology, as well as fishery labour forces (e.g. Marschke and Vandergeest 2016; Chambers et al. 2017). Economists have also paid attention to fisher and fleet dynamics, notably since the 1970s, as the economics toolkit added the means to address problems of economic optimisation over time, notably through the development of dynamic bio-­economic models (Clark  1985,  1990; Seijo and Sutinen  2018; Mota  2020). However, one looks at these dynamics, they are fundamentally driven by choices made by fishers – what can be called ‘fisher behaviour’ (e.g. Charles 1988, Andrews et al. 2020). In this discussion, we look at the dynamics of (1) fishing effort, (2) fishery labour, (3) fishery capital, (4) technology, and (5) fishing fleets, in terms of movement within the season.

4.3.1  Dynamics of Fishing Effort What leads fishers to participate in a given fishery or to ‘work harder’ if already operating in the fishery? Addressing this question involves examining the number of fishers taking part in the fishery, and the aggregate fishing effort, as well as how these can vary over time according to such factors as: ●●

●● ●●

●●

the perceived profitability of fishing versus other economic activity, and in particular the effects on profitability of changes in stock sizes; traditional practices of the fishers, perhaps reflecting religious or cultural norms; policy measures and management restrictions, affecting fisher participation, fishing effort, and fleet size (e.g. government actions to reduce the fleet by ‘buying back’ fishing vessels); external ‘forcing’ factors – changes elsewhere in the economy or society, notably in the availability of non-­fishing opportunities (affecting labour mobility).

Over the years, since the 1960s, there have been many initiatives to study this theme, e.g. using a bio-­economic analysis of the joint dynamics of a fish stock and the fishing effort, to examine how total fishing effort could change as a result of changes in the profits in the fishery. Empirical work has also been carried out on this theme (e.g. Stewart et al. 2010; Thiault et al. 2017), examining the range of objectives being pursued by fishers, and the process by which decisions are made concerning the desired levels of fishing effort, to meet these goals. Such empirical studies are paralleled by more theoretical ones, exploring the dynamics by which a fish stock and fishing fleet can change over time. A scenario that formed the basis of a great deal of theoretical discussion is given in the box below, based on assuming an absence of controls over fisher participation and fishing effort.

Open-­Access Dynamics Consider two fundamental economic quantities. One is the total revenue from fish landings (TR). The other is the total cost of fishing faced by fishers and/or fishing vessel owners (TC). These costs are assumed to include not only the actual costs (such as fuel) but also the opportunity costs of fishing – what was foregone by fishers in their best alternative employment, or what the vessel owners could have received if they had

81

82

4  The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers

chosen an alternative investment. Note that in this way, the TCs include not only operating costs but also ‘normal’ (reasonable or acceptable) profits. Now consider the difference between TR and TC. If TR = TC, this implies that fishers are earning normal profits, so the fishers would be content to fish if TR = TC, since their earnings (TR) would provide them with normal profits (included in TC ), compatible with what is being made in profits and wages elsewhere in the economy. If on the other hand, TR > TC, then there is revenue earned over and above normal profits. The difference TR − TC (if positive) is referred to as the resource rent. This is a measure of the economic returns (benefits) meant to go to the resource owners (usually the people of a nation) just as wages are paid to labour and dividends are paid to capital. The argument is usually that resource rent could be collected by government for the benefit of society as a whole. However, here we are assuming an open access, unregulated fishery, in which there is no rent collection by society. This means that if TR − TC > 0, so positive resource rents could be obtained, in fact these rents remain with the fishers who receive not only normal profits (and wages) but also above normal profits. Further, if the fishery is open-­ access and unregulated, there are no controls on fishing effort. In such a situation, and with the simple (but often unrealistic) assumption of no institutional arrangements for excluding outsiders from entering the fishery, and no self-­regulation to limit overall fishing activities, effort can expand. This is because the fishery’s profitability looks very appealing compared to other economic activities. So, fishing effort rises, whether from new entrants coming into the fishery and/or more effort by each existing fisher . . . just as a gold rush attracts people from other activities. The theory says that effort will keep rising as long as fishers and fishing vessel owners can obtain above-­normal profits and wages. There is a limit to this, however, since fish stocks will be depleted, fishing revenue (TR) will drop, even as fishing costs (TC) rise, so that eventually (as TR drops and TC rises) the point is reached where TR = TC. At this point, there no incentive to expand or contract fishing effort (or for fishers to enter or exit the fishery), since profits are normal, equivalent to those elsewhere in the economy. (Recall that TR = TC at this point, so it appears that fishers are just breaking even, but in fact TC already incorporates a ‘normal profit’.) This equilibrium is referred to as the open access or bio-­economic equilibrium, the natural point that (in theory) an unregulated fishery will reach over time. At that point, fishers continue to profit-­maximise but potential rents have been dissipated (i.e. totally lost) due to the high level of effort. The idea of open access dynamics formed the basis of much theoretical analysis (e.g. Anderson and Seijo 2010) and a variety of policy measures in fisheries world-­wide. However, it is important to note that this scenario is not actually common in the present-­day world and is based on many assumptions that are not so realistic. The main one is that fisher entry and fishing intensity are totally uncontrolled (the underlying idea of open access). It is also assumed that the dynamics of fishing effort are entirely determined by the flow of resource rents, or above-­normal profits, and that there is total certainty (no randomness) and complete knowledge (everyone knows all about biological and economic aspects).

4.3  ­Fisher and Fleet Dynamic

Closely related to effort dynamics is the matter of labour dynamics, i.e. how the fishery labour force (the fishers as well as post-­harvest fishworkers, and other labour outside the fishery) changes over time. Examining fishery labour dynamics helps us to understand, and predict, the behaviour of fishery systems and helps in determining suitable management policies (Charles  2018a). This includes looking at the ‘structure and dynamics of labour markets, labour supply and participation in the fishery’ (Charles 2018a, p. 162). It also relates to how fishers and fishworkers decide on livelihood options. For example, choices of fishers in pursuing their livelihoods can be as ‘strategies when faced with changes in regulations and other fishery conditions’ (Salas and Gaertner 2004, p. 153) that can involve ‘individual attitudes based on their operating scales (geographical, ecological, social and economic) and personal goals’. Considering these aspects is important to avoid ‘management failures in many parts of the world’. Labour dynamics, looking as well beyond the fishery, are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.

4.3.2  Capital Dynamics and Fishing Capacity Human inputs to the fishery naturally include the physical capital in vessels and gear, as well as the labour involved, so we need to examine capital dynamics in conjunction with labour dynamics. Changes in fleet size and catching power reflect both investment decisions and technological change. Continuing with the example of Costa Rica described earlier, Figure  4.6 shows the changes over time in fleet sizes for two types of artisanal fishing vessels in the Gulf of Nicoya. The less technologically advanced type of vessel (botes) grew in numbers rather Dynamics of Fleets in the Gulf of Nicoya

Number of Boats

1200

800

400

0

70

74

82

78

86

Year Botes

Pangas

Total

Figure 4.6  An example of changes over time in fishing fleets – in this case, for two types of artisanal fishing vessel in the Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica, over a certain time period. The fleet size of the less advanced type of vessel (botes) expanded rather steadily over many years, while the fleet of more advanced pangas rose rapidly in the late 1980s. Both fleets levelled off in size towards the end of the 1980s, as new management measures were introduced.

83

84

4  The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers

steadily over many years, while numbers of the more advanced type (pangas) rose rapidly in the mid-­to late-­1980s. As noted by Solórzano-­Chavez et al. (2017, p. 4), in the year 1995, Costa Rica ‘had a total of 3393 small-­scale fishing vessels, of which 438 were motorboats (lanchas), 2168 were small outboard motorboats (pangas), and 787 were rowboats (bote)’. The fleet growth was connected, at least in part, to the economic incentives and the consequent labour dynamics noted above. Such fleet expansion can lead to a situation referred to as ‘over-­capacity’ – which arises when there is a mis-­match between the level of fishing effort needed to take the available harvest, and the actual level of potential fishing effort that could be exerted. The latter is referred to as ‘fishing capacity’ and reflects the catching power of the fishers – the capability of the fishing fleets to kill fish. Fishing capacity is a complex mix of available ‘factor inputs’ – fishers, vessels, and gear – with greater availability of any one of these leading to greater fleet capacity. A situation of over-­capacity is then one in which there is greater fishing capacity, or catching power, in place than is needed to catch the available fish. This arises through a dynamic process, involving entry of fishers, expansion of fishing effort, investment in vessel construction, and so on. In the case of Costa Rica, increasing concern about the impacts of uncontrolled growth in the fleets led to the imposition of limited entry licencing (see Chapters 7 and 16), which slowed the expansion in boat numbers by the end of the 1980s (see Figure 4.6). An important consideration in examining capital dynamics is the malleability of capital (Rust et al. 2016). Capital that is malleable can be easily and cheaply moved into and out of various uses – implying that investments are reversible, and that fishers can receive a reasonable resale value for capital, when it exits the fishery. On the other hand, if, as is common in many fishery situations, the fleet of specialised vessels has few alternative uses, so that ‘vessels upon purchase have a re-­sale value of zero, but have a positive rate of depreciation’ (Clark and Munro 2017, p. 132). In such cases, capital is nonmalleable (investment is relatively irreversible) and thus reducing existing capacity is made much more difficult. The dynamics of this problem were originally analysed some time ago (Clark et al. 1979; Charles 1983a,b) and more recently by Nøstbakken et al. (2011) who note that if fishing capital is in-­between being malleable and nonmalleable, referred to as quasi-­malleable, then this limited malleability of capital actually limits the rate at which an overexploited fish stock can be re-­built. There have been many studies of capital and investment dynamics in fisheries, often examining the development of excess fishing capacity, and often building on the classic early study of Gordon (1954) that looked at how open access fisheries becoming overcapitalised. For example, in looking historically at the whaling fleets of the world, Nøstbakken et al. (2011, pp. 102–103) shows that excess fleet capacity may have been due to either an ‘open access situation’ or ‘a harvesting strategy driven by profit maximization’. One group of studies focuses on seeking the ‘optimal’ levels of investment to achieve societal objectives (e.g. Olson 2011), while another focuses on behavioural aspects of fisher investment to predict investment dynamics. For example, Van Dijk et  al. (2014) uses a modelling approach to examine interaction between quota decisions of a policy maker, and the resulting behaviour and investments of fishers. One social science angle on capital dynamics explores evolution of the ‘mode of production’ in the fishery, and the interaction between social structures, government regulations and fisher investment behaviour (e.g. Jensen et al. 2019; Schaap and Richter 2019).

4.3  ­Fisher and Fleet Dynamic

Growth of the Kerala State Fishing Fleet, South India Kerala State, situated in the south-­west coast of India, is a major fishery area of the Indian sub-­continent (CMFRI 2012). It has a coastline of 590 km and a continental shelf area of 39,139 sq km. Kerala ranked first in marine fish production among the maritime states of India, contributing about 19% of the total marine landings (0.74 million t) during 2011 . . . With increasing fishing pressure in the coastal waters, fishermen operating in the mechanised sector are forced to go to deeper waters in search for newer fishing grounds in order to maintain their catches. Marine capture fisheries in Kerala, have gone through significant changes since 1950s and the changes in number and capacities of fishing vessels have been more pronounced in the last decade. Excess fleet capacity and increased fuel consumption by the mechanised fisheries have been worsening over the years. The number of mechanised vessels increased from 983 in 1980, to 5088 in 1998, 5504 in 2005 and decreased to 4722 in 2010 . . . Trawlers constituted 76% of the mechanised fleet of Kerala in 1980, 88% in 1998 and 72% in 2005. In 2010, trawlers constituted about 77.9% of the total mechanised fleet of Kerala, followed by purse seiners and mechanised ring seiners (11.8%), gillnetters (9.7%) and liners (0.6%) (CMFRI 2012). There were about 8 mechanised vessels per kilometre of coastline in Kerala during 2010. The existing number of mechanised vessels in Kerala are in excess by 50–55% than optimum fleet size . . . Though the number of mechanised fishing vessels in Kerala has shown a decrease by 14% between 2005 and 2010 census ­periods . . . fishing power of a considerable percentage of individual fishing units has significantly increased due to increase in installed engine horsepower, vessel capacities, improved navigation, fish detection capabilities and improved e ­ fficiency of fishing gear systems . . . Ravi et al. (2014, pp. 1–5) / Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute

4.3.3  Technological Dynamics Advancements in fishing technology have been the source of long-­standing processes of change in the fishery. This includes both gradual change over the course of centuries and decades, and more rapid changes. A strong example of the need to monitor technological change comes from the fishery for Northern cod, the now-­collapsed cod stock in Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) area 2J3KL on Canada’s Atlantic coast. Catches of this stock grew gradually from the mid-­1600s to the late-­1800s, reaching a level of approximately 250,000 t (Hutchings and Myers 1995), then remained around that level (apart from natural fluctuations and short-­ term ups and downs) to the mid-­1900s. Then a particularly rapid process of technological change – the introduction of factory freezer trawlers into distant water fishing fleets around the world  –  led to the catch expanding dramatically, making Northern cod, for a time,

85

86

4  The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers

among the biggest fisheries in the world. Following these years of very high catches, the stock collapsed in the 1970s, with the noted technological change, and a lack of monitoring or control, certainly among the causes (e.g. Rice  2018). Subsequently, the stock re-­built somewhat, but poor management, along with further technological change (adoption of the turbo trawl by otter trawlers in Canada’s Gulf of St. Lawrence, expanding catching power, which was not monitored or accounted for by government managers) led to the 1990s ‘cod collapse’. The lesson of this seems to be that technological change has been, at times, dramatic in fisheries, but its impact on the sustainability of the fishery is primarily, when management fails to recognise it, in assessing catchability of fish stocks and in designing management plans. Technological change is generally viewed as irreversible. The trend towards increasing technological sophistication is global in its nature, although there is some heterogeneity. For example, while in commercial fisheries, fishing techniques, vessel design, and notably the use of electronic gear have all evolved dramatically over the course of the past several decades, this change process has tended to have less impact on subsistence fisheries, which often use traditional technologies for local food production. Eigaard et al. (2014) estimate that this ‘technological creep’ in commercial fisheries is resulting in increased capture efficiency (catchability) of commercial vessels at a rate of 3.2% per year. They emphasise that though the ongoing development of technology is inevitable, it does not receive sufficient consideration in fisheries management, which impedes efforts to promote sustainability in the fishery. The authors note that though this technological creep can pose some major challenges for managers, it has also proven to bring about positive outcomes in commercial fisheries: Various gears are increasingly being modified to improve selectivity, minimize their side effects on benthic habitats and fauna, and reduce unwanted by-­catch. Sorting grids, turtle exclusion devices (TEDs), and escape windows have proven capable of  reducing by-­catches and discards of trawlers, and are already mandatory in a number of fisheries for fish and crustaceans. (Eigaard et al. 2014, p. 171) Finally, it is worth noting that technological change also impacts the dynamics of other components within the fishery system. For example, an examination of relationships between skills, labour, and technological change in India’s artisanal fisheries (Sundar 2018) indicates that introduction of mechanised trawlers led to a loss of traditional fishing skills and techniques.

4.3.4  Fleet Dynamics While the term ‘fleet dynamics’ might be seen as referring to how fishing fleets increase or decrease over time, in fact, that is generally covered by the terms ‘effort dynamics’ and ‘capital dynamics’ discussed above. Instead, fleet dynamics typically refers to matters of where and when fishers choose to operate within the fishing season  –  the movement of boats into and out of the fishery, and between fishing grounds, over the course of a fishing

4.3  ­Fisher and Fleet Dynamic

season. As Hilborn and Walters (1992) noted, referring to fishing as ecological predator–prey interactions, ‘it is foolish to study only the prey in the predator-­prey system . . . it is equally important to monitor and understand basic processes that determine the dynamics of the predator – the fishermen’. The dynamics of fishing as affected by choices of fishers fits within the areas of ‘behavioural dynamics’ – which applies to fishers, both individually and collectively, as well as to overall decision-­making structures in fishing and post-­harvest activities. This can be important to understand, in order to get fishery management right (Charles 2018a). Indeed, a study by Ouréns et al. (2015, p. 454) noted: fishers’ behaviour is one of the main sources of uncertainty associated with the fishing systems, so ignoring the patterns of human interventions could undermine the effectiveness of management strategies. Branch et al. (2006, p. 1662) also emphasise the need for a fuller view of fishers and their behaviour in the fishery system for effective management: fisheries management is people management, and fisheries managers need to understand how individuals and fleets behave in response to regulation in order to design fisheries management systems that will achieve the desired social, economic, and biological objectives. Changes in fleet activity within the fishing season can occur in response to many factors, such as changes in perceived fish abundance and distribution, in fish prices, or in fishery management measures (Salas and Gaertner 2004). For example, Ouréns et al. (2015, p. 454) discusses managing fishing effort in Galicia (Northwest Spain), ‘one of Europe’s regions with the highest socio-­economic dependence on fishing’, noting that: . . . boats can easily change their target species in order to maximize the economic benefits and use different fishing strategies or mètiers (combinations of fishing area, target species, season and fishing gear) . . . Ignoring this variability can generate a simplistic and biased vision of the fishing activity, which may lead to misinterpretation of how fishers allocate the fishing effort in space and time and of the impact caused by the fishing effort on the ecosystem. Furthermore, fleet dynamics of fishers can take place on various time scales, such as: ✽✽

✽✽

within the course of a given day, for example if customary practice involves fishing in the morning hours, and onshore work in the afternoon; for example, such satisficing behaviour was observed among the fishers of Puerto Thiel in Costa Rica, as noted earlier (Charles and Herrera 1994). within the course of a fishing season, for example if the fish stock and therefore the profitability of fishing decline over the season, or if management involves a ‘closed seasons’ to allow uninterrupted spawning activity; Hilborn (1985) looked at fisher dynamics on a within-­season time scale, exploring the movement of fishers between fishing grounds over the course of a single season.

87

88

4  The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers ✽✽

within a longer time period, for example, Young et al. (2019) examined the fleet dynamics among commercial trawl fishing communities in the northwest Atlantic between 1994 and 2014, noting ‘poleward shifts in harvested fish species’ (p.  93). The authors assess the movement of these fleets, considering comparative rates of catch diversity and vessel mobility between communities as means of adapting to shifting locations of target species.

Fleet dynamics are often examined through dynamic modelling approaches. Some recent examples include Girardin et al. (2017) and Van Putten et al. (2012).

Chapter 4.  The Human System: Fishers and Fishworkers Key Messages ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

The term ‘fishers’ typically refers to those harvesting fish, while ‘fishworkers’ is a broader term that includes both the fishers and those who work on land, in the post-­ harvest and ancillary activities. Fishers are often seen as fitting into a typology of (1) subsistence fishers (those catching fish as their own source of food); (2) recreational fishers (those catching fish principally for their own enjoyment); and (3) commercial fishers (those catching fish for sale in domestic or export markets). Indigenous fishers (in Indigenous nations and/or groups) may be in any of these groupings. Small-­scale fishers and fishworkers were historically neglected, but with the ‘SSF Guidelines’, there is much more attention to the 90% of fishers in this sector (versus the large-­scale or industrial sector). Considering fishers and fishworkers, on the human side of the fishery system, may be seen as in parallel to looking at the fish in the natural system – both are at the core of the fishery system. Furthermore, both have complex dynamics – in this case involving fishers, fishing fleets, fishing effort, and technology. The role of fisher organisations and the gender aspects in fisheries are also crucial to consider. Fishing methods vary widely, depending on the target species, as well as the historical and cultural context of the fishers. Some methods are more appropriate than others in certain circumstances.

89

5 The Human System: Post-­Harvest Aspects and Fishing Communities This chapter continues on from Chapter  4, where fishers, fishworkers, and fishing methods were discussed to expand on human elements in the fishery system by focusing on ­post-­harvest components of the fishery (processing, marketing and markets, distribution, and trade), and the fishing households and fishing communities, within the broader socioeconomic environment. As a reminder, Figure 5.1 (repeating Figure 4.1) shows the human sub-­system with emphasis on the internal structure within the fisher, technology, community and post-­harvest elements, and the interactions between the various elements.

5.1  ­The Post-­Harvest Sector of the Fishery Historically, in looking at fishery systems, the dominant focus of managers, planners, researchers, and others has been on the harvesting sector. However, the post-­harvest ­sector  –  what happens to the fish once brought to shore by the fishers  –  is worthy of ­considerable attention. First, the post-­harvest part of a fishery system involves many ‘human dimensions’ with the fishers themselves being ‘only a small part of the total set of people involved in fisheries’ (Orbach 1980, p. 150): For every commercial fisherman, for example, there are three sets of people who are equally a part of the human dimension of his activity: his family and ‘community’ in the social or political sense; the people in the boatyards, supply stores, and service facilities who are both integral to and dependent upon the harvesting activity; and the distributors, marketers, and consumers who create the demand for his product. Second, the post-­harvest sector takes on larger significance with recognition that the world’s available wild fishery resources are now unable to sustain significant increases in harvest, making it crucial to maximise the benefits to society provided by each fish that can be caught sustainably. This sustainable development approach ensures that

Sustainable Fishery Systems, Second Edition. Anthony Charles. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

90

5  The Human System: Post-­Harvest Aspects and Fishing Communities

Human System

Fishers

Fisher Groups (1)

Fishing Technology (2)

Communities External Forces (e.g. macroeconomic policies)

P C

(3) R and Households

PostHarvest (4)

D

P = Processing D = Distribution M = Market W = Wholesale R = Retail C = Consumers (1) User conflicts (2) Gear conflicts (3) Community/ Social interactions (4) Value chain (marketing)

M

W

Socioeconomic Environment

Figure 5.1  The structure of the human sub-­system is shown (as in Figure 4.1). Fishers interact with one another through fisher groups (sectors or organisations) and through their fishing technology. User and gear conflicts can arise as a result. The fishers also interact with their households and communities, where economic and social interactions are important. The post-­ harvest sector involves a flow of activities from processing to consumers. Finally, these various components interact with the socioeconomic environment, and external forces impact on the entire system. Source: Figure design by Larissa Sweeney.

the limited quantities of fish available are used as efficiently as possible to meet the many nutritional, employment, social and economic development goals. This point has particular relevance to the post-­harvest sector, implying the need for attention to the entire ‘value chain’ of the fishery, from catching the fish to the consumer. Goals of this may include: ●● ●● ●● ●●

reducing waste and post-­harvest losses maximising the value-­added through appropriate processing developing and/or improving distribution and marketing systems integrating the fishery into overall rural development.

Accordingly, this section focuses on the post-­harvest sector and its various stages, including processing, marketing, distribution, markets, and consumers. The process by which fish move from the sea to the dinner table can be complex, and there is no single route, but Figure 5.2 gives an idea of the steps involved for two important situations. This process, one in which the value of the fish, from a human perspective, grows from step to step, is increasingly referred to as a ‘value chain’ for seafood, one based on various

5.1  ­The Post-­Harvest Sector of the Fisher

Figure 5.2  The flow of fish from the sea to the retail level, for two different scenarios: (1) fresh fish sales and (2) marketing a processed product.

relationships between different players in the fishery system, whether individuals, companies, or governments. The value chain describes the full range of activities required to bring a product or service from conception, through the different phases of production (involving a combination of physical transformation and the input of various producer services), delivery to final consumers and final disposal after use . . . A value chain perspective of the small-­scale fisheries sector can reveal response strategies that enhance the sustainability and competitiveness of the entire value chain and the economic agents that comprise it. (Rosales et al. 2017, p. 11) The discussion in the remainder of this section is divided into three main parts: (1)  ­processing, (2) marketing and markets, and (3) consumers. The latter ranges from ­individuals buying fish for household consumption, to large institutions and corporations, such as hospitals and airlines, to various industries, buying fish or fish products for certain uses (e.g. feed for livestock or in aquaculture). We begin this discussion with processing, which may or may not occur in any given fishery.

91

92

5  The Human System: Post-­Harvest Aspects and Fishing Communities

Small-­Scale Fisheries and Post-­Harvest Global Guidance from the Small-­Scale Fisheries Guidelines [directed at national governments (‘States’) and other relevant ‘parties’] States should recognize  .  .  .  the full range of activities along the small-­scale fisheries value chain – both pre-­ and post-­harvest; whether in an aquatic environment or on land; undertaken by men or by women. (p. 8) States should facilitate access to local, national, regional and international ­markets and promote equitable and non-­discriminatory trade for small-­scale fisheries products. (p. 11) All parties should avoid post-­harvest losses and waste and seek ways to create value addition, building also on existing traditional and local cost-­efficient technologies, local innovations and culturally appropriate technology transfers. Environmentally sustainable practices within an ecosystem approach should be promoted. (p. 11) Capacity development is also required so that all small-­scale fisheries stakeholders and especially women and vulnerable and marginalized groups can adapt to, and benefit equitably from, opportunities of global market trends and local situations while minimizing any potential negative impacts. (p. 12) FAO (2015a) / FAO

5.1.1  Processing Processing includes anything done to the fish before eventual marketing and distribution  –  to wholesalers, retailers, or directly to consumers. Relative to simply selling fish directly from the harvesting stage, processing is considered to ‘add value’ as part of the fishery value chain. This can come from simply changing the form of the seafood to make it more long-­lasting, easier to market, or more lucrative to market – by meeting consumer preferences and demand in various ways. To that end, many different ‘value-­added products’ can be produced from the same species caught. For example, there are increasing markets for convenience products that are ready-­to-­eat or need little preparation before consuming. But there are also high-­end markets for live fish and shellfish. There are clearly a variety of benefits obtained from fish processing. Some of the principal ones are as follows: ●●

Processing represents a secondary industry within the fishery system, which provides a value added to the fish landed by fishers. This may involve ‘processing using traditional methods, as a way to add value to production or to diversify sources of income’ (European Commission 2016a, p. 5). Through value-­added, the market value of fish products after

5.1  ­The Post-­Harvest Sector of the Fisher

●●

●●

●●

processing and marketing may be around twice the landed value received by fishers for their catch. Processing transforms fish into (1) more manageable forms (e.g. processing of fish into canned, salted, or frozen products makes distribution easier and reduces spoilage) and (2) more marketable seafood (e.g. meeting consumer preferences through a variety of product types and packaging options). Improved processing can result in better utilisation of by-­catch and development of new resources, leading to economic development in often-­marginal areas. Fish processing can be important to economic development in fishery-­based coastal areas, creating additional employment in regions where often ‘few economic alternatives exist, and this industry is often vertically integrated with fish supply’ (European Commission 2016a, p. 5).

The scale of processing activity can vary widely. Some forms tend to be relatively labour intensive, such as: ●● ●● ●●

Heading, gutting, and icing (in preparation for selling fresh) Freezing (common for industrially-­caught fish) Smoking and salting (traditional forms, lengthening shelf life at low cost)

These may involve relatively minimal levels of processing, perhaps carried out by fishers and their families, prior to going to market. This may involve a simple process of heading and gutting, or other similarly labour-­intensive activities, such as smoking. Other processing methods tend to be more capital intensive. Perhaps the ultimate capital-­ intensive version is that carried out on factory freezer trawlers, where the catch obtained on the vessel moves through an on-­board processing facility, so that frozen product is brought to shore and into the distribution system. A similar level of processing is involved in fish meal production carried out at large plants. Two major types are: ●● ●●

Canning (common for many species, such as tuna, sardine, and salmon) Reduction (fish meal production, as with some small pelagic fish)

Note that there can be intermediate levels of processing as well, e.g. carried out at processing plants ranging from community centres to industrial/corporate facilities. Figure 5.3  Processing, as here in Japan, is the first step in the post-­harvest part of the fishery system and may involve simply preparing the fish for consumption in fresh form, or more extensive processing activity.

93

94

5  The Human System: Post-­Harvest Aspects and Fishing Communities

Fish Processing in Thailand Thailand’s seafood industry . . . has grown very fast both in terms of production and export compared to the rest of the world. According to World Trade Organization’s International Trade Statistics, Thailand has been consistently ranked among the world most important food producers and exporters. In 2013, ‘Thailand was the 3rd largest exporter of fish and fishery products, after China and Norway, with the value of US$8 billion’ Thailand is now the world’s biggest producer and exporter of canned tuna and shrimp. In 2013, export value of canned tuna was US$2.5 billion while other canned and processed seafood exports accounted for nearly US$5 billion . . . Thailand has huge seafood processing capacity and, at the same time, growing domestic demand due to increases in the disposable income of local consumers. Thailand imports seafood raw materials from all over the world, and these imports are expected to increase further in the years to come. More than 90% of Thai seafood products are exported; the majority of these exports are chilled or frozen shrimp. More than 90% of Thai exports are made-­to-­ order products (also known as original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)) for foreign customers. The Thai seafood industry has two major market segments: (i) chilled or frozen shrimp and (ii) chilled or frozen fish. Both are labour intensive and low-­tech industries. More than 85% of raw materials in the shrimp industry come from farming, while most of the raw materials for the fish industry are caught from the waters inside and outside the country Intarakumnerd et al. (2015, pp. 272–274) / Taylor & Francis

Value Added in European Fish Processing: Economic Significance The countries of the EU form one of the main fish importing and processing regions in the world. Support provided for fish processing and marketing has been aimed ‘at strengthening competitiveness and supporting the sustainable development of the entire fisheries industry . . . of which the processing sector is a key component’. Notably, between 2008 and 2012, ‘fish processing contributed . . . almost 40% of the employment (measured in number of full-­time jobs) created by the EU fisheries industry. Furthermore, it employed around 85% of all women working in fish-­related jobs in the EU’.

5.1  ­The Post-­Harvest Sector of the Fisher

The European Union categorises its value-­added fish products into three groups: ––

––

––

Shelf-­stable: Includes shelf-­stable fish, shellfish and seafood typically sold in cans, glass jars or aluminium/retort packaging. It is also usually preserved in oil, brine, salt water or with a sauce (e.g. sardines in tomato sauce). Pickled fish/seafood sold ambient is also included. Product types include: cod, haddock, mackerel, sardines, tuna, prawns, crab, mussels, anchovies, caviar etc. Chilled processed: Includes all packaged processed chilled fish/seafood products sold in the self-­service shelves of retail outlets. Processed fish/seafood products sold together with a sauce and cooked prawns are included. Note: herring products sold in chiller/refrigerator cabinets, and which have a shelf-­life of more than 6 months are excluded. These products, which are very common in Scandinavian countries, are included in shelf-­stable seafood as they have similar shelf-­life to shelf-­stable fish sold ambient. Frozen processed: Includes all processed fish and seafood products which are further prepared with the addition of other ingredients, including breading/batter, sauce, seasoning, etc. Product types include: fish fingers, fish pies, battered or breaded fish, fish with any type of sauce, fish balls, cuttlefish balls, scampi, calamari, etc. European Commission (2016a, pp. 5–8; 2019, p. 7)

5.1.2  Marketing and Markets Whether fish is or is not processed, the value chain must deal with how it moves from the fishing boat, the dock, or the processing plant through to the final consumer. There are many possibilities for that movement, depending on the product and the nature of the value chain. This involves appropriate attention to the avenues of communication ‘between the primary producer (fish farmer) and ultimate consumer in the fish distribution channel’ (Phukan and Barman 2013, p. 1), the role of intermediary fish dealers, middlemen who buy fish from the fisher for re-­sale, and consideration of the means available for the physical distribution of the product. In this section, we focus on these aspects of marketing of fish and of the markets themselves. 5.1.2.1  Marketing

In a commercial context, a good catch is only of benefit if it can be sold. Marketing is the act of locating and arranging a market (specifically a buyer) for the catch, whether that of a specific fisher, a co-­operative, a company, or a community. Clearly, such efforts can make the difference between a reasonable income for fishers and others versus a sad situation in which large quantities of unsold fish sit rotting on the shore. (Note that in a non-­commercial context, e.g. in subsistence fisheries, there is still an issue of how fish moves from fishers to consumers: exchange of harvests may occur in a variety of ways.)

95

96

5  The Human System: Post-­Harvest Aspects and Fishing Communities

Where marketing is relevant, a key element is to ensure that a mechanism exists by which fish move from the fisher to suitable markets (whether or not first through the processing level). Fisher cooperatives and fishing companies, and others in the sector, therefore pay due attention to the development and maintenance of marketing arrangements. At the small-­scale level, fishers may hand the catch over to women of the household or community for marketing locally or may need to rely on intermediaries (fish dealers) to take the fish to market (Nascimento et al. 2017). While marketing – to ensure that fish can leave the shore and move on to subsequent stages – is crucial at the ‘micro’ level of fishers, co-­operatives, companies, and communities, there is also a wider sense in which marketing is important. At the ‘macro’ level, marketing involves promoting fish consumption in general (as in broad national campaigns by fishery organisations and/or marketing boards) and promoting consumption specifically of fish from a particular region or nation (e.g. through advertising in target countries). Efforts at this scale to improve marketing and distribution can play important roles in economic development, as indicated in the chart below. Interaction of fish marketing and economic development. Marketing impact

Increase consumer demand

Improve distribution system

Improve market access

Increase alternative employment

Increase fisher empowerment

Intermediate impact

More production of under-­ utilised fish

Better marketing channels

Increased exports, foreign exchange

Less dependency among fishers

Less middlemen, more fisher income

Developmental impact

More employment and food available

More protein available

Improved balance of trade

Decreased need for high-­interest credit

Fishing community development

5.1.2.2  Markets

The process by which fish is actually bought and sold is known as the market. This term is used conceptually (e.g. ‘let the market decide the price’) and to refer to physical entities where the buying and selling takes place. These may be located in a small community ­setting, where markets may involve independent intermediaries or family members ­(especially women of the household) in the selling process. Or the markets may be in a major urban centre, such as the Boston (USA) and Chennai (India) fish markets, serving regional, national, and even international roles. For example, fish from across much of the eastern coast of North America (notably New England and Atlantic Canada) heads to the Boston market, for sale and subsequent export around the world. Fish markets have much to do with ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ (see examples from Latin America and Africa in Pedroza-­Gutiérrez 2019; Tran et al. 2019). A ‘perfect’ market system satisfies a set of assumptions: (1) the number of both buyers and sellers is large, no

5.1  ­The Post-­Harvest Sector of the Fisher

individual controls enough of the quantities supplied or demanded to be able to ­influence the price, and there is no collusion among buyers or sellers; (2) for a given product, the factors determining price are supply and demand (with the price level in turn influencing fishers and consumers), and an equilibrium price is arrived at, at which supply and demand are balanced; (3) there is ‘full knowledge’ about the information that is available to, and the subsequent actions of, all players in the fishery. However, markets for fish are never perfect. It is important to be aware of possible market imperfections, arising for two specific reasons. First, market power may be a concern. The distribution of the total retail value obtained from the sale of fish between the fishers and the other intermediary stages can be quite variable. In some cases, fishers in developing nations may receive as little as 10% of the final retail price of their high-­value catch at market, ranging to an average of roughly 50% of the market price of lowest value species (Purcell et al. 2017). ‘Most fishers lacked information about market prices’ (p. 9) so ‘Downstream actors reaped increasingly higher proportions of the product value for higher value species’. This fraction varies with the level of processing of the products, which in turn varies with the buying power of consumers. Market power in a given fishery system will depend on internal social structure, such as the role played by producer organisations and co-­operatives, on the fisher side, and by vertical integration and food wholesaling on the processor side. In addition, the level of foreign participation in the fishery may also have a role in the operation of the market, and there can be various impacts of economic globalisation – i.e. the increasing level of interconnectedness in the world economy. Second, market transparency may be limited. As emphasised by Purcell et  al. (2017), particularly in small-­scale fisheries, e.g. those targeting sea cucumber (bêche-­de-­mer) in Kiribati and Fiji, there may be a lack of market transparency (i.e. an inability of fishers and fish processors to access up-­to-­date market information). They note (p. 10) that improved market transparency could ‘improve the sustainability in global supply chains’ and ‘producers empowered with market information can make better decisions for production and trade (e.g. timing of harvests, negotiating prices)’.

Figure 5.4  The marketing of seafood takes place at many different scales, such as these women engaging in a small-­scale marketing activity in Chennai, India (left), and a large auction facility in Hawaii (right).

97

98

5  The Human System: Post-­Harvest Aspects and Fishing Communities

5.1.3  Distribution and Trade The mechanisms for distribution of the fish (how fish moves from fishers to the markets) and the broader issues of trade in seafood, are both important, since the fishery is working only if the fish can be delivered to the end user. This is an obvious point, yet the reality in some developing countries is that a large fraction of the population does not eat fish ­(especially marine fish) simply because it cannot reach the consumers. (Of course, in other countries, consumption of fish per capita is low because it is expensive, while in still other nations, fish is not a traditional food and thus has an intrinsically low demand.) In any case, a well-­running fishery system must have suitable post-­harvest trade mechanisms and distribution capability, as discussed in this section. 5.1.3.1  Distribution

In terms of distribution, a common situation in fisheries is an ongoing tension between the fisher and the fish buyer (often referred to as a ‘middleman’ reflecting the idea that the individual lies between the producer [fisher] and the consumer). On the one hand, the fisher is often paid a very low sum for the fish, but on the other hand, the buyer/middleman is taking a risk in moving the fish to eventual consumers. Whether the arrangement can be viewed as ‘fair’ depends on the extent to which the price paid to the fisher reflects a reasonable risk premium and to what extent it reflects a case of monopsony, in which the fisher has no bargaining power because no other buyers are available. Related to this, middlemen may not only buy fish from fishers but also lend money to the fishers, as financiers. Fishers may need to agree to sell fish to the middlemen in return for the financing. They may become beholden to the trader/financier, who may exert monopolistic selling power for capital and equipment, as well as the monopolistic buying power for fish, noted above. If so, subsequent market interactions are not based solely on supply and demand, but rather on links between these individuals, links that may be seen as either exploitative or symbiotic, depending on one’s perspective. An example of this situation is that of Brazilian mangrove crab harvesters who may ‘exist under precarious socioeconomic conditions that place them at the edge of society and therefore often seek loans offered by the intermediaries. . .’ (Nascimento et al. 2017, p. 44). Past efforts at fishery development often involved seeking to increase fisher incomes by reducing the role of middlemen. However, this must be based on a good understanding of the complexities of the fishery system to avoid creating unexpected problems  –  such as inadvertently reducing the role played by women and/or reducing the stability and cohesion of the fishing community. 5.1.3.2  Trade

Seafood markets have been greatly affected by economic globalisation. For example, ­consider the emergence of a world market for white fish, a generic term for a set of ­species – including Alaskan Pollock, Icelandic cod, and North Sea haddock – that are to a considerable extent interchangeable (substitutable) in the marketplace (Sogn-­Grundvåg et al. 2019; Bjørndal and Guillen 2016). This market has created a situation in which ups and downs of any one white fish stock may have little overall impact on world markets (as  was the case with a collapse as large as that of Canadian cod). This globalisation

5.1  ­The Post-­Harvest Sector of the Fisher

reduced the geographical attachment between producer and consumer, and weakened ties between catching and processing. As stated by Donnelly and Olsen (2012, p. 229): The high degree of globalization in the seafood trade and the lack of standards for information exchange have made tracking and tracing seafood challenging . . . These challenges with regards to fisheries management include, for example, documentation of origin when products are processed in different countries. Processing companies, formerly reliant on ‘local’ white fish stocks (notably groundfish), now process fish brought to their plants from anywhere in the world. This shields these plants (and the employment they produce) from local variability in stock sizes, but at the same time, there may be less incentive on the part of such processors to conserve the local resource, on which they are now less reliant.

5.1.4  Consumers After passing along the value chain (variously involving fishers, intermediaries, processors, and beyond), most fish (apart from that used for animal feed or industrial purposes) will eventually end up in the retail sector for sale to consumers. FAO (2018, p. vii) notes that of all farmed and wild caught fish, approximately ‘88% was utilized for direct human consumption’. In examining the consumer sector of the fishery system, two key determinants must be considered: consumer preferences and consumer demand. 5.1.4.1  Consumer Preferences

Preferences are the inherent desires that people have for certain products, typically influenced by local traditions and cultures. Such consumer preferences are important to understand in order to predict the impacts of developmental and management policies. Consumers around the world face the issue of food choices constrained by supply, access, price, information, diversity, safety and quality. Food-­related consumer behaviour and decisions are very complex, and they are influenced by a multitude of factors such as food habits, societal norms, income allocation, market conditions and the information environment. (Mindjimba et al. 2019, p. 57) Consumer preferences can vary between (a) seafood and other protein sources, (b) the various aquatic species, and (c) the various modes of preparation of the fish: a) The inherent preference for fish versus other meats and protein sources is a fundamental issue. Consider the case of proposed policies to increase fishery production, perhaps through infrastructure development or subsidising the cost of fishing vessels. If fish markets are restricted to the local population and if that population prefers other food sources, then such fishery development is unlikely to be successful. b) Consumer preferences can also vary across fish species being harvested and indeed across the strains/breeds/varieties within a given species. For example, on the

99

100

5  The Human System: Post-­Harvest Aspects and Fishing Communities

Atlantic coast of Canada, consumers expect, and demand, that the traditional ‘fish and chips’ dish in Newfoundland use cod, while in Nova Scotia, just a few hundred kilometres away, the same dish is (and is expected to be) made with a different groundfish, haddock. In Java, Indonesia, pond-­grown common carp is a popular food, and the consumers typically prefer green-­coloured fish of that species, not for price or taste reasons, but simply because that is the cultural preference. c) Finally, consumer preferences also vary with respect to the mode of preparation of a given fish. Notably (Mindjimba et al. 2019, p. xv), ‘The significance of fish smoking and drying in the tropics cannot be overemphasized’. Understanding consumer preferences can have major benefits. For example, in Ghana in the early 1960s, well-­intentioned measures were taken to improve the distribution of fish, adopting a high-­cost capital-­ intensive distribution of frozen fish. However, in reality, consumers actually wanted smoked fish, and thus the fish was eventually smoked anyway. The freezing process was both contrary to consumer preferences and a waste of money. 5.1.4.2  Consumer Demand

Discussion of consumer demand focuses on the relationship between the price of the product and the amount of the product that consumers are willing to purchase, qualified by the ability to pay on the part of those consumers (i.e. purchasing power). As with consumer preferences, it is important to understand consumer demand in order to analyse the impacts of actions in other parts of the fishery system. For example, efforts to improve quality control in fish processing may lead to healthier fish products, but the resulting price may be higher. Thus, depending on the availability of substitutes in the marketplace (e.g. fish from other sources, or other forms of protein), what appeared to be an obviously beneficial move to improve the desirability of a product could also lead to drastically reduced demand, and therefore lower incomes for fishers and processors. It is important to emphasise that an assessment of the market for a particular seafood product depends on who are considered to be the relevant consumers. This in turn has changed over time as a result of economic globalisation. For example, Kent (2019) has highlighted the reality in many developing countries subject to a drive to maximise the value of the fish caught: fish is being diverted (1) from local markets to those in Northern countries (Kent  2019) and (2) from use as food fish to use as fish meal in salmon and shrimp farms or as feed for livestock animals such as pigs and poultry. Both of these trends services demand of Northern consumers and both can result in lower availability for local nutritional needs in the Southern countries. At the same time, the South can have trends to greater seafood consumption  –  e.g. Béné et  al. (2010b) and Tran et  al. (2019) note that demand for fish products, most notably for smoked, dried, inexpensive fish species, has been increasing across the African continent.

Zambia Growing demand seems to be outpacing the supply capacity of domestic wild ­capture fisheries in Zambia (Tran et al. 2019, p. 349). This is resulting in an increasing dependence on imported fish, which has ‘raised concerns and debates on fish

5.1  ­The Post-­Harvest Sector of the Fisher

trade policy in Zambia’. These authors highlight ‘the importance of fish imports to the country’, in ­relation to ‘access to poor and vulnerable consumers’. Since price increases could make seafood impossible to afford in poorer households, thereby reducing overall per capita fish consumption, the authors argue against measures to limit imports, since such measures could ‘induce an increase in consumer fish prices, and consequently slowdown the growth of per capita fish consumption’.

5.1.5  Food Security It is obvious that fisheries produce food. But does it matter how the fish is eventually consumed? For example, while fish could be eaten directly by humans, some fisheries produce fish to be used instead as animal feed for livestock or for aquaculture. Is that the right use? The answer depends on many factors. Fish as animal feed may produce the highest monetary value for the fish, if, for example, consumers are willing to pay enough for the resulting meat or farmed fish that the fish is most profitably used as feed. But who are those consumers? Beveridge et al. (2013, p. 1075) examines this question of the end consumers of fish: The greatest influence on access to food is prices, which are largely determined by markets and incomes . . . producers in developing countries tend to target the production of larger-­sized fish, aimed at middle-­class urban regional and international markets  .  .  .  presumably in the expectation that the higher absolute and relative prices such fish command increase profits. Accordingly, there may be a tradeoff between seafood profit maximisation and food security, if fish moves to relatively wealthy people in developed countries as opposed to the relatively poor in developing countries – who may have wanted fish as food but could not pay a high enough price. Tran et al. (2019, p. 344) suggest that some developing countries try to find a middle ground – ‘to export high-­value seafood to developed markets, while retaining and importing lower-­value seafood products to achieve food security goals’. A concern has been identified relating to a market system to allocate fish, in the face of ‘increasingly unmet demand for economically accessible fish by poor consumers, who are in the majority in developing countries’ (Beveridge et al. 2013, p. 1075). There are complex and value-­laden issues around the major global issue of food security or food sovereignty. On the latter, Levkoe et al. (2017, p. 69) call for supporting ‘people’s rights to control their food and fishing systems’. This comes with information needs, notably for ‘understanding of structural changes such as technology innovation and policy reform in fisheries and aquaculture sectors as well as the implications of development interventions and shocks on fish food and nutrition security’ (Tran et al. 2019, p. 438). Looking more closely at fish and food security, Beveridge et  al. (2013, pp.  1071–1072, 1074) note that access to fish is ‘unequal across different regions of the world, and across different economic demographics within these regions’ such that: Availability alone is insufficient to ensure household food security: access to food, determined by power relations, poverty, lack of assets and prices that are increasingly governed by globalized markets, is also critical.

101

102

5  The Human System: Post-­Harvest Aspects and Fishing Communities

These authors note that ‘regional per capita food-­fish supplies are greatest in Oceania’, ­followed by Europe and Asia, with Africa last (p. 1072). They highlight that: . . . in Africa, where fish constitutes a particularly large proportion of animal-­source foods, per capita food availability of fish has increased little over the past 20 years, in large measure due to the limited growth of aquaculture. (p. 1073) Taylor et al. (2019) measured how climate change and variability has and is anticipated to have adverse impacts on food security in East African Nations. They note that the western Indian Ocean is warming ‘faster than any other region of the tropical oceans’ (p.  1396) and that: Kenya, Madagascar, Somalia, South Africa, and Tanzania have alarmingly low results that would suggest. . . that these countries are possibly marine food insecure as their populations do not have sufficient access to adequate fish food supplies. (p. 1405)

5.2  ­Fishing Households and Communities We turn here to an examination of fishing households and communities. These are important parts of the fishery system but have been too often neglected in fishery management, perhaps reflecting a failure to examine and understand the fishery system as a whole. That flaw led to a preoccupation in management thinking with fish and fishing ‘firms’ (fishers), rather than the broader context of where the fish live (the ecosystem) and where the fishers live (coastal communities). Much could be learned from the many social science studies of fishing communities, but these studies are typically not drawn upon in considering how the fishery is managed. The role of the communities – their social and economic features, and community institutions – has been missed in fishery management. What can an understanding of these linkages, between the fishery on the one hand and fishing households and communities on the other, contribute to pursuit of sustainable fisheries, and the successful practice of fishery management in particular? This question is explored briefly here, and it will be seen, later in the book, how crucial these aspects are. To set the stage for the discussion, consider a depiction of the human sub-­system placing an emphasis on the central interrelationship between individual fishers, fishing households, the fishing communities, and the broader region (Figure  5.5). Related considerations arising at each of these stages, such as the post-­harvest components, are also shown.

5.2.1  Households A fishing household is one in which at least one member is involved in the fishery. Most discussions focus on those households with at least one member being a fisher, although more broadly, we could also include those households where the only fishery connection is with post-­harvest aspects. If we adopt the former perspective here, we can focus on the

5.2  ­Fishing Households and Communitie

Figure 5.5  The fundamental linkages between the fisher, the household, the community, and the region more broadly; related aspects of each of these are also shown.

specific matter of how household structure and operation influence fishing behaviour at sea. Several such influences can be noted. First, multiple household members may be involved in fishing. Often these ‘kin ­relationships’ involve children (often sons) assisting the parent (often the father), who is the captain and/or vessel owner, but there may well be involvement of less immediate relatives as well. The impact of such practices can be complex. For example, there may be impacts on productivity. In some contexts, productivity may increase with the proportion of family labour used (e.g. for some fishers in Bangladesh – Mahmud et al. 2017; Ahmed and Waibel 2019). In other settings, if the vessel owner is under implicit or explicit social obligations to hire kin, the level of hiring may be uneconomical, thereby reducing direct family income. Behaviour of the enterprise may be affected as well. If labour is based on household ­participation, this implies that more of the gross income received by the enterprise is kept internally by the household. This could lead to greater harvesting intensity by a profit-­ maximiser (since costs of fishing are lower) or conversely, lower intensity in the case of a ­satisficer (since a sufficient household income will have been more rapidly obtained). Finally, in the long term, the availability of household labour may provide greater income security, since internalising labour costs allows the enterprise to better survive fishery downturns. There are also other contributors to income security. First, in many cases, household members not involved in fishing may be highly involved on the post-­harvest side, perhaps

103

104

5  The Human System: Post-­Harvest Aspects and Fishing Communities

working in processing plants (in an industrial setting) or marketing and distributing the catch within the community and beyond. Depending on the motivations of the household, this may reduce pressure on the resource. Second, the fishers and others in the household may hold additional jobs entirely outside the fishery system (Kadfak 2019). This could have the effect of stabilising family income and reducing the risk of major loss if a disaster in the fishery system were to occur (such as an unexpected stock collapse). Finally, family members may be involved in organisational aspects of the fishery system. For example, in some cases the spouses of fishers will have responsibility for the financial and book-­keeping aspects of their family ‘enterprises’, as well as involvement in various aspects of fishery management. The latter may take the form of direct involvement in fisher organisations and/or a role in support organisations  –  such as women’s groups within ­fishing communities that take part in campaigns to protect the livelihood of the fishers (e.g. Gillam and Charles 2018). Fishery Households in Japan

Year surveyed

Total

Male

Female

2014

259,690

136,090

123,600

2015

247,650

129,350

118,300

2016

235,010

123,540

111,470

2017

222,560

116,900

105,650

2018

223,001

118,471

104,530

Sea region

Total

Male

Female

Hokkaido Pacific Ocean, North

20,738

10,814

9,924

Pacific Ocean, North

27,008

14,235

12,773

Pacific Ocean, Middle

31,000

16,342

14,658

Pacific Ocean, South

15,966

8,610

7,356

Hokkaido Japan Sea, North

10,678

5,690

4,988

Japan Sea, North

13,693

7,218

6,475

Japan Sea, West

15,032

7,894

7,138

East China Sea

55,782

29,753

26,029

Seto Inland Sea

33,104

17,915

15,189

Note: This table is adapted from data on ‘Number of Fishery Household Members’ – relating to ‘households. . . that caught or cultivated fishes and aquatic plants at sea in order to gain profits or income by selling them during the one year prior to the date of the survey’. It is apparent from this survey that (1) the gender mix in the households is relatively even, (2) there is great variation across regions in numbers of household members, and (3) the total number of household members in fisheries has declined over the past several years. Source: Adapted from Japan Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2022).

5.2  ­Fishing Households and Communitie

5.2.2  Communities In many of the world’s fishery systems, it has become apparent that the involvement of coastal communities in fishery management can significantly improve the effectiveness of that management  –  through community-­based management (discussed particularly in Chapter  17). This, if nothing else, calls out for careful attention to fishing communities. The question ‘what is a community?’ has occupied social scientists for many years (e.g. Franz et al. 2018). In the fishery context, this focuses principally on two concepts of fishing communities: ●●

●●

geographically based communities, which are those referred to in common usage, such as villages or small towns located along the coast; communities of interest, grouping of fishers sharing some attribute in common, such as similar vessels, common ethnic background, or common target species.

While the latter has some relevance in fishery systems and will be explored again in Chapter 17, the focus here is on geographically based communities (Graham et al. 2006). These can be defined simply as ‘an association of people living in a given area or sharing some general commonality in addition to geographic proximity’ (IIRR 1998, p. 63). There is generally seen to be a geographic dimension to community. Those who fish and manage fisheries have to be from somewhere. . . .Membership [in fishery associations] is determined by where people live, where their wharf is, and where they fish . . . (Graham et al. 2006, p. 18) Such communities (and analogies in forest environments, urban centres, and elsewhere) have been the subject of abundant ethnographic and socioeconomic case studies over the years. Increasing attention is now paid (e.g. Gurney et  al.  2016; Montgomery and Vaughan  2018) to the specific matter of the role communities can play in management (notably through community-­based management) for fisheries and other natural resources (a focus of Chapter 17). The present discussion cannot hope to summarise the body of knowledge on communities in general and fishing communities in particular, but rather attempts to highlight some of the key features in the communities, and the relevant factors that may need to be examined, in relation to an understanding of fishery systems. In such discussions of the structure and operation of fishing communities, it must first be noted that there is great diversity among such communities. Indeed, ‘. . .communities exist within particular contexts, histories, and politics, entangled in overlapping and complex power dynamics of gender, race and ethnicity, sexuality, religion, age, and beyond’ (Dove et al. 2019, p. 24). This diversity implies that it would be foolhardy to speak of a ‘typical’ community. Nevertheless, there are certain major components of fishing communities that tend to be universal, or at least very common: Some Key Components of Fishing Communities ●● ●● ●●

Facilities at which fishers obtain provisions in preparing to go to sea Facilities at which fishers land their catch (beaches, wharves, etc.) Facilities at which fish are marketed, processed and/or distributed elsewhere

105

106

5  The Human System: Post-­Harvest Aspects and Fishing Communities

●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

Other fishery-­related economic activities, such as boat repair facilities Other non-­fishery economic activities, such as agriculture, tourism, and industry Community facilities, such as schools, churches, and meeting places Community institutions, such as municipal government and legal systems General community infrastructure, such as roads, electricity, water, and sewers Social and cultural facilities, such as central squares, bars, theatres, festivals, etc. Facilities provided by upper levels of government (e.g. post offices)

While the above list indicates some features of fishing communities that need to be examined in seeking to understand the broad fishery system, it is also useful to envision the factors that may be relevant in classifying and differentiating among fishing communities – i.e. in examining the diversity among fishing communities. The following list, while by no means exhaustive, identifies some of the elements relevant to looking at fishing communities. Some relevant factors in fishing communities. Demographic:

●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

Socio-­cultural:

●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

Economic:

●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

Institutional:

●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

Environmental:

●● ●● ●●

Community population Population trends Levels of migration Age and gender structure Education levels Identified community objectives Religious stratification Gender roles Social stratification and power structure Level of social cohesion Local traditions and norms Income levels and distribution Wealth levels and distribution Degree of dependence on the fishery Degree of fishing-­related activity Diversity in livelihood opportunities Household economic structure Types and location of markets Pattern of community organisation Pattern of local resource management Pattern of resource ownership and tenure Level of community infrastructure Regulatory and enforcement approaches Interaction with upper levels of government Use of traditional ecological knowledge Involvement of women in local institutions Availability and condition of fish stocks Quality of aquatic and coastal habitat Oceanographic/environmental conditions

5.2  ­Fishing Households and Communitie

Also important in assessing the state of fishing communities is how fishers perceive and value the communities in which they live, and in particular, the key matter of why people stay in or leave their fishing community. Many factors have been raised as determinants. Apostle et al. (1985), asking whether it is by choice, or a result of a lack of alternatives, find that community attachment can be related to job satisfaction, suggesting that there are three broad groupings: (1) those with a high level of job satisfaction and strong community attachment; (2) those with a high level of job satisfaction but weak community ties, and (3) those with a weak commitment to the fishery as an occupation, but a strong community attachment. Certainly, ‘attachment to place’ can be a contributing factor in an individual or household’s decision to stay or relocate (Morse and Mudgett 2018, p. 262): . . .some rural residents feel a strong sense of belonging to outdoor places, property, and landscapes, which suggests that place attachment could influence residential decision making. This emphasis on community ties and job satisfaction relates well with Asif’s (2019, p. 8) assessment of why some people leave and others choose to stay in coastal communities of Cambodia. Here, the fishers’ degree of geographical mobility and of occupational mobility was expressed according to the three dimensions of social well-­being: ‘(1) material, for example, income, wealth, assets, and ecosystem services; (2) relational, for example, social interactions, collective actions, and relationships; and (3) subjective, for example, cultural

Figure 5.6  Fishing communities, like this small-­scale fishing community on the great lake of Tonlé Sap, Cambodia, lie at the heart of fishery sustainability. They provide a base for fishers while also undertaking a wealth of aquatic conservation that sustains ecosystems and resources. This will be discussed in detail later in this volume.

107

108

5  The Human System: Post-­Harvest Aspects and Fishing Communities

values, norms, levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, belief systems, and shared hopes, fears, and aspirations’. These approaches are also compatible with a conceptual framework for assessing why people might decide to stay, based on three categories: attachment, alternatives, and buffers (Huntington et  al.  2018). The latter authors also note that in the context of resilience, ‘whether people stay or move is not uniformly indicative of resilience or lack thereof. That is, both staying and moving could be interpreted as signs of resilience’ (Huntington et al. 2018, p. 491).

5.3  ­The Socioeconomic Environment On the human side of the fishery system, there is clearly great variety inherent in the components discussed so far: the fishers and fishworkers, processors, fishing households and fishing communities. But the story does not stop there. Just as the fish are part of an ecosystem, so too are the fishers situated within a socioeconomic environment that extends broadly. This environment incorporates human, social and institutional elements, at the community, regional, national and global levels, all of which can influence the objectives pursued in the fishery, as well as fishing activity itself.

5.3.1  Links of Fishery Systems and Their Socioeconomic Environment Many questions might be asked about the links between the fishery system and the socioeconomic environment; the following are some possibilities: Demographic:

●●

Socio-­cultural:

●●

●●

Economic:

●●

●●

Institutional:

●●

●●

How do demographic aspects of the fishery system, such as participation by age and gender, interact with external influences, such as national population and migration trends? What are the broad aspects of society, culture, history, and tradition that impact on decision making in the fishery system? To what extent do those outside the fishery system have power over internal choices? How does the fishery economy interact with the economic structure and dynamics at the regional and/or national levels? How are the economic inputs in the fishery, notably labour and capital, affected by the broad economic environment? How do local fishery objectives relate to broader regional and national policy goals? How does the local institutional structure interact with institutions, legal arrangements, legislation, and policy frameworks at national and/or sub-­national levels?

5.3.2  Labour One major link between fisheries and the broader socioeconomic environment lies in labour markets (Charles  1988) and particularly the opportunities for individuals to find

5.3  ­The Socioeconomic Environmen

employment within versus outside the fishery. Just as harvests from a given fishery system interact with a broader marketplace, so too do the fishers interact with their socioeconomic environment through labour markets, in which people are linked to livelihoods. 5.3.2.1  Labour Mobility

This refers to the capability of fishers, fishworkers, and others in the relevant region, to shift to new livelihoods or new locations. There are two forms of labour mobility: ●● ●●

between occupations (reflecting occupational mobility) between locations (involving geographical mobility).

Since many fisheries are located in regions of isolated communities, where there are few alternative employment possibilities available, many fishers have few options outside the fishery, implying low occupational mobility (i.e. little opportunity to move to non-­fishery employment) – see, e.g. Galappaththi et al. (2019); Olale and Henson (2012). This is also referred to as a case of a low social cost of labour, i.e. a case where there is little cost to society of having a fisher working in the fishery, relative to what the person could have been doing elsewhere in the economy. The social cost of labour is a measure of the benefits that society could have obtained if the fisher had not worked in the fishery but rather at the ‘best alternative’ job outside the fishery, whether that is in the same region as the fishery, or further afield. If fishers in fact have no job alternatives or are unable to move elsewhere for jobs (zero labour mobility) then the social cost of labour is zero – there is no social cost to keeping those individuals in the fishery. Indeed, removing fishers from the fishery, far from saving society money, might lead, through a multiplier effect, to an economic loss to the regional economy. Furthermore, losses may also arise due to increased social costs – due, for example, to increased crime and/or decreased health and welfare levels (Raemaekers et al. 2011; Johnsen and Vik 2013). In such circumstances, the social cost of labour may even be negative, so not only are there no ‘labour costs’ per se, but in fact employment of fishers is explicitly a positive ‘good’. Whether we see the situation as one of low labour mobility, or equivalently, low social cost of labour, the message is that maintaining sustainable and stable employment ­(livelihoods) at reasonable incomes is a priority among society’s fishery objectives. This requires not only providing jobs in the fishery but also maintaining the fishery as a strong ‘engine’ of the coastal economy, given the spin-­off benefits from the fishery into coastal communities. This is clear, for example, in the case of Myanmar (Belton et al. 2019) where there is an important relationship between labour mobility and the economic state of fisheries – as also in other developing countries. Alternatively, economic development policy measures may be possible to increase occupational mobility, making it easier to shift occupations, typically by increasing employment options in coastal areas. The right market signals and economic incentives may support this (e.g. Pita et al. 2010a; Cisneros-­Montemayor et al. 2016a), and fishery policy may in turn be able to support the implications of growing employment options available to fishers. To do this, it is important for fishery planners to be looking beyond the fishery at the dynamics of the larger economic system and socio-­cultural context. Increasing occupational mobility may be the only avenue available if geographical mobility is low – as in many fishing ports, where labour outmigration is limited because fishers

109

110

5  The Human System: Post-­Harvest Aspects and Fishing Communities

‘are more willing to change jobs within the area than to change areas to remain fishing, showing a stronger attachment to the community than to the activity’ (Pita et al. 2010a, p. 317). In such cases, the authors suggest that economic development may be best focused on promoting non-­fishing employment alternatives. [In contrast, they highlight that in some other areas, the reverse can be true (Pita et al. 2010a, p. 317) with ‘more willingness to change areas to remain fishing than to change jobs within the area’.] Pita et al. (2010a) conclude that the recognition of local socioeconomic and historical contexts that influence fishery labour dynamics is essential for their effective management, noting that this will ‘undoubtedly have serious implications for the success of policies that ignore the heterogeneity that characterizes fishermen’s behaviour and assume that fishermen will voluntarily leave the sector if the appropriate financial incentives are provided’. It is also important to ensure that there is an integrated approach to labour that crosses multiple parts of the economy. Consider an interesting example from Costa Rica, where a policy measure in the agriculture field influenced the fishery. The Costa Rican government sought to encourage development of agricultural exports through incentives to small-­scale farmers in inland areas to cut down rain forest (referred to as ‘improving’ the land). That land could then be sold to ranchers, coffee growers, or others. The small-­scale farmers, having sold the land, found it increasingly difficult to find more land – i.e. to make a living inland – so many migrated to the coast (or to urban areas). Those moving to the coast often began fishing, notably in the Gulf of Nicoya on the Pacific coast. This increase in the coastal labour force, together with inadequate fishery controls, led directly to increased exploitation of coastal shrimp and fish resources, and major declines in abundance. An agricultural policy in inland forest areas led to overexploitation of coastal fisheries (Breton  1991; Herrera-­Ulloa et al. 2011; Alms and Wolff 2019). 5.3.2.2  Effects on the Fishery

The possibility of a zero, or negative, social cost of labour, as described above, contrasts with what happens in terms of individual decisions. When an owner of a fishing vessel employs a crew member, it may be necessary to follow a ‘minimum wage’ law at a national or state level. From the owner’s private perspective, therefore, a labour cost is incurred, given by that set wage level. This is referred to as the private cost of labour. From the vessel owner’s perspective, this cost creates an incentive for the owner to minimise the use of labour. However, in the above scenario of a zero or even negative social cost of labour, the desire of vessel owners to reduce employment (saving their costs) runs opposite to what society is seeking (greater employment in the coastal areas). Those contrary goals are important to understand, so as to design management and policy measures to make the various levels compatible. The message is that incorporating aspects of the broader socioeconomic environment into our analysis of fishery systems allows a clearer recognition of the difference in perspective between ‘private’ decisions made by individuals in the fishery and pursuit of broader community and/or societal objectives. Wage rates or crew shares on fishing vessels will depend on the balance of this labour supply and demand process. What goes on outside the fishery system, within the broader socioeconomic environment, can operate through the labour market to influence the fishery. For example, consider the balance between profits and wages in the fishery, arising from either the ongoing economic climate or changes in the economy. In the scenario of a

5.4  ­Post-­Harvest and Fishing Community Dynamic

high-­unemployment or isolated fishing region, wages may be relatively low (if workers in the economy have little bargaining power) so other things being equal, higher profits will be available for boat owners. These excess profits may lead to greater investment in vessels, resulting in excess catching power, threatening the sustainability of the resource base, to be discussed later.

5.4  ­Post-­Harvest and Fishing Community Dynamics As noted in the previous chapter, on fishers and fishworkers, compared to the study of fish population dynamics, much less attention has been paid to the dynamics within the human system of the fishery. Here, in this discussion, we focus on the dynamics of fishery markets, consumer demand, fishing communities, and the broader socioeconomic environment.

5.4.1  Dynamics of Markets and Consumer Demand External driving forces affecting markets and fish demand operate on a variety of time scales. Notably, we can point to different time scales of change in the marketplace: ●●

●●

Fish prices (Short-­term fluctuations: 0 when stock is declining

Food supply

Food supply per capita (Relative to minimum nutritional needs)

0–∞

Food available per person is below minimum nutritional requirements

Long-­term food security

Probability of sufficient food being available over next 10 years

0–1

Stability of food supply is low, or food supply is declining rapidly

Table C.3  Institutional sustainability indicators. Sustainability criteria

Indicator

Range

Indicator at minimum if

0–1

Existing management structures are insufficient to control exploitation levels and regulate resource users

0–1

Traditional resource and environmental management methods not utilised

Incorporating Extent of incorporation local input

0–1

Management/planning activity does not incorporate local socio-­cultural factors (tradition, community decision-­making, ecological knowledge, etc.)

Capacity building

Extent of capacity-­building efforts

0–1

Lack of capacity-­building within relevant organisations

Institutional viability

Level of financial and organisational viability

0–1

Management organisations lack long-­ term financial viability, or there is a lack of political will to support such structures

Management Level of success of effectiveness stated management and regulatory policies Use of traditional methods

Extent of utilisation

C.2.1  Aggregation Chapter 13 discusses the option of aggregating the indicators in some manner, into indices of sustainability, so as to synthesize the overall sustainability situation. It should be emphasized that this is a controversial approach, since it can hide the value-­laden choices being made in the aggregation (e.g. Petkovová et al. 2020). Accordingly, it should only be undertaken with caution, and generally for conceptual scenario-­building or with participation of decision-­makers.

Appendix C: Developing a Framework of Fishery Indicators

Table C.4  Sustainability assessment framework. Sustainability component/indicator

Ecological Sustainability Catch Level Biomass Biomass Trend Fish Size Environmental Quality Diversity: Harvested Species Diversity: Ecosystem Rehabilitated Areas Protected Areas Ecosystem Understanding   INDEX: _________________   Socioeconomic/Community Sustainability Community Resiliency Community Independence Human Carrying Capacity (Livelihood) Human Carrying Capacity (Environment) Equity Sustainable Fleet Capacity Appropriate Investment Food Supply Long-­term Food Security   INDEX: _________________   Institutional Sustainability Management Effectiveness Use of Traditional Methods Incorporating Local Input Capacity-­building Institutional Viability   INDEX:

Value

Weight

Weighted value

545

546

Appendix C: Developing a Framework of Fishery Indicators

To aggregate indicators into indices, Table  C.4 indicates one approach, building a ­sustainability assessment framework. Assuming a quantitative value has been determined for each indicator, weights might be selected for each, and the weighted values combined in a suitable manner into three indices (Charles 1994): ●● ●● ●●

Ecological sustainability index Socioeconomic/community sustainability index Institutional sustainability index.

In calculating these indexes, there are two principal approaches to aggregation through averaging, depending on how inter-­comparable the indicators are. One option is to use a weighted arithmetic average (with suitable weights assigned to each indicator); this has the property that a low value for any one indicator can be ‘compensated’ by an equivalently high value for another equally weighted indicator. The second option is a geometric average, possibly weighted; this has the feature that an extreme (low or high) value for a specific indicator will have a greater influence (relative to the arithmetic average) on the overall level of sustainability. Another possibility is that one or more indicators within a certain sustainability component are considered of critical importance in determining sustainability. For example, it may be that a biomass lying below some specified level implies non-­viability of the stock, and thus an obvious lack of ecological sustainability. Such indicators must be treated specially in the analysis. In the above case, values of the biomass indicator below the lower threshold might be re-­set to 0, so that use of multiplicative averaging in calculating the ecological sustainability index will imply non-­sustainability (an index of 0) under such a condition.

547

References de Abreu-­Mota, M.A., Medeiros, R.P., and Noernberg, M.A. (2018). Resilience thinking applied to fisheries management: perspectives for the mullet fishery in Southern-­Southeastern Brazil. Regional Environmental Change 18 (7): 2047–2058. Acheson, J.M. (1975). The lobster fiefs: economic and ecological effects of territoriality in the Maine lobster fishery. Human Ecology 3: 183–207. Addison, J.A., Barron, J., Finney, B. et al. (2018). A Holocene record of ocean productivity and upwelling from the northern California continental slope. Quaternary International 469: 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.02.021. Adrianto, L., Matsuda, Y., and Sakuma, Y. (2005). Assessing local sustainability of fisheries system: a multi-­criteria participatory approach with the case of Yoron Island, Kagoshima prefecture, Japan. Marine Policy 29 (1): 9–23. Afflerbach, J.C., Lester, S.E., Dougherty, D.T., and Poon, S.E. (2014). A global survey of “TURF-­reserves”, Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries coupled with marine reserves. Global Ecology and Conservation 2: 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2014.08.001. Agardy, T. (2010). Ocean Zoning: Making Marine Management More Effective. London/ Washington, DC: Earthscan. Agmour, I., Bentounsi, M., Baba, N. et al. (2020). Impact of wind speed on fishing effort. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-­020-­00736-­7. Aguirre, C., Rojas, M., Garreaud, R.D., and Rahn, D.A. (2019). Role of synoptic activity on projected changes in upwelling-­favourable winds at the ocean’s eastern boundaries. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 2 (1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-­019-­0101-­9. Ahmadia, G.N., Glew, L., Provost, M. et al. (2015). Integrating impact evaluation in the design and implementation of monitoring marine protected areas. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370 (1681): 20140275. Ahmed, B.N. and Waibel, H. (2019). The role of homestead fish ponds for household nutrition security in Bangladesh. Food Security 11 (4): 835–854. Akpalu, W. and Vondolia, G.K. (2012). Bioeconomic model of spatial fishery management in developing countries. Environment and Development Economics 17 (2): 145–161. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1355770X11000416. Alexander, S.M., Armitage, D., and Charles, A. (2015). Social networks and transitions to co-­management in Jamaican marine reserves and small-­scale fisheries. Global Environmental Change 35: 213–225. Sustainable Fishery Systems, Second Edition. Anthony Charles. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

548

References

Allen, C.R., Fontaine, J.J., Pope, K.L., and Garmestani, A.S. (2011). Adaptive management for a turbulent future. Journal of Environmental Management 92 (5): 1339–1345. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.019. Allison, E.H. and Horemans, B. (2006). Putting the principles of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach into fisheries development policy and practice. Marine Policy 30: 757–766. Allison, E.H., Adger, W.N., and Badjeck, M.C. (2005). Effects of Climate Change on the Sustainability of Capture and Enhancement Fisheries Important to the Poor: Analysis of the Vulnerability and Adaptability of Fisherfolk Living in Poverty, 169. London: Marine Resources Assessment Group. Allison, E.H., Perry, A.L., Badjeck, M.C. et al. (2009). Vulnerability of national economies to potential impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 10: 173–196. Allison, E.H., Ratner, B.D., Åsgård, B. et al. (2012). Rights-­based fisheries governance: from fishing rights to human rights. Fish and Fisheries 13 (1): 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-­2979.2011.00405.x. Alms, V. and Wolff, M. (2019). The gulf of Nicoya (Costa Rica) fisheries system: two decades of change. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 11 (2): 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcf2.10050. Alonso-­Población, E., Rodrigues, P., Wilson, C. et al. (2018). Narrative assemblages for power-­balanced coastal and marine governance. Tara Bandu as a tool for community-­based fisheries co-­management in Timor-­Leste. Maritime Studies 17 (1): 55–67. https://link. springer.com/article/10.1007/s40152-­018-­0093-­9 (accessed 26 December 2022). Álvarez-­Fernández, I., Freire, J., Naya, I. et al. (2020). Failures in the design and implementation of management plans of Marine Protected Areas: an empirical analysis for the North-­east Atlantic Ocean. Ocean & Coastal Management 192: 105178. Alves, C. (2021). Marine resource management and fisheries governance in Belize exhibit a polycentric, decentralized, and nested institutional structure. Ocean & Coastal Management 211: 105742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105742. Alzorriz, N., Jardim, E., and Poos, J.J. (2018). Likely status and changes in the main economic and fishery indicators under the landing obligation: a case study of the Basque trawl fishery. Fisheries Research 205: 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2018.04.004. Andersen, R. (1978). The need for human sciences research in Atlantic coast fisheries. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35: 1031–1049. Anderson, L.G. (1986). The Economics of Fisheries Management. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins Press. Anderson, L.G. (2019). The relationship between firm and fishery in common property fisheries. In: Fishery Economics (ed. L.G. Anderson), 181–193. London: Routledge. Anderson, L.G. and Seijo, J.C. (2010). Bioeconomics of Fisheries Management. Wiley-­Blackwell, 320p. Anderson, C.M., Krigbaum, M.J., Arostegui, M.C. et al. (2019). How commercial fishing effort is managed. Fish and Fisheries 20 (2): 268–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12339. Andrews, E.J., Pittman, J., and Armitage, D.R. (2020). Fisher behaviour in coastal and marine fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 22: https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12529. Andrews, N., Bennett, N.J., Le Billon, P. et al. (2021). Oil, fisheries and coastal communities: a review of impacts on the environment, livelihoods, space and governance. Energy Research & Social Science 75: 102009. Angulo-­Valdés, J.A. and Hatcher, B.G. (2010). A new typology of benefits derived from marine protected areas. Marine Policy 34 (3): 635–644.

References

Angus, R., Jardine, D., and Fenech, A. (2019). Adapting Mi’kmaq Communities of Prince Edward Island to Climate Change Impacts, Canada’s Adaptation Platform Webinar Series. Sudbury, ON: Climate Risk Institute. Anticamara, J.A., Watson, R., Gelchu, A., and Pauly, D. (2011). Global fishing effort (1950–2010): trends, gaps, and implications. Fisheries Research 107 (1–3): 131–136. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2010.10.016. Apostle, R., Kasdan, L., and Hanson, A. (1985). Work satisfaction and community attachment among fishermen in southwest Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 256–267. Apostle, R., Barrett, G., Holm, P. et al. (1998). Community, State, and Market on the North Atlantic Rim: Challenges to Modernity in the Fisheries. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 363 p. Appiah, S., Antwi-­Asare, T.O., Agyire-­Tettey, F.K. et al. (2021). Livelihood vulnerabilities among women in small-­scale fisheries in Ghana. The European Journal of Development Research 33 (6): 1596–1624. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-­020-­00307-­7. Appleby, T., Cardwell, E., Pettipher, J., and Webster, D.G. (2018). Fishing rights, property rights, human rights: the problem of legal lock-­in in UK fisheries. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 6: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.295. de Araujo Lima Constantino, P., Carlos, H.S.A., Ramalho, E.E. et al. (2012). Empowering local people through community-­based resource monitoring: a comparison of Brazil and Namibia. Ecology and Society 17 (4): 22. Arbo, P. and Thủy, P.T.T. (2016). Use conflicts in marine ecosystem-­based management – the case of oil versus fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management 122: 77–86. Arce-­Ibarra, A.M. and Charles, A. (2008). Inland fisheries of the Mayan Zone in Quintana Roo, Mexico: using a combined approach to fishery assessment for data-­sparse fisheries. Fisheries Research 91 (2): 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2007.11.015. Arceo, H.O., Cazalet, B., Alino, P.M. et al. (2013). Moving beyond a top-­down fisheries management approach in the northwestern Mediterranean: some lessons from the Philippines. Marine Policy 39: 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.006. Arias, N. and Stotz, W. (2020). Sustainability analysis of the benthic fisheries managed in the TURF system in Chile. International Journal of the Commons 14 (1): https://www. thecommonsjournal.org/articles/10.5334/ijc.1011/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S.J., and Potts, W. (2013). Towards resilient recreational fisheries on a global scale through improved understanding of fish and fisher behaviour. Fisheries Management and Ecology 20 (2, 3): 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12027. Arlinghaus, R., Alós, J., Beardmore, B. et al. (2017). Understanding and managing freshwater recreational fisheries as complex adaptive social-­ecological systems. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 25 (1): 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2016.1209160. Armitage, D.R., Marschke, M., and Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-­management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change 18 (1): 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2007.07.002. Armitage, D.R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F. et al. (2009). Adaptive co-­management for social-­ ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 95–102. https://doi. org/10.1890/070089. Armitage, D., Béné, C., Charles, A. et al. (2012). The interplay of well-­being and resilience in applying a social-­ecological perspective. Ecology and Society 17 (4): 15. https://doi. org/10.5751/ES-­04940-­170415.

549

550

References

Armitage, D., Charles, A., and Berkes, F. (ed.) (2017). Governing the Coastal Commons: Communities, Resilience and Transformation. Oxford: Earthscan, Routledge/Taylor & Francis https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315688480. Arnason, R. (1996). On the ITQ fisheries management system in Iceland. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 6: 63–90. Arnason, R. (2005). Property rights in fisheries: Iceland’s experience with ITQs. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15 (3): 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-­005-­5139-­6. Arnason, R. (2012). Property rights in fisheries: how much can individual transferable quotas accomplish? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 6: 217–236. https://doi. org/10.1093/reep/res011. Arnason, R. (2013). On optimal dynamic fisheries enforcement. Marine Resource Economics 28 (4): 361–377. https://doi.org/10.5950/0738-­1360-­28.4.361. Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of American Planning Association 35: 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225. Arthur, R.I. (2020). Small-­scale fisheries management and the problem of open access. Marine Policy 115: 103867. Asche, F., Bjørndal, M.T., and Bjørndal, T. (2014). Development in fleet fishing capacity in rights based fisheries. Marine Policy 44: 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2013.08.018. Asche, F., Garlock, T.M., Anderson, J.L. et al. (2018). Three pillars of sustainability in fisheries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115 (44): 11221–11225. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1807677115. Asif, F. (2019). From sea to city: migration and social well-­being in coastal Cambodia. In: Urban Climate Resilience in Southeast Asia, 149–177. Cham: Springer https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­98968-­6. Aswani, S. and Hamilton, R.J. (2004). Integrating indigenous ecological knowledge and customary sea tenure with marine and social science for conservation of bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) in the Roviana Lagoon, Solomon Islands. Environmental Conservation 31: 69–83. Atela, J., Muthuri, C., Namirembe, S. et al. (2018). Quantifying and valuing ecosystem services. In: Co-­investment in Ecosystem Services: Global Lessons from Payment and Incentive Schemes (ed. S. Namirembe, B. Leimona, M. van Noordwijk, and P. Minang), 49–62. Nairobi: World Agroforestry (ICRAF) https://www.worldagroforestry.org (accessed 26 December 2022). Atlas, W.I., Housty, W.G., Béliveau, A. et al. (2017). Ancient fish weir technology for modern stewardship: lessons from community-­based salmon monitoring. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 3 (6): 1341284. https://doi.org/10.1080/20964129.2017.1341284. Audzijonyte, A., Pethybridge, H., Porobic, J. et al. (2019). Atlantis: a spatially explicit end-­to-­ end marine ecosystem model with dynamically integrated physics, ecology and socio-­ economic modules. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10 (10): 1814–1819. https://doi.org/10. 1111/2041-­210X.13272. Augustyn, J., Petersen, S., Shannon, L., and Hamukuaya, H. (2014). Implementation of the ecosystem approach to fisheries in the Benguela Current LME area. In: Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution (ed. S. Garcia, J. Rice, and A. Charles), 271–284. Chichester/Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 552 p.

References

Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2022a). About AFMA. https://www.afma.gov.au/ about/about-­afma (accessed 24 December 2022). Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2022b). How we manage fisheries. https://www. afma.gov.au/about/how-­fisheries-­managed (accessed 24 December 2022). Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2022c). Fisheries management policies. https:// www.afma.gov.au/about/fisheries-­management-­policies Australian Government (2021). The Australian fishing zone. https://www.awe.gov.au/ agriculture-­land/fisheries/domestic/zone (accessed 24 December 2022). Ayer, A., Fulton, S., Caamal-­Madrigal, J.A., and Espinoza-­Tenorio, A. (2018). Halfway to sustainability: management lessons from community-­based, marine no-­take zones in the Mexican Caribbean. Marine Policy 93: 22–30. Ayllón, D., Nicola, G.G., Elvira, B., and Almodóvar, A. (2019). Optimal harvest regulations under conflicting tradeoffs between conservation and recreational fishery objectives. Fisheries Research 216: 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2019.03.021. Badjeck, M.C., Allison, E.H., Halls, A.S., and Dulvy, N.K. (2010). Impacts of climate variability and change on fishery-­based livelihoods. Marine Policy 34: 375–383. Ballantine, B. (2014). Fifty years on: lessons from marine reserves in New Zealand and principles for a worldwide network. Biological Conservation 176: 297–307. Ban, N.C. and Frid, A. (2018). Indigenous peoples’ rights and marine protected areas. Marine Policy 87: 180–185. Ban, N.C., Adams, V., Almany, G.R. et al. (2011). Designing, implementing and managing marine protected areas: emerging trends and opportunities for coral reef nations. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 408: 21–31. Ban, N.C., Evans, L.S., Nenadovic, M., and Schoon, M. (2015). Interplay of multiple goods, ecosystem services, and property rights in large social-­ecological marine protected areas. Ecology and Society 20 (4): http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss4/art2/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Ban, N.C., Frid, A., Reid, M. et al. (2018). Incorporate indigenous perspectives for impactful research and effective management. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2 (11): 1680–1683. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41559-­018-­0706-­0. Baptista, J., Martinho, F., Martins, R. et al. (2019). Water temperature gradient shapes the structure and composition of nearshore marine fish communities in southern Europe. Journal of Sea Research 154: 101807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2019.101807. Baral, S., Gautam, A.P., and Vacik, H. (2018). Ecological and economical sustainability assessment of community forest management in Nepal: a reality check. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 37 (8): 820–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2018.1490188. Barange, M. and Perry, R.I. (2009). Physical and ecological impacts of climate change relevant to marine and inland capture fisheries and aquaculture. In: Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture. Overview of Current Scientific Knowledge (ed. K. Cochrane, C. DeYoung, D. Soto, and T. Bahri). FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, 530, 7–106. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Barange, M., Field, J.G., Harris, R.P. et al. (ed.) (2010). Global Change and Marine Ecosystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barange, M., Bahri, T., Beveridge, M.C.M., Cochrane, K.L., Funge-­Smith, S., & Poulain, F. (Eds.) (2018) Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture: Synthesis of Current

551

552

References

Knowledge, Adaptation and Mitigation Options. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 627, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 628 p. https://www.fao.org/3/i9705en/I9705EN.pdf (accessed 24 December 2022). Barberán, J.A.Y. (2002). Statement of the European Union to the United Nations. Delivered by H.E. Mr. José Antonio De Yturriaga Barberán, Ambassador at Large for the Law of the Sea (April 11, 2002). Barbesgaard, M. (2018). Blue growth: savior or ocean grabbing? The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (1): 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1377186. Barclay, K., Fabinyi, M., Kinch, J., and Foale, S. (2019). Governability of high-­value Fisheries in low-­income contexts: a case study of the sea cucumber fishery in Papua New Guinea. Human Ecology 47 (3): 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-­019-­00078-­8. Barkley, A.N., Fisk, A.T., Hedges, K.J. et al. (2018). Transient movements of a deep-­water flatfish in coastal waters: implications of inshore-­offshore connectivity for fisheries management. Journal of Applied Ecology 55 (3): 1071–1081. Barner, A.K., Lubchenco, J., Costello, C. et al. (2015). Solutions for recovering and sustaining the bounty of the ocean: combining fishery reforms, rights-­based fisheries management, and marine reserves. Oceanography 28 (2): 252–263. Barnes, D.K. and Kuklinski, P. (2003). High polar spatial competition: extreme hierarchies at extreme latitude. Marine Ecology Progress Series 259: 17–28. Barnes, J., Dove, M., Lahsen, M. et al. (2013). Contribution of anthropology to the study of climate change. Nature Climate Change 3: 541–544. Barnett, A. and Anderies, J. (2014). Weak feedbacks, governance mismatches, and the robustness of social-­ecological systems. Ecology and Society 19 (4): 39. Barnett, A.J., Messenger, R.A., and Wiber, M.G. (2017). Enacting and contesting neoliberalism in fisheries: the tragedy of commodifying lobster access rights in Southwest Nova Scotia. Marine Policy 80: 60–68. Basurto, X. and Coleman, E. (2010). Institutional and ecological interplay for successful self-­governance of community-­based fisheries. Ecological Economics 69 (5): 1094–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.12.001. Basurto, X., Gelcich, S., and Ostrom, E. (2013). The social-­ecological system framework as a knowledge classificatory system for benthic small-­scale fisheries. Global Environmental Change 23 (6): 1366–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.001. Batista, C.M., Suárez, A., and Saltarén, C.M.B. (2017). Novel method to delimitate and demarcate coastal zone boundaries. Ocean & Coastal Management 144: 105–119. Bauer, B., Horbowy, J., Rahikainen, M. et al. (2019). Model uncertainty and simulated multispecies fisheries management advice in the Baltic Sea. PLoS One 14 (1): e0211320. Baum, J., Clarke, S., Domingo, A., et al. (2007). Sphyrna lewini. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2007 e.T39385A10190088. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2007. RLTS.T39385A10190088.en (accessed 26 December 2022). Bavinck, M. and Gupta, J. (2014). Legal pluralism in aquatic regimes: a challenge for governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 11: 78–85. Bavinck, M. and Vivekanandan, V. (2011). Conservation, conflict and the governance of fisher wellbeing: analysis of the establishment of the Gulf of Mannar National Park and Biosphere Reserve. Environmental Management 47 (4): 593–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00267-­010-­9578-­z.

References

Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., Pascual-­Fernández, J.J., and Marciniak, B. (2015). Interactive coastal governance: the role of pre-­modern fisher organizations in improving governability. Ocean & Coastal Management 117: 52–60. Bavington, D. (2011). Managed Annihilation: An Unnatural History of the Newfoundland Cod Collapse. Vancouver, British Columbia: UBC Press, 224 p. Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project (2020a). The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM). http://www.boblme.org/documentRepository/BOBLME-­2014-­ Brochure-­14.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project (2020b). The Essential EAFM training course. https://www.boblme.org/eafm/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Beacham, T.D., Cox-­Rogers, S., MacConnachie, C. et al. (2014). Population structure and run timing of sockeye salmon in the Skeena River, British Columbia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 34 (2): 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2014.880761. Beazley, L., Kenchington, E., Korabik, M. et al. (2021). Other effective area-­based conservation measure promotes recovery in a cold-­water coral reef. Global Ecology and Conservation 26: e01485. Beckensteiner, J., Scheld, A.M., Fernández, M., and Kaplan, D.M. (2020). Drivers and trends in catch of benthic resources in Chilean TURFs and surrounding open access areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 183: 104961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104961. Beitl, C. (2011). Cockles in custody: the role of common property arrangements in the ecological sustainability of mangrove fisheries on the Ecuadorian coast. International Journal of the Commons 5 (2): 485–512. Beitl, C.M. (2015). Mobility in the mangroves: catch rates, daily decisions, and dynamics of artisanal fishing in a coastal commons. Applied Geography 59: 98–106. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.12.008. Belgrano, A., Batten, S.D., and Reid, P.C. (2001). Pelagic ecosystems. In: Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 4e (ed. S.A. Levin), 497–508. Academic Press. Bellido, J.M., Sumaila, U.R., Sanchez-­Lizaso, J.L. et al. (2020). Input versus output controls as instruments for fisheries management with a focus on Mediterranean fisheries. Marine Policy 118: 1–4. Bello, R. (2021). How women fishers in Surigao del Sur started reclaiming their labor on the coast. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/environment/how-­women-­fishers-­surigao-­del-­sur-­ started-­reclaiming-­labor-­coastal-­community/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Belton, B., Marschke, M., and Vandergeest, P. (2019). Fisheries development, labour and working conditions on Myanmar’s marine resource frontier. Journal of Rural Studies 69: 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.05.007. Béné, C., Hersoug, B., and Allison, E.H. (2010a). Not by rent alone: analysing the pro-­poor functions of small-­scale fisheries in developing countries. Development Policy Review 28 (3): 325–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­7679.2010.00486.x. Béné, C., Lawton, R., and Allison, E.H. (2010b). “Trade matters in the fight against poverty”: narratives, perceptions, and (lack of) evidence in the case of fish trade in Africa. World Development 38 (7): 933–954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.12.010. Béné, C., Arthur, R., Norbury, H. et al. (2016). Contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to food security and poverty reduction: assessing the current evidence. World Development 79: 177–196.

553

554

References

Benediktsson, K. and Karlsdóttir, A. (2011). Iceland: crisis and regional development-­thanks for all the fish? European Urban and Regional Studies 18 (2): 228–235. https://doi. org/10.1177/0969776411402282. Bennett, E., Neiland, A., Anang, E. et al. (2001). Towards a better understanding of conflict management in tropical fisheries: evidence from Ghana, Bangladesh and the Caribbean. Marine Policy 25 (5): 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-­597X(01)00022-­7. Bennett, N.J. and Dearden, P. (2014a). From measuring outcomes to providing inputs: governance, management, and local development for more effective marine protected areas. Marine Policy 50: 96–110. Bennett, N.J. and Dearden, P. (2014b). Why local people do not support conservation: community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy 44: 107–116. Bennett, N.J., Dearden, P., Murray, G., and Kadfak, A. (2014). The capacity to adapt?: communities in a changing climate, environment, and economy on the northern Andaman coast of Thailand. Ecology and Society 19 (2): 5. Bennett, N.J., Dearden, P., and Peredo, A.M. (2015). Vulnerability to multiple stressors in coastal communities: a study of the Andaman coast of Thailand. Climate and Development 7 (2): https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.886993. Bennett, N.J., Kaplan-­Hallam, M., Augustine, G. et al. (2018). Coastal and Indigenous community access to marine resources and the ocean: a policy imperative for Canada. Marine Policy 87: 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.023. Bennett, N.J., Cisneros-­Montemayor, A.M., Blythe, J. et al. (2019). Towards a sustainable and equitable blue economy. Nature Sustainability 2: 991–993. Bennett, N.J., Blythe, J., White, C.S., and Campero, C. (2021). Blue growth and blue justice: ten risks and solutions for the ocean economy. Marine Policy 125: 104387. Berdej, S., Armitage, D., Charles, A., and with contributions from Berkes, F., Conrad, C., Makino, M., Nayak, P., Salas, S., Samakov, A., Seixas, C., and Uu-­a-­thluk, Nuu-­chah-­nulth Tribal Council (2016). Governance and Community Conservation. Halifax: Community Conservation Research Network. Saint Mary’s University https://www.communityconservation.net/ resources/governance-­guidebook/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Berkes, F. (ed.) (1989). Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-­Based Sustainable Development. London: Bellhaven Press. Berkes, F. (2006). From community-­based resource management to complex systems: the scale issue and marine commons. Ecology and Society 11 (1): 45. Berkes, F. (2007). Community-­based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 15188–15193. Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-­management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (5): 1692–1702. Berkes, F. (2010). Linkages and multilevel systems for matching governance and ecology: lessons from roving bandits. Bulletin of Marine Science 86 (2): 235–250. Berkes, F. (2012). Implementing ecosystem-­based management: evolution or revolution? Fish and Fisheries 13 (4): 465–476. Berkes, F. (2018). Sacred Ecology, 4e. New York/London: Routledge. Berkes, F. (2021). Toward a New Social Contract: Community-­Based Resource Management and Small-­Scale Fisheries. TBTI Global http://toobigtoignore.net/toward-­a-­new-­social-­contract-­ by-­fikret-­berkes/ (accessed 26 December 2022).

References

Berkes, F. and Folke, C. (ed.) (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berkes, F. and Nayak, P.K. (2018). Role of communities in fisheries management: “one would first need to imagine it”. Maritime Studies 17: 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40152-­018-­0120-­x. Berkes, F., Feeny, D., McCay, B.J., and Acheson, J.M. (1989). The benefits of the commons. Nature 340: 91–93. Berkes, F., George, P., and Preston, R.J. (1991). Co-­management – the evolution in theory and practice of the joint administration of living resources. Alternatives-­Perspectives on Society Technology and Environment 18 (2): 12–18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45031306 (accessed 26 December 2022). Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (2002). Navigating Social-­Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berkes, F., Hughes, T.P., Steneck, R.S. et al. (2006). Globalization, roving bandits and marine resources. Science 311: 1557–1558. Berkes, F., Arce-­Ibarra, M., Armitage, D. et al. (2016). Analysis of Social-­Ecological Systems for Community Conservation. Halifax: Community Conservation Research Network. Saint Mary’s University https://www.communityconservation.net/resources/social-­ecological-­ systems-­guidebook/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Berneshawi, S. (1997). Resource management and the Mi’kmaq nation. Canadian Journal of Native Studies 17 (1): 115–148. Beveridge, M.C., Thilsted, S.H., Phillips, M.J. et al. (2013). Meeting the food and nutrition needs of the poor: the role of fish and the opportunities and challenges emerging from the rise of aquaculture. Journal of Fish Biology 83 (4): 1067–1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jfb.12187. Beverton, R.J.H. and Holt, S.J. (1957). On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. London, UK: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food. Bjordal, A. (2002). Classification of fishing gears. In: A Fishery Manager’s Guidebook – Management Measures and Their Application. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 424 (ed. K.L. Cochrane). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations http://www.fao. org/3/y3427e/y3427e00.htm#Contents (accessed 26 December 2022). Bjørndal, T. and Guillen, J. (2016). Market Competition Between Farmed and Wild Fish: A Literature Survey. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular. Rome: http://www.fao.org/3/ a-­i5700e.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). Bloomfield, H.J., Sweeting, C.J., Mill, A.C. et al. (2012). No-­trawl area impacts: perceptions, compliance and fish abundances. Environmental Conservation 39 (3): 237–247. Bodwitch, H. (2017). Challenges for New Zealand’s individual transferable quota system: processor consolidation, fisher exclusion, & Māori quota rights. Marine Policy 80: 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.11.030. Bohler-­Muller, N., Steyn-­Kotze, J., Zikhali, T., and Sekyere, E. (2019). Women’s Economic Empowerment and the Blue Economy. Policy Brief. Human Sciences Research Council www.hsrc.ac.za (accessed 26 December 2022). Boncoeur, J. and Alban, F. (2013). Troisième partie: approche socioéconomique. In: Les aires marines protégées et la pêche: bioécologie, socioéconomie et gouvernance (ed. S.M. Garcia, J. Boncoeur, and D. Gascuel), 139–187. Presses Universitaires de Perpignan.

555

556

References

Bondad-­Reantaso, M.G., Subasinghe, R.P., Josupeit, H. et al. (2012). The role of crustacean fisheries and aquaculture in global food security: past, present and future. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 110 (2): 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2012.03.010. Bonino, G., Di Lorenzo, E., Masina, S., and Iovino, D. (2019). Interannual to decadal variability within and across the major Eastern Boundary Upwelling Systems. Scientific Reports 9 (1): 1–14. Borgese, E.M. (1998). The Oceanic Circle: Governing the Seas as a Global Resource. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 240 p. Borja, A., Andersen, J.H., Arvanitidis, C.D. et al. (2020). Past and future grand challenges in marine ecosystem ecology. Frontiers in Marine Science 7: https://doi.org/10.3389/ fmars.2020.00362. Botsford, L.W., Micheli, F., and Parma, A.M. (2006). Biological and ecological considerations in the design, implementation and success of MPAs. In: Report of the Expert Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Management: Review of Issues and Considerations (ed. FAO), 109–148. Rome: FAO. Boucquey, N. (2017). ‘That’s my livelihood, it’s your fun’: the conflicting moral economies of commercial and recreational fishing. Journal of Rural Studies 54: 138–150. Boude, J.P., Boncoeur, J., and Bailly, D. (2001). Regulating the access to fisheries: learning from European experiences. Marine Policy 25 (4): 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0308-­597X(01)00003-­3. Boumans, R., Roman, J., Altman, I., and Kaufman, L. (2015). The multiscale integrated model of ecosystem services (MIMES): simulating the interactions of coupled human and natural systems. Ecosystem Services 12: 30–41. Boyd, H. and Charles, A. (2006). Creating community-­based indicators to monitor sustainability of local fisheries. Oceans & Coastal Management 49: 237–258. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.03.006. Boyd, E. and Folke, C. (2012). Adapting Institutions: Governance, Complexity, and Social-­ Ecological Resilience. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Bradbury, I.R., Hamilton, L.C., Chaput, G. et al. (2016). Genetic mixed stock analysis of an interceptory Atlantic salmon fishery in the Northwest Atlantic. Fisheries Research 174: 234–244. Branch, T.A., Hilborn, R., Haynie, A.C. et al. (2006). Fleet dynamics and fishermen behavior: lessons for fisheries managers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63 (7): 1647–1668. https://doi.org/10.1139/F06-­072. Branch, T.A., Austin, J.D., Acevedo-­Whitehouse, K. et al. (2012). Fisheries conservation and management: finding consensus in the midst of competing paradigms. Animal Conservation 15 (1): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-­1795.2011.00502.x. Brander, K.M. (2007). Global fish production and climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 104: 19709–19714. Brander, K. (2010). Impacts of climate change on fisheries. Journal of Marine Systems 79: 389–402. Brander, K., Botsford, L.W., Ciannelli, L. et al. (2010). Human impacts on marine ecosystems. In: Marine Ecosystems and Global Change (ed. M. Barange, J.G. Field, R.P. Harris, et al.), 41–71. New York: Oxford University Press. Bray, D.J. (2018). Freshwater fishes. In: Fishes of Australia (ed. D.J. Bray and M.F. Gomon). Museums Victoria/OzFishNet http://fishesofaustralia.net.au/ (accessed 26 December 2022).

References

Breen, M., Graham, N., Pol, M. et al. (2016). Selective fishing and balanced harvesting. Fisheries Research 184: 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.03.014. Bresnihan, P. (2019). The (slow) tragedy of improvement: neoliberalism, fisheries management & the institutional commons. World Development 120: 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worlddev.2017.09.017. Brêthes, J.C. (1998). The Canadian Atlantic groundfish experience and the constraints to the conservation of fisheries resources: a perspective. Ocean & Coastal Management 39 (1, 2): 135–150. Breton, Y. (1991). Economic anthropology and interdisciplinarity in Costa Rica fishing. MAST Maritime Anthropological Studies 3: 1–12. Brewer, T. and Moon, K. (2015). Towards a functional typology of small-­scale fisheries co-­management informed by stakeholder perceptions: a coral reef case study. Marine Policy 51: 48–56. Brierley, A.S. (2017). Plankton. Current Biology 27 (11): 478–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cub.2017.02.045. Brinson, A.A. and Thunberg, E.M. (2016). Performance of federally managed catch share fisheries in the United States. Fisheries Research 179: 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fishres.2016.03.008. Brites, N.M. and Braumann, C.A. (2017). Fisheries management in random environments: comparison of harvesting policies for the logistic model. Fisheries Research 195: 238–246. Brodie Rudolph, T., Ruckelshaus, M., Swilling, M. et al. (2020). A transition to sustainable ocean governance. Nature Communications 11 (1): 3600. Bromley, D.W., Feeny, D., McKean, M.A. et al. (ed.) (1992). Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice and Policy. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies. Brooks, K., Schirmer, J., Pascoe, S. et al. (2015). Selecting and assessing social objectives for Australian fisheries management. Marine Policy 53: 111–122. Brooks, K., Barclay, K., Grafton, R., and Gollan, N. (2020). Transforming coastal and marine management: deliberative democracy and integrated management in New South Wales, Australia. Marine Policy 139: 104053. Brownstein, J. and Tremblay, J. (1994). Traditional property rights and cooperative management in the Canadian lobster fishery. The Lobster Newsletter 7: 5. Brueckner-­Irwin, I., Armitage, D., and Courtenay, S. (2019). Applying a social-­ecological well-­being approach to enhance opportunities for marine protected area governance. Ecology and Society 24 (3): https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­10995-­240307. Bruno, J.F., Bates, A.E., Cacciapaglia, C. et al. (2018). Climate change threatens the world’s marine protected areas. Nature Climate Change 8: 499–503. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41558-­018-­0149-­2. Bryndum-­Buchholz, A., Tittensor, D.P., Blanchard, J.L. et al. (2019). Twenty-­first-­century climate change impacts on marine animal biomass and ecosystem structure across ocean basins. Global Change Biology 25 (2): 459–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14512. Buhl-­Mortensen, P., Gordon, D.C., Buhl-­Mortensen, L., and Kulka, D.W. (2017). First description of a Lophelia pertusa reef complex in Atlantic Canada. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 126: 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2017.05.009. Buly, S. (2017). Climate change or local anthropogenic impacts? Comparing effects on livelihoods and sustainable development in a rural coastal village of Bangladesh.

557

558

References

Master thesis. International Development Studies. Saint Mary’s University. Halifax. https:// library2.smu.ca/handle/01/27025 (accessed 26 December 2022). Bunce, L., Townsley, P., Pomeroy, R., and Pollnac, R. (2000). Socio-­economic Manual for Coral Reef Management. Silver Spring, MD: National Ocean Service, NOAA, 251 pp. Bunnefeld, N., Hoshino, E., and Milner-­Gulland, E.J. (2011). Management strategy evaluation: a powerful tool for conservation? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26 (9): 441–447. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.003. Buren, A.D., Murphy, H.M., Adamack, A.T. et al. (2019). The collapse and continued low productivity of a keystone forage fish species. Marine Ecology Progress Series 616: 155–170. Burgess, M.G., Carrella, E., Drexler, M. et al. (2020). Opportunities for agent-­based modelling in human dimensions of fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 21: 570–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/ faf.12447. Butler, J.R., Rees, T., Beesley, P., and Bax, N.J. (2010). Marine biodiversity in the Australian region. PLoS One 5 (8): https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011831. Butler, J.R., Tawake, A., Skewes, T. et al. (2012). Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and fisheries management in the Torres Strait, Australia: the catalytic role of turtles and dugong as cultural keystone species. Ecology and Society 17 (4): 34. Butler, J.R.A., Young, J.C., McMyn, I.A.G. et al. (2015). Evaluating adaptive co-­management as conservation conflict resolution: learning from seals and salmon. Journal of Environmental Management 160: 212–225. Buxton, C.D., Hartmann, K., Kearney, R., and Gardner, C. (2014). When is spillover from marine reserves likely to benefit fisheries? PLoS One 9 (9): E107032. Cacaud, P., Cosentino-­Roush, S., Kuemlangan, B. et al. (2016). A How-­to Guide on legislating for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO EAF-­Nansen Project Report No 27. EAF-­N/ PR/27(En). Rome: FAO. Cadima, E.L. (2003). Fish Stock Assessment Manual (No. 393). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Cadrin, S.X. (2020). Defining spatial structure for fishery stock assessment. Fisheries Research 221: 105397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2019.105397. Cai, J. and Zhou, X. (2019). Contribution of aquaculture to total fishery production: the 50-­percent mark. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter 60: 43–45. Camhi, M.D., Valenti, S.V., Fordham, S.V. et al. (2009). The Conservation Status of Pelagic Sharks and Rays: Report of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group Pelagic Shark Red List Workshop. Newbury, UK: IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group x+78p. Camp, E.V., Pine, W.E. III, Havens, K. et al. (2015). Collapse of a historic oyster fishery: diagnosing causes and identifying paths toward increased resilience. Ecology and Society 20 (3): 45. Campbell, B. and Hanich, Q. (2015). Principles and practice for the equitable governance of transboundary natural resources: cross-­cutting lessons for marine fisheries management. Maritime Studies 14 (1): 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40152-­015-­0028-­7. Campling, L. and Havice, E. (2014). The problem of property in industrial fisheries. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (5): 707–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.894909. Canadell, J.G., Le Quéré, D., Raupach, M.R. et al. (2007). Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 104: 18866–18870.

References

CANARI (2005). Marine protected areas and sustainable coastal livelihoods. CANARI Policy Brief 5 (January 2005): 4. Capistrano, R.C. and Charles, A. (2012). Indigenous rights and coastal fisheries: a framework of livelihoods, rights and equity. Ocean & Coastal Management 69: 200–209. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.08.011. Caputi, N., de Lestang, S., How, J. et al. (2018). Ecosystem-­based fisheries management (or ‘triple bottom line’) assessments of the western rock lobster resource: is there an optimal target for fishing? Marine Policy 94: 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol. 2018.05.015. Carlisle, K.M. and Gruby, R.L. (2018). Why the path to polycentricity matters: evidence from fisheries governance in Palau. Environmental Policy and Governance 28 (4): 223–235. https:// doi.org/10.1002/eet.1811. Carlson, A.K., Taylor, W.W., Liu, J., and Orlic, I. (2018). Peruvian anchoveta as a telecoupled fisheries system. Ecology and Society 23 (1): 35. Carlsson, L. and Berkes, F. (2005). Co-­management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75 (1): 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2004.11.008. Carothers, C. (2011). Equity and access to fishing rights: exploring the community quota program in the Gulf of Alaska. Human Organization 70 (3): 213–223. Carothers, C. (2015). Fisheries privatization, social transitions, and well-­being in Kodiak, Alaska. Marine Policy 61: 313–322. Carothers, C. and Chambers, C. (2012). Fisheries privatization and the remaking of fishery systems. Environment and Society 3 (1): 39–59. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2012.030104. Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, M., and Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4: 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-­001-­ 0045-­9. Carvalho, N., Edwards-­Jones, G., and Isidro, E. (2011). Defining scale in fisheries: small versus large-­scale fishing operations in the Azores. Fisheries Research 109 (2, 3): 360–369. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.03.006. Cashion, T., Al-­Abdulrazzak, D., Belhabib, D. et al. (2018). Reconstructing global marine fishing gear use: catches and landed values by gear type and sector. Fisheries Research 206: 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2018.04.010. Castañeda, R.A., Burliuk, C.M., Casselman, J.M. et al. (2020). A brief history of fisheries in Canada. Fisheries 45 (6): 303–318. Castilla, J.C. (2010). Fisheries in Chile: small pelagics, management, rights, and sea zoning. Bulletin of Marine Science 86 (2): 221–234. Castrejón, M. and Charles, A. (2013). Improving fisheries co-­management through ecosystem-­ based spatial management: the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Marine Policy 38: 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.040. Castrejón, M. and Charles, A. (2020). Human and climatic drivers affect spatial fishing patterns in a multiple-­use marine protected area: the Galapagos Marine Reserve. PLoS One 15 (1): e0228094. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228094. CBC: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (2015). NoRigs 3 calls on Harper government to extend Georges Bank moratorium. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-­scotia/norigs-­3-­ calls-­on-­harper-­government-­to-­extend-­georges-­bank-­moratorium-­1.2953126 (accessed 26 December 2022).

559

560

References

CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity (2000). COP 5 Decision V/6. Ecosystem approach. Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 5). https:// www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7148 (accessed 26 December 2022). CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity (2003). Ecosystem Approach: Further elaboration, guidelines for implementation and relationship with sustainable forest management. Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice. Ninth Meeting, Montreal (10–14 November 2003). Unep/Cbd/Sbstta/9/8. CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity (2004). The Ecosystem Approach (CBD Guidelines). Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 50 p. CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity (2010). Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Tenth Meeting. X/2. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2. http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ and https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-­10/cop-­10-­ dec-­02-­en.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity (2015). Aichi biodiversity targets. https://www.cbd. int/sp/targets/ (accessed 26 December 2022) CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity (2018). Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity 14/8. Protected areas and other effective area-­based conservation measures. CBD/COP/DEC/14/8. 30 November 2018. CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity (2020). Ecosystem approach: principles. https:// www.cbd.int/ecosystem/principles.shtml (accessed 26 December 2022). CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity (2022). Ecosystem approach. https://www.cbd.int/ ecosystem/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Chambers, C., Helgadóttir, G., and Carothers, C. (2017). “Little kings”: community, change and conflict in Icelandic fisheries. Maritime Studies 16 (1): 10. Chambers, C., Einarsson, N., and Karlsdóttir, A. (2020). Small-­scale fisheries in Iceland: local voices and global complexities. In: Small-­Scale Fisheries in Europe: Status, Resilience and Governance (ed. J.J. Pascual-­Fernández, C. Pita, and M. Bavinck), 329–349. Cham: Springer https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­37371-­9_16 (accessed 26 December 2022). Chapman, E.J. and Byron, C.J. (2018). The flexible application of carrying capacity in ecology. Global Ecology and Conservation 13: 1–12. Charles, A. (1983a). Optimal fisheries investment: comparative dynamics for a deterministic seasonal fishery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40: 2069–2079. Charles, A. (1983b). Optimal fisheries investment under uncertainty. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40: 2080–2091. Charles, A. (1988). Fishery socioeconomics: a survey. Land Economics 64 (3): 276–295. Charles, A. (1989). Bio-­socio-­economic fishery models: labor dynamics and multi-­objective management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 13–1322. Charles, A. (1991). Small-­scale fisheries in North America: research perspectives. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Research in Small-­Scale Fisheries (ed. J.-­R. Durand, J. Lemoalle, and J. Weber), 157–184. Paris: Editions de l’ORSTOM. Charles, A. (1992a). Fishery conflicts: a unified framework. Marine Policy 16 (5): 379–393. Charles, A. (1992b). Canadian fisheries: paradigms and policy. In: Canadian Ocean Law and Policy (ed. D. VanderZwaag), 3–26. Markham: Butterworths.

References

Charles, A. (1994). Towards sustainability: the fishery experience. Ecological Economics 11 (3): 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-­8009(94)90201-­1. Charles, A. (1995a). The Atlantic Canadian groundfishery: roots of a collapse. Dalhousie Law Journal 18: 65–83. Charles, A. (1995b). Fishery science: the study of fishery systems. Aquatic Living Resources 8: 233–239. Charles, A. (1997a). Fisheries management in Atlantic Canada. Ocean & Coastal Management 35 (2, 3): 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-­5691(97)00028-­8. Charles, A. (1997b). Sustainability Indicators: An Annotated Bibliography with Emphasis on Fishery Systems, Coastal Zones and Watersheds. Strategy for International Fisheries Research. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre of Canada https://idl-­bnc-­ idrc.dspacedirect.org/handle/10625/22836 (accessed 26 December 2022). Charles, A. (1998a). Living with uncertainty in fisheries: analytical methods, management priorities and the Canadian ground fishery experience. Fisheries Research 37: 37–50. Charles, A. (1998b). Beyond the status quo: re-­thinking fishery management. In: Re-­inventing Fisheries Management (ed. T.J. Pitcher, P.J.B. Hart, and D. Pauly), 101–111. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Charles, A. (1998c). Fisheries in transition. In: Ocean Yearbook 13 (ed. E.M. Borgese, A. Chircop, M. McConnell, and J.R. Morgan), 15–37. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press https://doi.org/10.1163/221160098X00038. Charles, A. (2002a). The precautionary approach and ‘burden of proof’ challenges in fishery management. Bulletin of Marine Science 70 (2): 683–694. Charles, A. (2002b). Use rights and responsible fisheries: limiting access and harvesting through rights-­based management. In: A Fishery Manager’s Guidebook. Management Measures and Their Application (ed. K. Cochrane). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 424, 131–157. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations http://www.fao. org/3/y3427e/y3427e08.htm (accessed 26 December 2022). Charles, A. (2004a). Some ideas relating to fishery sustainability. In: Report and Documentation of the International Workshop on the Implementation of International Fisheries Instruments and Factors of Unsustainability and Overexploitation in Fisheries. Mauritius 3–7 February 2003 (ed. J. Swan and D. Greboval), 295–297. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 700. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Charles, A. (2004b). Sustainability and resilience in natural resource systems: policy directions and management institutions. In: Encyclopaedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). Developed under the auspices of the UNESCO, 1–19. Oxford: Eolss Publishers http://www. eolss.net (accessed 26 December 2022). Charles, A. (2005a). Toward sustainable and resilient fisheries: a fishery-­system approach to overcoming the factors of unsustainability. In: Overcoming Factors of Unsustainability and Overexploitation in Fisheries: Selected Papers on Issues and Approaches (ed. J. Swan and D. Greboval), 221–233. International Workshop on the Implementation of the International Fisheries Instruments and Factors of Unsustainability and Overexploitation in Fisheries. Siem Reap, Cambodia, 13–16 September 2004. FAO Fisheries Report 782. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Charles, A. (2005b). The big picture: a fishery system approach links fishery management and biodiversity. In: Proceedings: International Conference on Biodiversity: Science and

561

562

References

Governance, 1–5. Paris: Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Also in: Proceedings of the Workshop on Biodiversity Challenges for Fishery Management. International Conference on Biodiversity: Science and Governance. IFREMER, Paris, France, 2005. Charles, A. (2006a). Social impacts of government financial support of fisheries. In: Financial Support to Fisheries: Implications for Sustainable Development (ed. OECD), 225–260. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-­operation and Development, 377 p. Charles, A. (2006b). Community fishery rights: issues, approaches and Atlantic Canadian case studies. In: Proceedings of the Thirteeth Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade (ed. A.L. Shriver), 11–14 July 2006, Portsmouth, UK, 1–8. Corvallis, Oregon: International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade. Charles, A. (2008). Robust Management, Risk and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. ICES CM Documents 2008/O:05. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Charles, A. (2009). Rights-­based fisheries management: the role of use rights in managing access and harvesting. In: A Fishery Manager’s Guidebook (ed. K.L. Cochrane and S.M. Garcia), 253–282. Oxford: Wiley-­Blackwell https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ bb0bbac3-­950c-­57e3-­81e9-­471abd395ae7/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Charles, A. (2011a). Human rights and fishery rights in small-­scale fisheries management. In: Small-­Scale Fisheries Management: Frameworks and Approaches for the Developing World (ed. R.S. Pomeroy and N. Andrew), 59–74. Wallingford: CAB International. Charles, A. (2011b). Integrated ocean management and the fisheries sector: interactions, economic tools and Governance structures. Paris: Fisheries Department, Organisation for Economic Co-­operation and Development (OECD). Charles, A. (2012). People, oceans and scale: governance, livelihoods and climate change adaptation in marine social–ecological systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4 (3): 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.05.011. Charles, A. (2014). Human dimensions in marine ecosystem-­based management, Chapter 3. In: Marine Ecosystem-­Based Management. The Sea: Ideas and Observations on Progress in the Study of the Seas (ed. M.J. Fogarty and J.J. McCarthy). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 568 p. Charles, A. (2016). Managing a multi-­sectoral ocean: economic perspectives and fishery insights. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade (11–15 July 2016) (ed. S.J. Evers and A.L. Shriver). Corvallis: International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade (IIFET) https://ir.library. oregonstate.edu/concern/conference_proceedings_or_journals/f1881n74b (accessed 26 Decemeber 2022). Charles, A. (2017). The big role of coastal communities and small-­scale fishers in ocean conservation. In: Conservation for the Anthropocene Ocean: Interdisciplinary Science in Support of Nature and People (ed. P.S. Levin and M.R. Poe), 447–461. London, UK/San Diego, US: Academic Press, Elsevier https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­805375-­1.00021-­0. Charles, A. (2018a). Fishery bio-­socio-­economics, Chapter 10. In: Advances in Fisheries Bioeconomics: Theory and Policy (ed. J.C. Seijo and J.G. Sutinen), 159–185. Oxford: Routledge (Taylor & Francis). Charles, A. (2018b). Meaningful partnerships in meaningful ocean governance. In: The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Mann Borgese (1918–2002) (ed. International Ocean Institute – Canada, D. Werle, P.R. Boudreau, et al.), 24–29. Leiden/Boston: Brill Nijhoff.

References

Charles, A. (2020). Moving forward on lobster fishery means addressing access and conservation. Policy Options. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/october-­2020/ moving-­forward-­on-­lobster-­fishery-­means-­addressing-­access-­and-­conservation/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Charles, A. (ed.) (2021). Communities, Conservation and Livelihoods. Gland/Halifax, 132 p: IUCN/Community Conservation Research Network https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN. CH.2021.01.en and https://www.communityconservation.net/communities-­conservation-­ livelihoods-­the-­book/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Charles, A. and de Young, C. (2008). Benefits and costs of implementing the ecosystem approach to fisheries. In: The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (ed. G. Bianchi and H.R. Skjoldal), 125–137. Kings Lynn: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations/CAB International. Charles, A. and Herrera, A. (1994). Development and diversification: sustainability strategies for a Costa Rican fishing cooperative. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the International Institute for Fisheries Economics and Trade (ed. M. Antona, J. Catanzano, and J.G. Sutinen), 1315–1324. Paris: IIFET/ORSTOM. Charles, A. and Sanders, J. (2007). Issues arising on the interface of MPAs and fisheries management. In: Report and Documentation of the Expert Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Management: Review of Issues and Considerations. Rome, 12–14 June 2006. FAO Fisheries Report No. 825, 301–332. Rome: FAO. Charles, A. and Wilson, L. (2009). Human dimensions of marine protected areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science 66: 6–15. Charles, A., H. Boyd, A. Lavers, and C. Benjamin. 2002. The Nova Scotia GPI Fisheries and Marine Environment Accounts: A Preliminary Set of Ecological, Socioeconomic and Institutional Indicators for Nova Scotia’s Fisheries & Marine Environment. Tantallon: GPI Atlantic, 76 p. http://www.gpiatlantic.org/publications/naturalcapital.htm (accessed 26 December 2022). Charles, A., Bull, A., Kearney, J., and Milley, C. (2007). Community-­based fisheries in the Canadian Maritimes. In: Fisheries Management: Progress Towards Sustainability (ed. T.R. McClanahan and J.C. Castilla), Chapter 13, 274–301. Wiley-­Blackwell. Charles, A., C. Burbidge, H. Boyd, and A. Lavers. (2009) Fisheries and the Marine Environment in Nova Scotia: Searching for Sustainability and Resilience. Nova Scotia: GPI Atlantic, 55 p. http://www.gpiatlantic.org/pdf/fisheries/fisheries_2008.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). Charles, A., Wiber, M., Bigney, K. et al. (2010). Integrated management: a coastal community perspective. Horizons 10 (4): 26–34. Charles, A., Garcia, S.M., and Rice, J. (2014). A tale of two streams: synthesizing governance of marine fisheries and biodiversity conservation. In: Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution (ed. S. Garcia, J. Rice, and A. Charles), 413–428. Chichester/Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 552 pp. Charles, A., Westlund, L., Bartley, D.M. et al. (2016). Fishing livelihoods as key to marine protected areas: insights from the World Parks Congress. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 26: 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2648. Charles, A., Kalikoski, D., and Macnaughton, A. (2019). Addressing the Climate Change and Poverty Nexus: A Coordinated Approach in the Context of the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement, 100. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

563

564

References

Charles, A., Loucks, L., Berkes, F., and Armitage, D. (2020). Community science: a typology and its implications for governance of social-­ecological systems. Environmental Science & Policy 106: 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.019. Chaudhary, C., Saeedi, H., and Costello, M.J. (2017). Marine species richness is bimodal with latitude: a reply to Fernandez and Marques. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 32 (4): 234–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.02.007. Chaudhary, A., Gustafson, D., and Mathys, A. (2018). Multi-­indicator sustainability assessment of global food systems. Nature Communications 9 (1): 1–13. Chen, S., De Bruyne, C., and Bollempalli, M. (2020). Blue economy: community case studies addressing the poverty-­environment Nexus in Ocean and Coastal Management. Sustainability 12: 4654. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114654. Cheung, W.W., Lam, V.W.Y., Sarmiento, J.L. et al. (2009). Large-­scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change. Global Change Biology 16 (1): 24–35. Cheung, W.W.L., Watson, R., and Pauly, D. (2013). Signature of ocean warming in global fisheries catch. Nature 497: 365–368. Cheung, W.W., Jones, M.C., Reygondeau, G. et al. (2016). Structural uncertainty in projecting global fisheries catches under climate change. Ecological Modelling 325: 57–66. Christensen, V. and Walters, C.J. (2004). Trade-­offs in ecosystem-­scale optimization of fisheries management policies. Bulletin of Marine Science 74 (3): 549–562. Christensen, S., Lassen, H., Nielsen, J.R., and Vedsmand, T. (1999). Effort regulation: a viable alternative in fisheries management? In: Alternative Management Systems for Fisheries (ed. D. Symes), 179–187. Oxford: Fishing News Books (Blackwell Science). Christie, P. and White, A.T. (2007). Best practices in governance and enforcement of marine protected areas: an overview. In: Report and documentation of the Expert Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Management: Review of Issues and Considerations. Rome, 12–14 June 2006. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 825. Rome: FAO, 332 pp. Christie, P., Bennett, N., Gray, N. et al. (2017). Why people matter in ocean governance: incorporating human dimensions into large-­scale marine protected areas. Marine Policy 84: 273–284. Christy, F.T. (1982). Territorial Use Rights in Marine Fisheries: Definitions and Conditions. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper #227. Rome: FAO. Chua, T.-­E., Bonga, D., and Bermas-­Atrigenio, N. (2006). Dynamics of integrated coastal management: PEMSEA’s experience. Coastal Management 34: 303–322. Chuenpagdee, R. and Jentoft, S. (2018). Transforming the governance of small-­scale fisheries. Maritime Studies 17 (1): 101–115. Chuenpagdee, R. and Song, A.M. (2012). Institutional thinking in fisheries governance: broadening perspectives. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4 (3): 309–315. Chuenpagdee, R., Pascual-­Fernández, J.J., Szeliánszky, E. et al. (2013). Marine protected areas: re-­thinking their inception. Marine Policy 39: 234–240. Cicin-­Sain, B. and Belfiore, S. (2005). Linking marine protected areas to integrated coastal and ocean management: a review of theory and practice. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 847–868. Cilliers, P., Biggs, H.C., Blignaut, S. et al. (2013). Complexity, modeling, and natural resource management. Ecology and Society 18 (3): https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­05382-­180301.

References

Cinner, J.E. and Barnes, M.L. (2019). Social dimensions of resilience in social-­ecological systems. One Earth 1 (1): 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.08.003. Cinner, J.E., Daw, T., Huchery, C. et al. (2014). Winners and losers in marine conservation: fishers’ displacement and livelihood benefits from marine reserves. Society & Natural Resources 27 (9): 994–1005. Cinner, J.E., Adger, W.N., Allison, E.H. et al. (2018). Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nature Climate Change 8: 117–123. Cisneros-­Montemayor, A.M. and Sumaila, U.R. (2019). Busting myths that hinder an agreement to end harmful fisheries subsidies. Marine Policy 109: 103699. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103699. Cisneros-­Montemayor, A.M., Sanjurjo, E., Munro, G.R. et al. (2016a). Strategies and rationale for fishery subsidy reform. Marine Policy 69: 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015. 10.001. Cisneros-­Montemayor, A., West, K., Boiro, I., and Vincent, A. (2016b). An assessment of West African seahorses in fisheries catch and trade. Journal of Fish Biology 88 (2): 751–759. Cisneros-­Montemayor, A.M., Moreno-­Baez, M., Voyer, M. et al. (2019). Social equity and benefits as the nexus of a transformative Blue Economy: a sectoral review of implications. Marine Policy 109: 103702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103702. Civil Society Preparatory Workshop (2008). Statement from the Civil Society Preparatory Workshop to the Global Conference on Small-­Scale Fisheries (4SSF). SAMUDRA Report No. 51, pp. 7–9. Bangkok, Thailand. https://sites.google.com/site/smallscalefisheries/civil-­ society-­statements (accessed 26 December 2022). Clark, C.W. (1973). The economics of overexploitation. Science 181: 630–634. Clark, C.W. (1985). Bioeconomic Modelling and Fisheries Management. New York: Wiley-­Interscience. Clark, C.W. (1990). Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources, 2e. New York: Wiley-­Interscience. Clark, C.W. and Munro, G.R. (2017). Capital theory and the economics of fisheries: implications for policy. Marine Resource Economics 32: 123–142. Clark, C.W., Clarke, F.H., and Munro, G.R. (1979). The optimal exploitation of renewable resource stocks: problems of irreversible investment. Econometrica 47: 25–49. Clark, I.N., Majors, P.J., and Mollett, N. (1988). Development and implementation of New Zealand’s ITQ management system. Marine Resource Economics 5: 325–350. Clayoquot Biosphere Trust (CBT) (n.d.). Overview. Clayoquot Biosphere Trust https:// clayoquotbiosphere.org/aboutus/overview. Clement, W. (1984). Canada’s coastal fisheries: formation of unions, cooperatives and associations. Journal of Canadian Studies 19: 5–33. CMFRI (2012). Marine Fisheries Census 2010 Part-­I India. Cochin: Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries and Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, 98 pp. Coates, K. (2019). The Marshall Decision at 20. Two Decades of Commercial Re-­Empowerment of the Mi’kmaq and Maliseet. Macdonald-­Laurier Institute. Cochrane, K.L. (1999). Complexity in fisheries and limitations in the increasing complexity of fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56 (6): 917–926. https://doi. org/10.1006/jmsc.1999.0539.

565

566

References

Cochrane, K.L., Bianchi, G., Fletcher, W. et al. (2014). Regulatory and governance frameworks, Chapter 4. In: The Sea, Volume 16, Marine Ecosystem-­Based Management (ed. M.J. Fogarty and J.J. McCarthy), 77–119. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Coelho, R., Santos, M., Fernandez-­Carvalho, J., and Amorim, S. (2015). Effects of hook and bait in a tropical northeast Atlantic pelagic longline fishery: part I – Incidental sea turtle bycatch. Fisheries Research 164: 302–311. Coelho, M.P., Lopes, R.J., and Pires, A.E. (2020). Lessons from the “turbot war”: the future of high seas governance. Aquatic Living Resources 33: 6. Cohen, P.J., Allison, E.H., Andrew, N.L. et al. (2019). Securing a just space for small-­scale fisheries in the Blue Economy. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00171. Colding, J. and Barthel, S. (2019). Exploring the social-­ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecology and Society 24 (1): https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­10598-­240102. Colléter, M., Gascuel, D., Albouy, C. et al. (2014). Fishing inside or outside? A case studies analysis of potential spillover effect from marine protected areas, using food web models. Journal of Marine Systems 139: 383–395. Collie, J., Adamowicz, W., Beck, M. et al. (2013). Marine spatial planning in practice. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 117: 1–11. Collie, J.S., Botsford, L.W., Hastings, A. et al. (2016). Ecosystem models for fisheries management: finding the sweet spot. Fish and Fisheries 17 (1): 101–125. Collins, R. and Lien, J. (2002). In our own hands: community-­based lobster conservation in Newfoundland (Canada). Biodiversity 3: 11–14. Colloca, F., Cardinale, M., Maynou, F. et al. (2013). Rebuilding Mediterranean fisheries: a new paradigm for ecological sustainability. Fish and Fisheries 14 (1): 89–109. Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) (1982). Text of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Statement by the Chairman of the Conference on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. https://www.ccamlr.org/en/document/publications/basic-­documents-­ december-­2011 (accessed 26 December 2022). Committee on Fish Stock Assessment Methods (1998). Improving Fish Stock Assessments. Washington: National Academy Press. Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN) (2022a). Community Conservation Research Network. https://www.communityconservation.net (accessed 26 December 2022). Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN) (2022b). Community Science. https:// www.communityconservation.net/community-­science/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Congress of the Philippines (1998). Article 1. Municipal fisheries. Republic Act No. 8550. https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-­FAOC016098/ Connors, B., Atlas, W., Melymick, C. et al. (2019). Conservation risk and uncertainty in recovery prospects for a collapsed and culturally important salmon population in a mixed-­stock fishery. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 11 (6): 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcf2.10092. Constable, A.J. (2011). Lessons from CCAMLR on the implementation of the ecosystem approach to managing fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 12 (2): 138–151. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-­2979.2011.00410.x. Constantin, A. (2021). Frictional effects in wind-­driven ocean currents. Geophysical & Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics 115 (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03091929.2020.1748614.

References

Cooke, S.J., Allison, E.H., Beard, T.D. et al. (2016). On the sustainability of inland fisheries: finding a future for the forgotten. Ambio 45 (7): 753–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-­016-­0787-­4. Cooley, S.R. (2011). Climate change’s increasingly famous cousin. Global Change 76: 22–25. Cooley, S.R. and Doney, S.C. (2009). Anticipating ocean acidification’s economic consequences for commercial fisheries. Environmental Research Letters 4: 024007. Copes, P. (1986). A critical review of the individual quota as a device in fisheries management. Land Economics 62: 278–291. Copes, P. (1995). Problems with ITQs in fisheries management, with tentative comments on relevance for Faroe Islands fisheries. In: Nordiske Fiskersamfund i fremtiden (Nordic Fishing Communities in the Future) (ed. S.T.F. Johansen), 19–40. Copenhagen: Tórshavn, Faroe Islands. Nordic Council of Ministers. Copes, P. and Charles, A. (2004). Socioeconomics of individual transferable quotas and community-­based fishery management. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33: 171–181. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.31263. Cormier, R., Kelble, C.R., Anderson, M.R. et al. (2017). Moving from ecosystem-­based policy objectives to operational implementation of ecosystem-­based management measures. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74 (1): 406–413. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R. et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260. Costanza, R., Andrade, F., Antunes, P. et al. (1998). Principles for sustainable governance of the oceans. Science 281: 198–199. Côté, I.M. and Darling, E.S. (2010). Rethinking ecosystem resilience in the face of climate change. PLoS Biology 8 (7): e1000438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000438. Couillard, C.M., Ouellet, P., Verreault, G. et al. (2017). Effect of decadal changes in freshwater flows and temperature on the larvae of two forage fish species in coastal nurseries of the St. Lawrence Estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 40 (1): 268–285. Coulthard, S., Johnson, D., and McGregor, J.A. (2011). Poverty, sustainability and human wellbeing: a social wellbeing approach to the global fisheries crisis. Global Environmental Change 21 (2): 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.003. Cowie, W., Al Dhaheri, S., Al Hashmi, A. et al. (2020). IUCN Guidelines for Gathering of Fishers’ Knowledge for Policy Development and Applied Use. Gland/Abu Dhabi: IUCN/ Environment Agency https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49130 (accessed 26 December 2022). Cox, M., Arnold, G., and Tomás, S.V. (2010). A review of design principles for community-­ based natural resource management. Ecology and Society 15 (4): 38. Crawford, B.R., Siahainenia, A., Rotinsulu, C., and Sukmara, A. (2004). Compliance and enforcement of community-­based coastal resource management regulations in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Coastal Management 32 (1): 39–50. Crean, K. and Symes, D. (ed.) (1996). Fisheries Management in Crisis. Oxford: Fishing News Books (Blackwell Science). Crona, B.I., Basurto, X., Squires, D. et al. (2016). Towards a typology of interactions between small-­scale fisheries and global seafood trade. Marine Policy 65: 1–10. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.11.016.

567

568

References

Cunningham, S., Neiland, A.E., Arbuckle, M.A., and Bostock, T. (2009). Wealth-­based fisheries management: using fisheries wealth to orchestrate sound fisheries policy in practice. Marine Resource Economics 24: 271–287. Cushing, D.H. (1982). Climate and Fisheries. London: Academic Press. Da Silva, I., Hill, N., Shimadzu, H. et al. (2015). Spillover effects of a community-­managed marine reserve. PLoS One 10 (4): E0111774. Dacks, R., Lewis, S.A., James, P.A. et al. (2020). Documenting baseline value chains of Palau’s nearshore and offshore fisheries prior to implementing a large-­scale marine protected area. Marine Policy 117: 103754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103754. Dadswell, M.J., Spares, A.D., Porter, E., and Porter, D. (2020). Diversity, abundance and size structure of fishes and invertebrates captured by an intertidal fishing weir at Bramber, Minas Basin, Nova Scotia. Proceedings of the Nova Scotian Institute of Science (NSIS) 50 (2): 283. Dahl, R.E. and Oglend, A. (2014). Fish price volatility. Marine Resource Economics 29 (4): 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1086/678925. Dakos, V., Carpenter, S.R., van Nes, E.H., and Scheffer, M. (2015). Resilience indicators: prospects and limitations for early warnings of regime shifts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370 (1659): 20130263. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rstb.2013.0263. Damalas, D., Maravelias, C.D., and Kavadas, S. (2014). Advances in fishing power: a study spanning 50 years. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 22 (1): 112–121. Dang, N.B., Momtaz, S., Zimmerman, K., and Nhung, P.T.H. (2017). Effectiveness of formal institutions in managing marine fisheries for sustainable fisheries development: a case study of a coastal commune in Vietnam. Ocean & Coastal Management 137: 175–184. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.12.021. Danielsen, R. and Agnarsson, S. (2020). In pursuit of the three pillars of sustainability in fisheries: a Faroese case study. Marine Resource Economics 35 (2): 177–193. Dankel, D.J., Aps, R., Padda, G. et al. (2012). Advice under uncertainty in the marine system. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69 (1): 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsr179. d’Armengol, L., Prieto Castillo, M., Ruiz-­Mallén, I., and Corbera, E. (2018). A systematic review of co-­managed small-­scale fisheries: social diversity and adaptive management improve outcomes. Global Environmental Change 52: 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2018.07.009. Davis, R., Whalen, J., and Neis, B. (2006). From orders to borders: toward a sustainable co-­managed lobster fishery in Bonavista Bay, Newfoundland. Human Ecology 34: 851–867. Daw, T., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., and Badjeck, M.C. (2009). Climate change and capture fisheries. In: Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture: Overview of Current Scientific Knowledge (ed. K. Cochrane, C. De Young, and D. Soto) FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 530, 216. Rome. Daw, T., Cinner, J., McClanahan, T. et al. (2012). To fish or not to fish: factors at multiple scales affecting artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. PLoS One 7 (2): E31460. Daw, T.M., Coulthard, S., Cheung, W.W. et al. (2015). Evaluating taboo trade-­offs in ecosystems services and human well-­being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (22): 6949–6954. http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/22/ 6949.full.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022).

References

Day, J. (2002). Zoning lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean & Coastal Management 45: 139–156. Day, J. (2008). The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marine planning and management – lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Policy 32: 823–831. Day, J., Dudley, N., Hockings, M. et al. (2012). Guidelines for Applying the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories to Marine Protected Areas. Gland: IUCN, 36 pp. De Alessi, M., Sullivan, J.M., and Hilborn, R. (2014). The legal, regulatory, and institutional evolution of fishing cooperatives in Alaska and the West Coast of the United States. Marine Policy 43: 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.06.006. De Bruyn, P., Murua, H., and Aranda, M. (2013). The precautionary approach to fisheries management: how this is taken into account by Tuna regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs). Marine Policy 38: 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2012.06.019. De Moor, C.L., Butterworth, D.S., and De Oliveira, J.A. (2011). Is the management procedure approach equipped to handle short-­lived pelagic species with their boom and bust dynamics? The case of the South African fishery for sardine and anchovy. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68 (10): 2075–2085. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsr165. De Santo, E.M. (2011). Environmental justice implications of maritime spatial planning in the European Union. Marine Policy 35: 34–38. De Santo, E.M., Jones, P.J.S., and Miller, A.M.M. (2011). Fortress conservation at sea: a commentary on the Chagos marine protected area. Marine Policy 35 (2): 258–260. De Young, C. and Charles, A. (2009). Creating incentives for the ecosystem approach to fisheries management: a portfolio of approaches. In: The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (ed. G. Bianchi and H.R. Skjoldal), 138–157. CAB International. De Young, C., Charles, A., and Hjort, A. (2008). Human Dimensions of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries: An Overview of Context, Concepts, Tools and Methods. Fisheries Technical Paper No. 489. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 152 p. Dearden, P., Downie, B., Seijo, J.C., and Charles, A. (2021). Biodiversity outcomes of community conservation, Chapter 5. In: Communities, Conservation and Livelihoods (ed. A. Charles). Gland/Halifax: IUCN/Community Conservation Research Network, 132 p. Deboudt, P., Dauvin, J.-­C., and Lozachmeur, O. (2008). Recent developments in coastal zone management in France: the transition towards integrated coastal zone management (1973–2007). Ocean & Coastal Management 51: 212–228. Defeo, O. and Castilla, J.C. (2005). More than one bag for the world fishery crisis and keys for co-­management successes in selected artisanal Latin American shellfisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15 (3): 265–283. Degnbol, P. and McCay, B.J. (2007). Unintended and perverse consequences of ignoring linkages in fisheries systems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64 (4): 793–797. https://doi. org/10.1093/icesjms/fsm040. Dehens, L.A. and Fanning, L.M. (2018). What counts in making marine protected areas (MPAs) count? The role of legitimacy in MPA success in Canada. Ecological Indicators 86: 45–57. Dejen, E., Anteneh, W., and Vijverberg, J. (2017). The decline of the Lake Tana (Ethiopia) fisheries: causes and possible solutions. Land Degradation & Development 28 (6): 1842–1851. Deklu, N.K. (2015). Evaluating climate change adaptation readiness of caribbean island nations in relation to communities, fisheries and fishing communities. Master thesis.

569

570

References

International Development Studies. Saint Mary’s University. Halifax. https://library2.smu. ca/handle/01/26315 (accessed 26 December 2022). Delgado, C.L., Wada, N., Rosegrant, M.W. et al. (2003). Fish to 2020: Supply and Demand in Changing Global Markets. International Food Policy Research Institute https://www.ifpri. org/publication/fish-­2020-­supply-­and-­demand-­changing-­global-­markets. Dempsey, D.P., Gentleman, W.C., Pepin, P., and Koen-­Alonso, M. (2018). Explanatory power of human and environmental pressures on the fish community of the Grand Bank before and after the biomass collapse. Frontiers in Marine Science 5: 37. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fmars.2018.00037. DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (1991). 1992 Atlantic Groundfish Management Plan. Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Supply and Services. DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (1992). Crosbie Announces First Steps in Northern Cod (2J3KL) Recovery Program. Press release # NR-­HQ-­92-­58E (2 July 1992). Ottawa, Canada: Government of Canada. DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2008). The Gully Marine Protected Area Management Plan. Dartmouth: Oceans and Habitat Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 80 pp. DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2011). Assessment of Lobster Off the Atlantic Coast of Nova Scotia (LFAs 27-­33). Science Advisory Report, 2011/064. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2012). A Brief History of the Lobster Fishery in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Ottawa: Government of Canada. DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2015). Lobster. https://www.dfo-­mpo. gc.ca/fisheries-­peches/sustainable-­durable/fisheries-­peches/lobster-­homard-­eng.html (accessed 26 December 2022). DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2016). Commercial fisheries and aquaculture. https://www.dfo-­mpo.gc.ca/stats/commercial/cfs/2012/section2-­eng.htm (accessed 26 December 2022). DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2017). The Gully Marine Protected Area Management Plan. Dartmouth: Oceans and Coastal Management Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 68 pp. DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2018a). 4VWX5 groundfish -­Maritimes Region. https://www.dfo-­mpo.gc.ca/fisheries-­peches/ifmp-­gmp/groundfish-­poisson-­fond/ groundfish-­poisson-­fond-­4vwx5-­eng.html (accessed 26 December 2022). DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2018b). What We Heard Report: A Summary of Comments from the 2018 Pan-­Atlantic Roundtable on North Atlantic Right Whales. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Fisheries and Oceans. DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2019a). Groundfish Newfoundland and Labrador Region NAFO Subarea 2 + Divisions 3KLMNO. https://www.dfo-­mpo.gc.ca/ fisheries-­peches/ifmp-­gmp/groundfish-­poisson-­fond/2019/groundfish-­poisson-­ fond-­2_3klmno-­eng.htm#toc1 (accessed 26 December 2022). DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2019b). Northern (NAFO Divs. 2J3KL) Cod Stock Update. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Newfoundland and Labrador Region Science Response 2017/034.

References

DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2019c). A modernized Fisheries Act for Canada. https://www.dfo-­mpo.gc.ca/campaign-­campagne/fisheries-­act-­loi-­sur-­les-­peches/ index-­eng.html (accessed 26 December 2022). DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2019d). About the Science Sector and resources. https://www.dfo-­mpo.gc.ca/career-­carriere/science/science/index-­eng.html (accessed 26 December 2022). DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2020a). Fisheries management decision-­ making. https://www.dfo-­mpo.gc.ca/transparency-­transparence/mtb-­ctm/2019/binder-­ cahier-­1/1F1-­management-­gestion-­eng.htm (accessed 26 December 2022). DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2020b) Lobster Fishing Areas 27 – 38 Integrated Fisheries Management Plan. https://www.dfo-­mpo.gc.ca/fisheries-­peches/ ifmp-­gmp/maritimes/2019/inshore-­lobster-­eng.html (accessed 26 December 2022). DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2020c). Groundfish Newfoundland and Labrador Region NAFO Subarea 2 + Divisions 3KLMNO. https://www.dfo-­mpo.gc.ca/ fisheries-­peches/ifmp-­gmp/groundfish-­poisson-­fond/2020/groundfish-­poisson-­ fond-­2_3klmno-­eng.htm (accessed 26 December 2022). DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2021a). Rebuilding plan for Atlantic Cod – NAFO Divisions 2J3KL. https://www.dfo-­mpo.gc.ca/fisheries-­peches/ifmp-­gmp/ cod-­morue/2020/cod-­atl-­morue-­2020-­eng.html (accessed 26 December 2022). DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2021b). 2021 Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries decisions. https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-­oceans/news/2021/05/2021-­ newfoundland-­and-­labrador-­fisheries-­decisions.html (accessed 26 December 2022). Di Lorenzo, M., Guidetti, P., Di Franco, A. et al. (2020). Assessing spillover from marine protected areas and its drivers: a meta-­analytical approach. Fish and Fisheries 21 (5): 906–915. Di Marco, M., Venter, O., Possingham, H.P., and Watson, J.E.M. (2018). Changes in human footprint drive changes in species extinction risk. Nature Communications 9 (1): 4621. Diei-­Ouadi, Y., Sodoke Komivi, B., Ouedraogo, Y. et al. (2015). Strengthening the performance of post-­harvest systems and regional trade in small-­scale fisheries: case study of post-­harvest loss reduction in the Volta Basin riparian country. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular (FAO) eng no. 1105. Ding, Q., Chen, X.J., Hilborn, R., and Chen, Y. (2017). Vulnerability to impacts of climate change on marine fisheries and food security. Marine Policy 83: 55–61. Dix, C. (2011). Tuvalu: balancing climate change and development initiatives in a small island developing state. Master thesis. International Development Studies. Saint Mary’s University. Halifax. https://library2.smu.ca/handle/01/23774 (accessed 26 December 2022). Diz, D., Johnson, D., Riddell, M. et al. (2018). Mainstreaming marine biodiversity into the SDGs: the role of other effective area-­based conservation measures (SDG 14.5). Marine Policy 93: 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.019. Dohan, K. (2017). Ocean surface currents from satellite data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 122 (4): 2647–2651. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC012961. Doherty, P. (2005). Ocean zoning: can it work in the Northwest Atlantic? Workshop Proceedings. Marine Issues Committee Special Publication Number 14. Ecology Action Centre. Halifax.

571

572

References

Domínguez-­Tejo, E., Metternicht, G., Johnston, E., and Hedge, L. (2016). Marine spatial planning advancing the ecosystem-­based approach to coastal zone management: a review. Marine Policy 72: 115–130. Doney, S.C., Fabry, V.J., Feely, R.A., and Kleypas, J.A. (2009). Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem. Annual Review of Marine Science 1: 169–192. Donnelly, K.A.M. and Olsen, P. (2012). Catch to landing traceability and the effects of implementation–a case study from the Norwegian white fish sector. Food Control 27 (1): 228–233. Doss, C., Kieran, C., and Kilic, T. (2017). Measuring ownership, control, and use of assets. Policy Research Working Paper 8146. The World Bank. http://econ.worldbank.org (accessed 26 December 2022). Dougill, A. and Reed, M. (2016). Frameworks for community-­based rangeland sustainability assessment in the Kalahari, Botswana. In: Sustainable Development: National Aspirations, Local Implementation (ed. J. Hill, A. Terry, and W. Woodland). London: Routledge. Douglas, L.S. (2012). Pelagic fish. In: The Seafood Industry: Species, Products, Processing, and Safety. Wiley https://doi.org/10.1080/10498850.2012.720230. Douvere, F. (2008). The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-­based sea use management. Marine Policy 32: 762–771. Dove, M.R., Johnson, A., Lefebvre, M. et al. (2019). Who is in the commons: defining community, commons, and time in long-­term natural resource management. In: Global Perspectives on Long Term Community Resource Management. Studies in Human Ecology and Adaptation, vol. 11 (ed. L. Lozny and T. McGovern). Cham: Springer https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­15800-­2_3. Duncan, P. (2003). SHELLFISH. Commercially important molluscs. In: Encyclopedia of Food Sciences and Nutrition (ed. B. Caballero), 5222–5228. Academic Press, Elsevier https://doi. org/10.1016/B0-­12-­227055-­X/01079-­8. Dunn, D.C., Maxwell, S.M., Boustany, A.M., and Halpin, P.N. (2016). Dynamic ocean management increases the efficiency and efficacy of fisheries management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113: 668–673. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1513626113. Dyer, C.L. and McGoodwin, J.R. (1994). Folk Management in the World’s Fisheries: Lessons for Modern Fisheries Management. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. Dzebo, A. and Stripple, J. (2015). Transnational adaptation governance: an emerging fourth era of adaptation. Global Environmental Change 35: 423–435. Ebel, S.A., Beitl, C.M., Runnebaum, J. et al. (2018). The power of participation: challenges and opportunities for facilitating trust in cooperative fisheries research in the Maine lobster fishery. Marine Policy 90: 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.01.007. Eckert, L., Ban, N., Frid, A., and McGreer, M. (2018). Diving back in time: extending historical baselines for yelloweye rockfish with Indigenous knowledge. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 28 (1): 158–166. Edvardsson, K.N., Păstrăv, C., and Benediktsson, K. (2018). Mapping the geographical consolidation of fishing activities in Iceland during the maturation of the ITQ fisheries management system. Applied Geography 97: 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apgeog.2018.05.013.

References

Edwards, D.N. and Pinkerton, E. (2019). Rise of the investor class in the British Columbia Pacific halibut fishery. Marine Policy 109: 103676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019. 103676. Edwards, D.N. and Pinkerton, E. (2020). Priced out of ownership: quota leasing impacts on the financial performance of owner-­operators. Marine Policy 111: 103718. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103718. Edwards, C.T.T., Hillary, R., Hoshino, E. et al. (2011). Bioeconomic evaluation of fisheries enforcement effort using a multifleet simulation model. Fisheries Research 107 (1–3): 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2010.11.007. Ehler, C. and Douvere, F. (2009). Marine Spatial Planning: a step-­by-­step approach toward ecosystem-­based management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. Paris: UNESCO. Eigaard, O., Marchal, P., Gislason, H., and Rijnsdorp, A. (2014). Technological development and fisheries management. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 22 (2): 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2014.899557. Ekstrom, J.A., Suatoni, L., Cooley, S.R. et al. (2015). Vulnerability and adaptation of US shellfisheries to ocean acidification. Nature Climate Change 5: 207–214. Eliasen, S.Q., Hegland, T.J., and Raakjær, J. (2015). Decentralising: the implementation of regionalisation and co-­management under the post-­2013 Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Policy 62: 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.09.022. Elliott, J. (2012). An Introduction to Sustainable Development, Routledge Perspectives on Development, 4e. London/New York: Routledge. Emery, T.J., Gardner, C., Hartmann, K., and Cartwright, I. (2017). Incorporating economics into fisheries management frameworks in Australia. Marine Policy 77: 136–143. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.12.018. Emphandhu, D. and Dearden, P. (2021). Koh Pitak Island, Thailand. Community conservation revitalises livelihoods and marine resources. In: Communities, Conservation and Livelihoods (ed. A. Charles). Gland/Halifax: IUCN/Community Conservation Research Network, 132 p. Endrédi, A., Senánszky, V., Libralato, S., and Jordán, F. (2018). Food web dynamics in trophic hierarchies. Ecological Modelling 368: 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolmodel.2017.11.015. Engel, A., Bange, H.W., Cunliffe, M. et al. (2017). The ocean’s vital skin: toward an integrated understanding of the sea surface microlayer. Frontiers in Marine Science 4: 165. https://doi. org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00165. Englander, G. (2019). Property rights and the protection of global marine resources. Nature Sustainability 2 (10): 981–987. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-­019-­0389-­9. Engler, C. (2020). Transboundary fisheries, climate change, and the ecosystem approach: taking stock of the international law and policy seascape. Ecology and Society 25 (4): 43. Eriksen, E., Skjoldal, H.R., Gjøsæter, H., and Primicerio, R. (2017). Spatial and temporal changes in the Barents Sea pelagic compartment during the recent warming. Progress in Oceanography 151: 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2016.12.009. Estévez, R.A., Veloso, C., Jerez, G., and Gelcich, S. (2020). A participatory decision making framework for artisanal fisheries collaborative governance: insights from management

573

574

References

committees in Chile. In: Natural Resources Forum, vol. 44, No. 2, 144–160. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-­8947.12200. European Commission (2016a). The European Fisheries Fund and the EU fish processing industry: an economic analysis. Economic Papers N° 02/2016. https://doi. org/10.2771/672485 and https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-­detail/-­/publication/027fb11c-­ fd4d-­11e5-­b713-­01aa75ed71a1 (accessed 26 December 2022). European Commission (2016b). Strategic Plan 2016–2020 DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. https://commission.europa.eu/publications/strategic-­plan-­2016-­2020-­maritime-­affairs­and-­fisheries_en European Commission (2017). Blue Economy in the EU. European Union https://doi.org/10. 2826/612735. European Commission (2019). The EU Fish Market. https://www.eumofa.eu/documents/ 20178/314856/EN_The+EU+fish+market_2019.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). European Commission (2020). Technical measures. https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/ fishing_rules/technical_measures_en#:~:text=Technical%20measures%20are%20a%20 broad,accordance%20with%20the%20regional%20conditions (accessed 26 December 2022). European Commission (2021). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors. Annual Management and Performance Report for the EU Budget – Financial Year 2020. Strasbourg. European Commission (2022a). Eurostat. Fishing fleet by type of gear and engine power. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/fish_fleet_gp/default/table?lang=en (accessed 26 December 2022). European Commission (2022b). Protecting the ocean, time for action. High Ambition Coalition on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction. https://oceans-­and-­fisheries.ec.europa.eu/ ocean/international-­ocean-­governance/protecting-­ocean-­time-­action_en (accessed 26 December 2022). European Commission (2023). Directorate-­General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. https:// commission.europa.eu/about-­european-­commission/departments-­and-­executive-­agencies/ maritime-­affairs-­and-­fisheries_en European Union (1997). Statement of Conclusions. Intermediate Ministerial Meeting on the Integration of Fisheries and Environmental Issues, Bergen Norway (13–14 March 1997). Oslo, Norway: Ministry of Environment. Evans, L., Cherrett, N., and Pemsl, D. (2011). Assessing the impact of fisheries co-­management interventions in developing countries: a meta-­analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 92 (8): 1938–1949. Evanson, M., Foster, S.J., Wiswedel, S., and Vincent, A.C.J. (2011). Tracking the international trade of seahorses (Hippocampus species) – the importance of CITES. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19: https://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0348153, 94 pp. Fairbanks, L., Boucquey, N., Campbell, L.M., and Wise, S. (2019). Remaking oceans governance: critical perspectives on marine spatial planning. Environment and Society 10: 122–140. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2019.100108. Fang, X., Zhou, B., Tu, X. et al. (2018). “What kind of a science is sustainability science?” An evidence-­based reexamination. Sustainability 10 (5): 1478. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su10051478.

References

Fanning, L.M. (2007). Evaluating community fish quota management in Atlantic Canada: lessons from the start-­up years. Maritime Studies 5: 27–54. Fanning, L., Mahon, R., and McConney, P. (2011). Towards Marine Ecosystem-­Based Management in the Wider Caribbean. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1995a. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 49 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/v9878e/V9878E.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1995b). Precautionary Approach to Fisheries. Part 1: Guidelines on the Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 350, Part 1. Rome: FAO. FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1996a). Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 2. Rome, FAO, 54 p. https://www.fao.org/in-­action/globefish/ publications/details-­publication/en/c/338508/ (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1996b). Integration of Fisheries into Coastal Areas Management, vol. 3. Rome: FAO, 17 pp. FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1999). Major issues affecting the performance of regional fishery bodies. In: Meeting of FAO and Non-­FAO Regional Fishery Bodies or Arrangements. Rome, Italy (11–12 February 1999). FI:RFB/99/2. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2003a). New Institutions for Agricultural and Rural Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. In: Current and Emerging Issues for Economic Analysis and Policy Research (CUREMIS II). https://www.fao. org/3/y4940e/y4940e05.htm FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2003b). The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 4 (Suppl. 2). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization, 112 p. FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2005a). Regional reviews. In: Review of the State of World Marine Fishery Resources. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 457. Rome: FAO UN https://www.fao.org/3/y5852e/Y5852E07.htm (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2005b). Putting into Practice the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. Rome: FAO, 76 p. FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2005c). Report of the twenty-­sixth session of the Committee on Fisheries. 7–11 March 2005. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 780. Rome: FAO, 88 pp. FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2007). Social Issues in Small-­Scale Fisheries Report prepared for the 27th session of the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) (5–9 March 2007). COFI/2007/6. FAO: Rome. FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2008). Securing sustainable small-­scale fisheries: bringing together responsible fisheries and social development. Global Conference on Small-­Scale Fisheries, Bangkok, Thailand (13–17 October 2008). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009). Fisheries management. 2. The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. 2.2 Human Dimensions of the Ecosystem Approach to

575

576

References

Fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No. 4, Supplement 2, Add. 2. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 88 p. FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2011). Fisheries Management. 4. Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 4, Suppl. 4. Rome: FAO, 198 p. FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2015a). Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-­Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/i4356en/I4356EN.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2015b). Addressing Uncertainty in Fisheries Science and Management. Rome: FAO http://www.fao.org/3/bf336e/ bf336e.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2018). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 – Meeting the sustainable development goals. Rome. https:// www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/I9540EN/ (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2019). International Symposium on Fisheries Sustainability – Key Messages. http://www.fao.org/about/meetings/ sustainable-­fisheries-­symposium/key-­messages/en/ (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2020a). Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fisheries Sustainability: Strengthening the Science-­Policy Nexus. FAO Headquarters, 18–21 November 2019. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 65. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9165en (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2020b). Sustainability in action. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ ca9229en (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2021a). Regional Fishery Bodies (RFB). Fisheries and Aquaculture Division. Rome. https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/ organization/search (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2021b). Biodiversity Mainstreaming across Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO Committee on Fisheries. Thirty-­ Fourth Session. 1–5 February 2021. COFI/2021/9.1. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/ne714en/ ne714en.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2021c). Supporting the Implementation of the Regional Queen Conch Fisheries Management and Conservation Plan in the Wecafc Area -­GCP/SLC/017/EC. https://www.fao.org/publications/card/fr/c/ CB6503EN/ (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2022a). Fishing Gear types. Seine nets. Technology Fact Sheets. Fisheries and Aquaculture Division. Rome. https:// www.fao.org/fishery/en/geartype/102/en (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2022b). Fishing Gear types. Surrounding Nets. Technology Fact Sheets. Fisheries and Aquaculture Division. Rome. http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/101/en (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2022c). Fishing Gear types. Trawls. Technology Fact Sheets. Fisheries and Aquaculture Division. Rome. http://www.fao. org/fishery/geartype/103/en (accessed 26 December 2022).

References

FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2022d). Fishing Gear types. Dredges. Technology Fact Sheets. Fisheries and Aquaculture Division. Rome. http://www. fao.org/fishery/geartype/104/en (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2022e). Fishing Gear types. Gillnets and Entangling Nets. Technology Fact Sheets. Fisheries and Aquaculture Division. Rome. http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/107/en (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2022f). Fishing Gear types. Traps. Technology Fact Sheets. Fisheries and Aquaculture Division. Rome. http://www.fao. org/fishery/geartype/108/en (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2022g). Fishing Gear types. Hooks and Lines. Technology Fact Sheets. Fisheries and Aquaculture Division. Rome. http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/109/en (accessed 26 December 2022). FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2022h). Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. First revision. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/i2801e (accessed 26 December 2022). Fawzy, S., Osman, A., Doran, J., and Rooney, D. (2020). Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters 18 (6): 2069–2094. Feng, R., Chen, X., Li, P. et al. (2016). Development of China’s marine functional zoning: a preliminary analysis. Ocean & Coastal Management 131: 39–44. Ferguson-­Cradler, G. (2018). Fisheries’ collapse and the making of a global event, 1950s–1970s. Journal of Global History 13 (3): 399–424. Fernández-­Giménez, M.E., Allington, G.R., Angerer, J. et al. (2018). Using an integrated social-­ecological analysis to detect effects of household herding practices on indicators of rangeland resilience in Mongolia. Environmental Research Letters 13 (7): 075010. https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-­9326/aacf6f. Ferreira, M.A.M., Filipe, J.A., and Coelho, M. (2017). Chaos and complexity in the fisheries management context. Acta Scientiae et Intellectus 3 (1): 64–76. Fiji Locally Managed Marine Area (FLMMA) (2014). FLMMA Strategic Plan 2014-­2018. Fiji Locally Managed Marine Area Network. Suva, Fiji Islands. Filipe, J.A., Ferreira, M.A.M., Coelho, M. et al. (2010). Analysing fisheries management through complexity and chaos theories framework. Journal of Mathematics and Technology 1 (2): 5–12. Filous, A., Lennox, R.J., Beaury, J.P. et al. (2021). Fisheries science and marine education catalyze the renaissance of traditional management (rahui) to improve an artisanal fishery in French Polynesia. Marine Policy 123: 104291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2020.104291. Finkbeiner, E. (2015). The role of diversification in dynamic small-­scale fisheries: lessons from Baja California Sur, Mexico. Global Environmental Change 32: 139–152. Finkbeiner, E.M. and Basurto, X. (2015). Re-­defining co-­management to facilitate small-­scale fisheries reform: an illustration from northwest Mexico. Marine Policy 51: 433–441. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.10.010. Finley, C. (2018). “Free Enterprise” and the failure of American ITQ Management. In: Fisheries, Quota Management and Quota Transfer (ed. G.M. Winder), 181–195. Cham: Springer.

577

578

References

Fish, Food & Allied Workers (FFAW) (2021). Overview. https://ffaw.ca/ffaw/overview/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (1993). 1993 Conservation Requirements for Atlantic Groundfish: Report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Ottawa: Government of Canada, 32 p. Fishermen & Scientists Research Society (2018) Our focus. https://fsrsns.ca/our-­focus/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Fitzpatrick, M., Graham, N., Rihan, D.J., and Reid, D.G. (2011). The burden of proof in co-­management and results-­based management: the elephant on the deck! ICES Journal of Marine Science 68 (8): 1656–1662. Flaaten, O. and Matthiasson, T. (2017). Profit and resource rent in fisheries. Marine Resource Economics 32: https://doi.org/10.1086/692074. Fleming, J. and Ledogar, R.J. (2008). Resilience, an evolving concept: a review of literature relevant to aboriginal research. Canadian Institutes of Health Research 6 (2): 7–23. Fletcher, W.J. (2005) ESD Reporting and Assessment Subprogram: Strategic Planning, project management and adoption. Final Report FRDC Project 2001/082, Canberra, Australia. Fletcher, W.J., Shaw, J., Metcalf, S.J., and Gaughan, D.J. (2010). An ecosystem based fisheries management framework: the efficient, regional-­level planning tool for management agencies. Marine Policy 34 (6): 1226–1238. Fletcher, W.J., Kearney, R.E., Wise, B.S., and Nash, W.J. (2015). Large-­scale expansion of no-­take closures within the Great Barrier Reef has not enhanced fishery production. Ecological Applications 25: 1187–1196. Flick, G.J. and Douglas, L.S. (2012). Groundfish. In: The Seafood Industry: Species, Products, Processing, and Safety. Wiley https://doi.org/10.1080/10498850.2012.720230 (accessed 26 December 2022). Foale, S., Cohen, P., Januchowski-­Hartley, S. et al. (2011). Tenure and taboos: origins and implications for fisheries in the Pacific. Fish and Fisheries 12 (4): 357–369. Fogarty, M. and Botsford, L. (2007). Population connectivity and spatial management of marine fisheries. Oceanography 20 (3): 112–123. https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2007.34. Fogarty, M.J., Gamble, R., and Perretti, C.T. (2016). Dynamic complexity in exploited marine ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 4: 68. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo. 2016.00068. Foley, P. and Mather, C. (2016). Making space for community use rights: insights from “community economies” in Newfoundland and Labrador. Society & Natural Resources 29 (8): 965–980. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-­ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 253–267. Folke, C. (2016). Resilience (Republished). Ecology and Society 21 (4): 1–30. Folke, C. and Berkes, F. (1995). Mechanisms that link property rights to ecological systems. In: Property Rights and the Environment: Social and Ecological Issues (ed. S. Hanna and M. Munasinghe), 121–137. Washington: Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics and the World Bank. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B. et al. (2010). Resilience thinking. Ecology and Society 15 (4): 20. Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norstrom, A. et al. (2016). Social-­ecological resilience and biosphere-­based sustainability science. Ecology and Society 21 (3): 41.

References

Fonseca, L.M., Domingues, J.P., and Dima, A.M. (2020). Mapping the sustainable development goals relationships. Sustainability 12 (8): 3359. Forst, M.F. (2009). The convergence of Integrated Coastal Zone Management and the ecosystems approach. Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (6): 294–306. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.03.007. Foster, S.J., Stanton, L.M., Nellas, A.C. et al. (2019). The catch and trade of seahorses in the Philippines post-­CITES. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 27 (2): 45. Fowler, G.M. (2011). Old and older perceptions of the migrations and distribution of Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus, in northwest Atlantic waters from tagging conducted in the Bay of Fundy, Georges Bank, Scotian Shelf, and the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 43: 137–157. Fox, H.E., Mascia, M.B., Basurto, X. et al. (2012). Re-­examining the science of marine protected areas: linking knowledge to action. Conservation Letters 5 (1): 1–10. Foxcroft, D., Hall, D., and Cowan, L. (2016). Nuu-­chah-­nulth Territory, Canada: The Nuu-­ chah-­nulth continue to fight for their aboriginal fishing rights even after these rights were recognized in Ahousaht et al vs Canada (2009)https://www.communityconservation.net/ nuu-­chah-­nulth-­territory-­canada/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Francis, R.I.C.C. (1992). Use of risk analysis to assess fishery management strategies: a case study using Orange Roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) on the Chatham Rise, New Zealand. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 922–930. Francis, R.I.C.C. and Shotton, R. (1997). “Risk” in fisheries management: a review. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 1699–1715. Franz, B.A., Skinner, D., and Murphy, J.W. (2018). Defining “Community” in community health evaluation: perspectives from a sample of nonprofit Appalachian hospitals. American Journal of Evaluation 39 (2): 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214017722857. Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board (1995). Fraser River Sockeye 1994: Problems and Discrepancies. Public Works and Government Services Canada, Cat. No. Fs23-­263/1995E, 131 p. Ottawa, Canada. FRDC (2022). What are the Status of Australian Fish Stock Reports? https://www.fish.gov.au/ about/what-­are-­the-­status-­of-­australian-­fish-­stock-­reports (accessed 26 December 2022). Freshwater, C., Holt, K.R., Huang, A.M., and Holt, C.A. (2020). Benefits and limitations of increasing the stock-­selectivity of Pacific salmon fisheries. Fisheries Research 226: 105509. Fricke, P. (1985). Use of sociological data in the allocation of common property resources. Marine Policy 9: 39–52. Frid, O. and Belmaker, J. (2019). Catch dynamics of set net fisheries in Israel. Fisheries Research 213: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2018.12.021. Friedlander, A.M. (2018). Marine conservation in Oceania: past, present, and future. Marine Pollution Bulletin 135: 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.064. Friedman, K., Garcia, S.M., and Rice, J. (2018). Mainstreaming biodiversity in fisheries. Marine Policy 95: 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.001. Fromentin, J.-­M., Bonhommeau, S., Arrizabalaga, H., and Kell, L.T. (2014). The spectre of uncertainty in management of exploited fish stocks: the illustrative case of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Marine Policy 47: 8–14. Fulton, E.A., Smith, A.D., Smith, D.C., and van Putten, I.E. (2011). Human behaviour: the key source of uncertainty in fisheries management. Fish and Fisheries 12 (1): 2–17. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-­2979.2010.00371.x.

579

580

References

Fulton, E.A., Smith, A.D.M., Smith, D.C., and Johnson, P. (2014). An integrated approach is needed for ecosystem based fisheries management: insights from ecosystem-­level management strategy evaluation. PLoS One 9 (1): E84242. Fundy North Fishermen’s Association (FNFA) (2018). About. https://www.fundynorth.org/ about (accessed 26 December 2022). Gaggiotti, O.E. (2017). Metapopulations of marine species with larval dispersal: a counterpoint to Ilkka’s Glanville fritillary metapopulations. Annales Zoologici Fennici 54 (1–4): 97–112. https://doi.org/10.5735/086.054.0110. Galappaththi, E.K., Ford, J.D., Bennett, E.M., and Berkes, F. (2019). Climate change and community fisheries in the arctic: a case study from Pangnirtung, Canada. Journal of Environmental Management 250: 109534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109534. Galbraith, E.D., Carozza, D.A., and Bianchi, D. (2017). A coupled human-­Earth model perspective on long-­term trends in the global marine fishery. Nature Communications 8 (1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14884. Gallacher, J., Simmonds, N., Fellowes, H. et al. (2016). Evaluating the success of a marine protected area: a systematic review approach. Journal of Environmental Management 183: 280–293. Gallagher, A. and Klimley, J. (2018). The biology and conservation status of the large hammerhead shark complex: the great, scalloped, and smooth hammerheads. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 28 (4): 777–794. Gallucci, V.F., Saila, S.B., Gustafson, D.J., and Rothschild, B.J. (ed.) (1996). Stock Assessment: Quantitative Methods and Applications for Small-­Scale Fisheries. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Lewis. Gamito, R., Pita, C., Teixeira, C. et al. (2016). Trends in landings and vulnerability to climate change in different fleet components in the Portuguese coast. Fisheries Research 181: 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.04.008. Gan, X., Fernandez, I.C., Guo, J. et al. (2017). When to use what: methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators. Ecological Indicators 81: 491–502. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.068. Gandhi, M.K. (1947). India of My Dreams (ed. R.K. Prabhu). Ahmedabad, Bombay: Navajivan Pub. House. Garcia, S.M. (1994). The precautionary principle: its implications in capture fisheries management. Ocean and Coastal Management 22: 99–125. Garcia, S.M. and Charles, A. (2007). Fishery systems and linkages: from clockwork to soft watches. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64: 580–587. Garcia, S.M. and Charles, A. (2008). Fishery systems and linkages: implications for science and governance. Ocean & Coastal Management 51 (7): 505–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2008.05.001. Garcia, G.M. and De Castro, B. (2017). Working conditions, occupational injuries, and health among Filipino fish processing workers in Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Workplace Health & Safety 65 (5): 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079916665396. Garcia, S.M. and Rosenberg, A.A. (2010). Food security and marine capture fisheries: characteristics, trends, drivers and future perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365 (1554): 2869–2880. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rstb.2010.0171.

References

Garcia, S.M. and Ye, Y. (ed.) (2018). Rebuilding of Marine Fisheries. Part 2: Case Studies. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 630/2. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 232 pp. Garcia, S.M., Zerbi, A., Aliaume, C., Do Chi, T. & Lasserre, G. (2003) The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries—­Issues, Terminology, Principles, Institutional Foundations, Implementation and Outlook. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 443. Rome, FAO, 71 pp. https://www.fao.org/3/ y4773e/y4773e.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). Garcia, S.M., Kolding, J., Rice, J., and Rijnsdorp, A.D. (2012). Reconsidering the consequences of selective fisheries. Science 335 (6072): 1045–1047. Garcia, S.M., Rice, J.C., and Charles, A. (ed.) (2014a). Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution. Chichester/Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell. Garcia, S.M., Rice, J., and Charles, A. (2014b). Governance of marine fisheries and biodiversity conservation: convergence or coevolution? In: Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution (ed. S. Garcia, J. Rice, and A. Charles), 18–36. Chichester/Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell. Garcia, S.M., Ye, Y., Rice, J., and Charles, A. (ed.) (2018). Rebuilding of Marine Fisheries. Part 1: Global Review. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 630/1. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 294 pp. Garcia, S.M., Rice, J., Charles, A., and Diz, D. (2020). Other Effective Area-­based Conservation Measures (OECMs) in Marine Capture Fisheries: Systematic Approach to Identification, Use and Performance Assessment in Marine Capture Fisheries. Fisheries Expert Group of the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Gland, Switzerland. European Bureau of Conservation and Development, Brussels, Belgium, 87 p. www.ebcd.org/feg (accessed 26 December 2022). Garcia, S.M., Rice, J., Himes-­Cornell, A. et al. (2021). Other Effective Area-­Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) in Marine Capture Fisheries: Key Governance, Management and Biodiversity Issues. IUCN Fisheries Expert Group www.ebcd.org/feg (accessed 26 December 2022). García-­Flórez, L., Morales, J., Gaspar, M.B. et al. (2014). A novel and simple approach to define artisanal fisheries in Europe. Marine Policy 44: 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2013.08.021. Gårdmark, A., Nielsen, A., Floeter, J., and Möllmann, C. (2011). Depleted marine fish stocks and ecosystem-­based management: on the road to recovery, we need to be precautionary. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68 (1): 212–220. Gardner, C.J., Cripps, G., Day, L.P. et al. (2020). A decade and a half of learning from Madagascar’s first locally managed marine area. Conservation Science and Practice 2 (12): 1–14. Gari, S.R., Newton, A., Icely, J.D., and Delgado-­Serrano, M.M. (2017). An analysis of the global applicability of Ostrom’s design principles to diagnose the functionality of common-­pool resource institutions. Sustainability 9 (7): 1287. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071287. Gasalla, M.A. and de Castro, F. (2016). Enhancing stewardship in Latin America and Caribbean small-­scale fisheries: challenges and opportunities. Maritime Studies 15: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40152-­016-­0054-­0. Gawarkiewicz, G. and Mercer, A.M. (2019). Partnering with fishing fleets to monitor ocean conditions. Annual Review of Marine Science 11: 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-­marine-­010318-­095201.

581

582

References

Gelcich, S., Edwards-­Jones, G., Kaiser, M.J., and Castilla, J.C. (2006). Co-­management policy can reduce resilience in traditionally managed marine ecosystems. Ecosystems 9 (6): 951–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-­005-­0007-­8. Gelcich, S., Hughes, T.P., Olsson, P., and Castilla, J.C. (2010). Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. PNAS 107 (39): 16794–16799. Gerhardinger, L., Godoy, E., and Jones, P. (2009). Local ecological knowledge and the management of marine protected areas in Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (3): 154–165. Geromont, H.F. and Butterworth, D.S. (2015). Generic management procedures for data-­poor fisheries: forecasting with few data. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72 (1): 251–261. https:// doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst232. Gianelli, I., Ortega, L., Pittman, J. et al. (2021). Harnessing scientific and local knowledge to face climate change in small-­scale fisheries. Global Environmental Change-­Human and Policy Dimensions 68: 102253. Gibbs, M.T. and Browman, H.I. (2015). Risk assessment and risk management: a primer for marine scientists. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72 (3): 992–996. Gill, D.A., Mascia, M.B., Ahmadia, G.N. et al. (2017). Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature (London) 543 (7647): 665–669. Gillam, C. and Charles, A. (2018). Fishers in a Brazilian Shantytown: relational wellbeing supports recovery from environmental disaster. Marine Policy 89: 77–84. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.12.008. Gillett, R. (2011). Fisheries of the Pacific Islands: regional and national information. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 2011/03, 279 pages. http://www.fao.org/3/i2092e/i2092e00.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). Girardin, R., Hamon, K.G., Pinnegar, J. et al. (2017). Thirty years of fleet dynamics modelling using discrete-­choice models: what have we learned? Fish and Fisheries 18 (4): 638–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12194. Giron-­Nava, A., Lam, V.W., Aburto-­Oropeza, O. et al. (2021). Sustainable fisheries are essential but not enough to ensure well-­being for the world’s fishers. Fish and Fisheries 22 (4): https:// doi.org/10.1111/faf.12552. Goble, B., Hill, T., and Phillips, M. (2017). An assessment of integrated coastal management governance and implementation using the DPSIR framework: KwaZulu-­Natal, South Africa. Coastal Management 45 (2): 107–124. Gobush, K.S., Wurth, T.A., Henderson, J.R. et al. (2016). Prevalence of interactions between Hawaiian monk seals (Nemonachus schauinslandi) and nearshore fisheries in the main Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Conservation Biology 23: 25–31. Goethel, D.R., Kerr, L.A., and Cadrin, S.X. (2016). Incorporating spatial population structure into the assessment-­management interface of marine resources. In: Management Science in Fisheries: An Introduction to Simulation Based Methods (ed. C.T.T. Edwards and D.J. Dankel), 319–347. New York: Routledge. Golden, A.S., Naisilsisili, W., Ligairi, I., and Drew, J.A. (2014). Combining natural history collections with fisher knowledge for community-­based conservation in Fiji. PLoS One 9 (5): e98036. González-­Wangüemert, M., Domínguez-­Godino, J.A., and Cánovas, F. (2018). The fast development of sea cucumber fisheries in the Mediterranean and NE Atlantic waters: from a new marine resource to its over-­exploitation. Ocean & Coastal Management 151: 165–177.

References

Gordon, H.S. (1954). The economic theory of a common property resource: the fishery. Journal of Political Economy 62 (124): 42. Gordon, D.V. and Hannesson, R. (2015). The Norwegian winter herring fishery: a story of technological progress and stock collapse. Land Economics 91 (2): 362–385. https://doi. org/10.3368/le.91.2.362. Gough, A. (2009). The Turbot War: the arrest of the Spanish vessel Estai and its implications for Canada-­EU relations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa. Ottawa. Govan, H. (2009). Achieving the potential of locally managed marine areas in the South Pacific. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 25 (July): 16–25. Govan, H. and Jupiter, S. (2013). Can the IUCN 2008 protected areas management categories support Pacific island approaches to conservation? Parks 19: 73–80. Government of Canada (1868). Fisheries Act, V. c.60. https://www.canadiana.ca/view/ oocihm.9_02069/2?r=0&s=1 (accessed 26 December 2022). Government of Canada (1985). Fisheries Act, R.S.C. c. F-­14. https://laws-­lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/ acts/f-­14/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Government of Canada (1996). Oceans Act, S.C. c. 31. https://laws-­lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/ acts/o-­2.4/page-­1.html (accessed 26 December 2022). Government of Canada (2021). Aquaculture in Atlantic Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/ atlantic-­canada-­opportunities/services/aquaculture-­in-­atlantic-­canada.html (accessed 26 December 2022). Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (1997). The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy. Major Milestones. https://www.gov.nl.ca/publicat/tags/text/page34.htm (accessed 26 December 2022). Government of the Philippines (1998). The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, Republic Act No. 8550: An Act Providing for the Development, Management and Conservation of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Integrating All Laws Pertinent Thereto, and for Other Purposes. Government of the Philippines. Graham, J., Charles, A., and Bull, A. (2006). Community Fisheries Management Handbook, 135. Halifax: Gorsebrook Research Institute, Saint Mary’s University https://www. communityconservation.net/resources/publications/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Granata, L.A., Flick, G.J., and Martin, R.E. (ed.) (2012). The Seafood Industry: Species, Products, Processing, and Safety. Wiley https://doi.org/10.1080/10498850.2012.720230. Grassle, F.J. (2001). Marine ecosystems. In: Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 4e (ed. S.A. Levin), 13–25. San Diego: Academic Press. Gray, C. and Kennelly, A. (2018). Bycatches of endangered, threatened and protected species in marine fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 28 (3): 521–541. Gray, N., Bennett, N., Day, J. et al. (2017). Human dimensions of large-­scale marine protected areas: advancing research and practice. Coastal Management 45 (6): 407–415. Green, A.L., Fernandes, L., Almany, G. et al. (2014). Designing marine reserves for fisheries management, biodiversity conservation, and climate change adaptation. Coastal Management 42 (2): 143–159. Greenan, B.J., Shackell, N.L., Ferguson, K. et al. (2019). Climate change vulnerability of American lobster fishing communities in Atlantic Canada. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 579. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00579.

583

584

References

Griggs, D., Stafford-­Smith, M., Gaffney, O. et al. (2013). Policy: sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495 (7441): 305. https://doi.org/10.1038/495305a. Grip, K. (2017). International marine environmental governance: a review. Ambio 46 (4): 413–427. Gulland, J.A. (ed.) (1977). Fish Population Dynamics. New York: Wiley Inter-­science. Gulland, J.A. (1982). The management of tropical multispecies fisheries. In: Theory and Management of Tropical Fisheries, ICLARM Conference Proceedings 9 (ed. D. Pauly and G.I. Murphy), 287–298. Manila: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management. Gulland, J.A. (1983). Fish Stock Assessment: A Manual of Basic Methods. New York: Wiley-­Interscience. Gullestad, P., Abotnes, A.M., Bakke, G. et al. (2017). Towards ecosystem-­based fisheries management in Norway – practical tools for keeping track of relevant issues and prioritising management efforts. Marine Policy 77: 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016. 11.032. Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C.S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press. Gunderson, L., Allen, C., and Holling, C. (2009). Foundations of Ecological Resilience. Washington: Island Press. Gurney, G.G., Cinner, J.E., Sartin, J. et al. (2016). Participation in devolved commons management: multiscale socioeconomic factors related to individuals’ participation in community-­based management of marine protected areas in Indonesia. Environmental Science & Policy 61: 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.015. Gustavsson, M., Riley, M., Morrissey, K., and Plater, A.J. (2017). Exploring the socio-­cultural contexts of fishers and fishing: developing the concept of the ‘good fisher’. Journal of Rural Studies 50: 104–116. Gutiérrez, N.L., Hilborn, R., and Defeo, O. (2011). Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470 (7334): 386–389. https://www.nature.com/articles/ nature09689.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). Haddon, M. (2010). Modelling and Quantitative Methods in Fisheries. CRC Press. Haggan, N., Neis, B., and Baird, I.G. (ed.) (2007). Fishers’ Knowledge in Fisheries Science and Management. Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000150580 (accessed 26 December 2022). Haigh, R., Ianson, D., Holt, C.A. et al. (2015). Effects of ocean acidification on temperate coastal marine ecosystems and fisheries in the Northeast Pacific. PLoS One 10 (2): e0117533. Halim, A., Wiryawan, B., Loneragan, N.R. et al. (2019). Developing a functional definition of small-­scale fisheries in support of marine capture fisheries management in Indonesia. Marine Policy 100: 238–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.044. Halim, A., Loneragan, N.R., Wiryawan, B. et al. (2020). Transforming traditional management into contemporary territorial-­based fisheries management rights for small-­scale fisheries in Indonesia. Marine Policy 116: 103923. Halkyard, B. (2014). Exploiting green and hawksbill turtles in Western Australia: the commercial marine turtle fishery. In: Historical Perspectives of Fisheries Exploitation in the Indo-­Pacific, MARE Publication Series, vol. 12 (ed. J. Christensen and M. Tull), 211–230. Dordrecht: Springer.

References

Hall, S.J. (2011). Climate change and other external drivers in small scale fisheries: practical steps for responding. In: Small-­Scale Fisheries Management: Frameworks and Approaches for the Developing World, vol. 10 (ed. R.S. Pomeroy and N.L. Andrew), 132–159. CAB International. Hall-­Arber, M., Pomeroy, C., and Conway, F. (2009). Figuring out the human dimensions of fisheries: illuminating models. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 1 (1): 300–314. Halliday, R.G., Peacock, F.G., and Burke, D.L. (1992). Development of management measures for the groundfish fishery in Atlantic Canada: a case study of the Nova Scotia inshore fleet. Marine Policy 16: 41126. Halpern, B.S., Lester, S.E., and Kellner, J.B. (2009). Spillover from marine reserves and the replenishment of fished stocks. Environmental Conservation 36: 268–276. Halpern, B.S., Lester, S.E., and McLeod, K.L. (2010). Placing marine protected areas onto the ecosystem-­based management seascape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107 (43): 18312–18317. Hamilton, S. and Baker, G. (2019). Technical mitigation to reduce marine mammal bycatch and entanglement in commercial fishing gear: lessons learnt and future directions. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 29 (2): 223–247. Hamilton, P.B., Cowx, I.G., Oleksiak, M.F. et al. (2016). Population-­level consequences for wild fish exposed to sublethal concentrations of chemicals – a critical review. Fish and Fisheries 17 (3): 545–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12125. Hanna, S. (2004). The economics of protected areas in marine fisheries management: an overview of issues. In: Aquatic Protected Areas as Fisheries Management Tools (ed. J.B. Shipley), 259–265. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Hannesson, R. (1996). Fisheries Mismanagement: The Case of the North Atlantic Cod. Oxford: Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science. Hannesson, R. (2005). Rights based fishing: use rights versus property rights to fish. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15 (3): 231–241. Hansen, B. and Ferguson, G. (2012). Case study: investigation of the risk of salt water intrusion to water supply infrastructure, Lennox Island, PEI. In: Managing Groundwater Resources Assessing the Impact of Climate Change on Salt-­Water Intrusion of Coastal Aquifers in Atlantic Canada (ed. G. Somers and P. Nishimura), 43–44. Prince Edward Island Department of Environment, Labour and Justice. Harasti, D., Martin-­Smith, K., and Gladstone, W. (2014). Does a no-­take marine protected area benefit seahorses? PLoS One 9 (8): E105462. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1247. Harper, S., Zeller, D., Hauzer, M. et al. (2013). Women and fisheries: contribution to food security and local economies. Marine Policy 39: 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2012.10.018. Harper, S., Salomon, A.K., Newell, D. et al. (2018). Indigenous women respond to fisheries conflict and catalyze change in governance on Canada’s Pacific Coast. Maritime Studies 17 (2): 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-­018-­0101-­0. Harris, L. (1990). Independent Review of the State of the Northern Cod Stock, Supply and Services Canada, Cat. No. Fs23-­159/1990E. Ottawa: Communications Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Harris, M. (2013). Lament for an Ocean: The Collapse of the Atlantic Cod Fishery. McClelland & Stewart.

585

586

References

Hartzell-­Nichols, L. (2013). From ‘the’ precautionary principle to precautionary principles. Ethics, Policy & Environment 16 (3): 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2013.844569. Hawkins, S.J., Bohn, K., Sims, D.W. et al. (2016). Fisheries stocks from an ecological perspective: disentangling ecological connectivity from genetic interchange. Fisheries Research 179: 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.01.015. Hayes, P. (2004). Vulnerable coastal communities and participatory climate adaptation strategies: a case study of the artisanal fisheries and tourism sectors, Scott’s Head/Soufriere, Commonwealth of Dominica. Master thesis. International Development Studies. Saint Mary’s University. Halifax. https://library2.smu.ca/handle/01/22829 (accessed 26 December 2022). Hays, G.C. (2017). Ocean currents and marine life. Current Biology 27 (11): R470–R473. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.01.044. Healey, M. (2009). Resilient salmon, resilient fisheries for British Columbia, Canada. Ecology and Society 14 (1): 2. Henriksen, T. and Hoel, A.H. (2011). Determining allocation: from paper to practice in the distribution of fishing rights between countries. Ocean Development & International Law 42 (1, 2): 66–93. Hermansen, Ø. and Dreyer, B. (2010). Challenging spatial and seasonal distribution of fish landings – the experiences from rural community quotas in Norway. Marine Policy 34 (3): 567–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.11.003. Herrera-­Ulloa, A., Villalobos-­Chacón, L., Palacios-­Villegas, J. et al. (2011). Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica. In: Coastal Fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean (ed. S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles, and J.C. Seijo), 137–153. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Hersoug, B., Jentoft, S., and Degnbol, P. (ed.) (2004). Fisheries Development: The Institutional Challenge. Eburon. Hewitt, J.E., Ellis, J.I., and Thrush, S.F. (2016). Multiple stressors, nonlinear effects and the implications of climate change impacts on marine coastal ecosystems. Global Change Biology 22 (8): 2665–2675. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13176. Hickey, F.R. (2006). Traditional marine resource management in Vanuatu: acknowledging, supporting and strengthening indigenous management systems. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 20 (11): 11–23. Hiddink, K.E., MacKenzie, B.R., Rijnsdorp, A.D. et al. (2008). Importance of fish biodiversity for the management of fisheries and ecosystems. Fisheries Research 90: 1–3. High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) (2014). Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture for food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome. Hilborn, R. (1985). Fleet dynamics and individual variation: why some fishermen catch more fish than others. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 2–13. Hilborn, R. (1987). Living with uncertainty in resource management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7: 1–5. Hilborn, R. and Walters, C.J. (1992). Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment: Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty. Springer Science & Business Media (Originally Routledge, Chapman and Hall). Hilborn, R., Stokes, K., Maguire, J. et al. (2004). When can marine reserves improve fisheries management? Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (3): 197–205.

References

Hilborn, R., Fulton, E., Green, B. et al. (2015). When is a fishery sustainable? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 72 (9): 1433–1441. Hill, S.L., Watters, G.M., Punt, A.E. et al. (2007). Model uncertainty in the ecosystem approach to fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 8 (4): 315–336. Himes-­Cornell, A. and Hoelting, K. (2015). Resilience strategies in the face of short-­and long-­term change: out-­migration and fisheries regulation in Alaskan fishing communities. Ecology and Society 20 (2): 9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­07074-­200209. Hind, E. (2015). A review of the past, the present, and the future of fishers’ knowledge research: a challenge to established fisheries science. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72 (2): 341–358. Hoban, S., Bruford, M., Jackson, J. et al. (2020). Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-­2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biological Conservation 248: 108654. Hobday, A.J., Poloczanska, E.S., and Matear, R.J. (ed.) (2008). Implications of Climate Change for Australian Fisheries and Aquaculture: A Preliminary Assessment. Canberra: Report to the Department of Climate Change https://fish.gov.au/Archived-­Reports/2014/Documents/ hobday_etal_2007_Implications_of_climate_change_for_fisheries_20080801_PDF.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). Hobday, A.J., Smith, A.D.M., Stobutzki, I.C. et al. (2011). Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing. Fisheries Research 108 (2, 3): 372–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fishres.2011.01.013. Hočevar, S., Hutchings, J.A., and Kuparinen, A. (2021). Multiple-­batch spawning as a bet-­ hedging strategy in highly stochastic environments: an exploratory analysis of Atlantic cod. Evolutionary Applications 14: 1980–1992. Hodgson, G.M. (2015). On defining institutions: rules versus equilibria. Journal of Institutional Economics 11 (3): 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137415000028. Hoefnagel, E. and De Vos, B. (2017). Social and economic consequences of 40 years of Dutch quota management. Marine Policy 80: 81–87. Hoffmann, K., Hassenrück, C., Salman-­Carvalho, V. et al. (2017). Response of bacterial communities to different detritus compositions in Arctic deep-­sea sediments. Frontiers in Microbiology 8: 266. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00266. Hogg, K., Semitiel-­García, M., Noguera-­Méndez, P., and Antonio García-­Charton, J. (2021). A governance analysis of Cabo de Palos-­Islas Hormigas and Cabo de Gata-­Níjar Marine Protected Areas, Spain. Marine Policy 127: 102944. Holden, E., Linnerud, K., and Banister, D. (2017). The imperatives of sustainable development. Sustainable Development 25 (3): 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1647. Holland, D.S. and Herrera, G.E. (2009). Uncertainty in the management of fisheries: contradictory implications and a new approach. Marine Resource Economics 24 (3): 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1086/mre.24.3.42629656. Holland, D., Sanchirico, J.N., Johnston, R., and Joglekar, D. (2010). Economic Analysis for Ecosystem-­Based Management: Applications to Marine and Coastal Environments. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press. Holling, C.S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23. Holling, C.S. (ed.) (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York: Wiley.

587

588

References

Hollowed, A.B., Holsman, K.K., Haynie, A.C. et al. (2020). Integrated modeling to evaluate climate change impacts on coupled social-­ecological systems in Alaska. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 775. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00775. Holt, S.J. and Talbot, L.M. (1978). New principles for the conservation of wild living resources. Wildlife Monographs 59: 3–33. Hornborg, S., van Putten, I., Novaglio, C. et al. (2019). Ecosystem-­based fisheries management requires broader performance indicators for the human dimension. Marine Policy 108: 103639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103639. Horsford, I., & Lay, M. (2013). Case Study: a comparative analysis of different approaches to fisheries co-­management in Antigua and Barbuda. In: Proceedings of the 65th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Santa Marta, Colombia (November 5–9), 2012. pp. 31–40. http://aquaticcommons.org/21433/1/GCFI_65-­6.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). Hoshino, E., van Putten, I., Pascoe, S., and Vieira, S. (2020). Individual transferable quotas in achieving multiple objectives of fisheries management. Marine Policy 113: 103744. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103744. Hoydal, K., Johnson, D., and Hoel, A.H. (2014). Regional governance: the case of NEAFC and OSPAR. In: Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution (ed. S. Garcia, J. Rice, and A. Charles), 225–238. Chichester/Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 552 p. Huang, S. and He, Y. (2019). Management of China’s capture fisheries: review and prospect. Aquaculture and Fisheries 4 (5): 173–182. Hughes, T.P., Bellwood, D.R., Folke, C. et al. (2005). New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20: 380–386. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.03.022. Hulson, P. J., Hanselman, D. H., Lunsford, C. R., and Fissel, B. (2017). Assessment of the Pacific Ocean perch stock in the Gulf of Alaska. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/ noaa/17516/noaa_17516_DS1.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). Hunt, L.M., Sutton, S.G., and Arlinghaus, R. (2013). Illustrating the critical role of human dimensions research for understanding and managing recreational fisheries within a social-­ecological system framework. Fisheries Management and Ecology 20 (2, 3): 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-­2400.2012.00870.x. Huntington, H.P., Loring, P.A., Gannon, G. et al. (2018). Staying in place during times of change in Arctic Alaska: the implications of attachment, alternatives, and buffering. Regional Environmental Change 18 (2): 489–499. Hutchings, J.A. and Myers, R.A. (1994). What can be learned from the collapse of a renewable resource? Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, of Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51: 2126–2146. Hutchings, J.A. and Myers, R.A. (1995). The biological collapse of Atlantic cod off Newfoundland and Labrador: an exploration of historical changes in exploitation, harvesting technology, and management. In: The North Atlantic Fisheries: Successes, Failures and Challenges (ed. R. Arnason and L. Felt). Charlottetown, Canada: Institute of Island Studies. Hutchings, J.A., Walters, C., and Haedrich, R.L. (1997). Is scientific inquiry incompatible with government information control? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 1198–1210.

References

ICSF (2021). Handbook on Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) for small-­scale fishing communities. https://www.foodsovereignty.org/wp-­content/uploads/2021/10/Final-­CBD-­ Handbook_0908.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). Ignatius, S. and Haapasaari, P. (2018). Justification theory for the analysis of the socio-­cultural value of fish and fisheries: the case of Baltic salmon. Marine Policy 88: 167–173. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.007. IISD: International Institute for Sustainable Development (2022). Conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction – BBNJ. https://enb.iisd.org/negotiations/conservation-­and-­sustainable-­use-­marine-­ biological-­diversity-­beyond-­areas-­national (accessed 26 December 2022). Independent World Commission on the Oceans (1998). The Ocean. Our Future. Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press. Infante Ramírez, K. (2020). Strategies for adaptation to climate variability in social-­ecological systems of Quintana Roo, Mexico. Doctoral thesis. Program in Ecology & Sustainable Development. ECOSUR, Chetumal, Mexico. Intarakumnerd, P., Chairatana, P.A., and Kamondetdacha, R. (2015). Innovation system of the seafood industry in Thailand. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 23 (2): 271–287. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers & World Forum of Fisher People (ICSF-­ WFFP) (2009). Briefing note for delegates to the 28th session of FAO’s Committee on Fisheries (COFI), 2–6 March 2009, Rome. https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ fr/KCCP-­RG-­G77%2020%20Feb/ICSF_COFI_Briefing.doc (accessed 26 December 2022). International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) (1998). Participatory Methods in Community-­Based Coastal Resource Management. Silang: International Institute for Rural Reconstruction. International Ocean Institute (1998). The Halifax Declaration on the Ocean. Halifax: International Ocean Institute. International Ocean Institute – Canada (Werle, D., Boudreau, P.R., Brooks, M.R. et al., eds.) (2018). The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Mann Borgese (1918–2002). Leiden/Boston: Brill Nijhoff. IOC (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission) (2011). Marine spatial planning. www. unesco-­ioc-­marinesp.be/marine_spatial_planning_msp (accessed 26 December 2022). IPBES: Intergovernmental Science-­Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2019). Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-­Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (ed. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E.S. Brondízio, et al.). Bonn: IPBES Secretariat, 56 p. IPBES: Intergovernmental Science-­Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2021) Glossary: Biodiversity. https://www.ipbes.net/glossary/biodiversity (accessed 26 December 2022). IPBES: Intergovernmental Science-PolicyPlatform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2022). Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment of the Sustainable Use of Wild Species of the Intergovernmental Science-­Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. J.-­M. Fromentin, M.R. Emery, J. Donaldson, M.-­C. Danner, A. Hallosserie, D. Kieling, G. Balachander, E.S. Barron, R.P. Chaudhary, M. Gasalla, M. Halmy, C. Hicks, M.S. Park, B. Parlee, J. Rice, T. Ticktin, and D. Tittensor (eds.). Bonn: IPBES Secretariat, 33 p. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6425599 (accessed 26 December 2022).

589

590

References

IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed. Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri, and L.A. Meyer). Geneva: IPCC, 151 pp. IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018). Annex I: Glossary (ed. J.B.R. Matthews). In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-­industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (Ed. by V. Masson-­Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-­O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-­Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield). https://www.ipcc.ch/ sr15/chapter/glossary/ (accessed 26 December 2022). IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022a). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed. P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, et al.). Cambridge/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/ 9781009157926 and https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_ FullReport.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022b). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed. P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, et al.). Cambridge/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/9781009157926.001 and https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_ SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). Isaacs, M. (2011). Individual transferable quotas, poverty alleviation and challenges for small-­country fisheries policy in South Africa. MAST 10 (2): 63–84. https://www. marecentre.nl/mast/documents/MAST10.2_Isaacs.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). Islam, D. and Berkes, F. (2016). Indigenous peoples’ fisheries and food security: a case from northern Canada. Food Security 8 (4): 815–826. Islam, M.M., Shamsuzzaman, M.M., Mozumder, M.M.H. et al. (2017). Exploitation and conservation of coastal and marine fisheries in Bangladesh: do the fishery laws matter? Marine Policy 76: 143–151. IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature (2016). OECMs. https://www.iucn.org/ commissions/world-­commission-­protected-­areas/our-­work/oecms (accessed 26 December 2022). IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature (2020a). LME initiatives. https://www. iucn.org/theme/marine-­and-­polar/our-­work/international-­ocean-­governance/large-­marine-­ ecosystems/lme-­initiatives (accessed 26 December 2022). IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature (2020b). Large marine ecosystems. https://www.iucn.org/theme/marine-­and-­polar/our-­work/international-­ocean-­governance/ large-­marine-­ecosystems (accessed 26 December 2022). IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature (2020c). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-­2. https://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed 26 December 2022).

References

Iversen, E.S. (1996). Living Marine Resources: Their Utilization and Management. New York: Chapman & Hall. Jadhav, A. (2018). Undefining small-­scale fisheries in India: challenging simplifications and highlighting diversity and value. In: Social Wellbeing and the Values of Small-­Scale Fisheries (ed. D.S. Johnson, T.G. Acott, N. Stacey, and J. Urquhart), 147–173. Cham: Springer https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­60750-­4_7. Jaffer, N. (2006). Fishing rights vs. human rights? SAMUDRA 44: 20–24. Jagger, P. and Galik, C.S. (2015). Bundles, duties, and rights: a revised framework for analysis of natural resource property rights regimes. Land Economics 91 (1): 76–90. Janßen, H., Göke, C., and Luttmann, A. (2019). Knowledge integration in marine spatial planning: a practitioners’ view on decision support tools with special focus on Marxan. Ocean & Coastal Management 168: 130–138. Japan Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2022). The 94th Statistical Yearbook of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. https://www.maff.go.jp/e/data/stat/94th/ index.html#12 (accessed 26 December 2022). Jaramillo, P. and Nazemi, A. (2018). Assessing urban water security under changing climate: challenges and ways forward. Sustainable Cities and Society 41: 907–918. Jardine, S.L. and Sanchirico, J.N. (2012). Catch share programs in developing countries: a survey of the literature. Marine Policy 36 (6): 1242–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2012.03.010. Jeffery, K., Mangi, S.C., Conejo-­Watt, H. et al. (2021). The potential of the UK inshore fleet to switch or integrate aquaculture to form a more holistic seafood production system. Ocean & Coastal Management 202: 105503. Jennings, S. and Brander, K. (2010). Predicting the effects of climate change on marine communities and the consequences for fisheries. Journal of Marine Systems 79 (3, 4): 418–426. Jennings, S., Stentiford, G.D., Leocadio, A.M. et al. (2016). Aquatic food security: insights into challenges and solutions from an analysis of interactions between fisheries, aquaculture, food safety, human health, fish and human welfare, economy and environment. Fish and Fisheries 17 (4): 893–938. Jensen, F., Frost, H., and Abildtrup, J. (2017). Fisheries regulation: a survey of the literature on uncertainty, compliance behavior and asymmetric information. Marine Policy 81: 167–178. Jensen, F., Elleby, C., Hamon, K.G., and Weegh, J.O.D. (2019). Testing theoretical explanations for investment behaviour in the Dutch beam trawler fishery in the North Sea. Applied Economics 51 (21): 2233–2248. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2018.1540855. Jentoft, S. (1985). Models of fishery development: the cooperative approach. Marine Policy 9: 322–331. Jentoft, S. (2005). Fisheries co-­management as empowerment. Marine Policy 29 (1): 1–7. Jentoft, S. (2006). Beyond fisheries management: the Phronetic dimension. Marine Policy 30: 671–680. Jentoft, S. and Chuenpagdee, R. (2015). Interactive Governance for Small-­Scale Fisheries. Global Reflections. Springer. Jentoft, S. and Finstad, B.-­P. (2018). Building fisheries institutions through collective action in Norway. Maritime Studies 17: 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-­018-­0088-­6. Jentoft, S. and McCay, B.J. (1995). User participation in fisheries management: lessons drawn from international experience. Marine Policy 19: 227–246.

591

592

References

Jentoft, S. and Mikalsen, K.H. (1994). Regulating Fjord fisheries: folk management or interest group politics? In: Folk Management in the World Fisheries (ed. C.L. Dyer and J.R. McGoodwin), 287–316. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Press. Jentoft, S. and Søreng, S.U. (2017). Securing sustainable Sami small-­scale fisheries in Norway: implementing the guidelines. In: The Small-­Scale Fisheries Guidelines (ed. S. Jentoft, R. Chuenpagdee, M.J. Barragán-­Paladines, and N. Franz), 267–289. Cham: Springer. Jentoft, S., McCay, B.J., and Wilson, D.C. (1998). Social theory and fisheries co-­management. Marine Policy 22 (4, 5): 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-­597X(97)00040-­7. Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., Barragán-­Paladines, M.J., and Franz, N. (ed.) (2017). The Small-­Scale Fisheries Guidelines: Global Implementation, MARE Publication Series, vol. 14. Cham: Springer. Johannes, R.E. (1978). Traditional marine conservation methods in Oceania and their demise. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9: 349–364. Johannes, R.E. (1998). The case for data-­less marine resource management: examples from tropical nearshore fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 243–246. Johannes, R.E. (2002). The renaissance of community-­based resource management in Oceania. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 33: 317–340. Johnsen, J.P. and Vik, J. (2013). Pushed or pulled? Understanding fishery exit in a welfare society context. Maritime Studies 12 (1): 4. Johnson, K.F., Monnahan, C.C., McGilliard, C.R. et al. (2015). Time-­varying natural mortality in fisheries stock assessment models: identifying a default approach. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72 (1): 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu055. Johnson, D.S., Acott, T.G., Stacey, N., and Urquhart, J. (ed.) (2018). Social Wellbeing and the Values of Small-­Scale Fisheries. Springer International Publishing https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-­3-­319-­60750-­4. Jones, P.J.S. (2002). Marine protected area strategies: issues, divergences and the search for middle ground. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 11 (3): 197. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1020327007975. Jones, P.J.S. (2007). Arguments for conventional fisheries management and against no-­take marine protected areas: only half of the story? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 17: 31–43. Jupiter, S.D., Cohen, P.J., Weeks, R. et al. (2014). Locally-­managed marine areas: multiple objectives and diverse strategies. Pacific Conservation Biology 20 (2): 165–179. https://doi. org/10.1071/PC140165. Jurado-­Molina, J., Gatica, C., Arancibia, H. et al. (2016). A multispecies virtual population analysis for the Southern Chilean Demersal Fishery. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 8 (1): 350–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/19425120.2016.1167796. Kadfak, A. (2019). More than just fishing: the formation of livelihood strategies in an urban fishing community in Mangaluru, India. Journal of Development Studies 56: 1–15. Kai, M. (2020). Numerical approach for evaluating impacts of biological uncertainties on estimates of stock-­recruitment relationships in elasmobranchs: example of the North Pacific shortfin mako. ICES Journal of Marine Science 77 (1): 200–215. Kalikoski, D.C., Jentoft, S., Charles, A., Salazar Herrera, D., Cook, K., Béné C., & Allison, E.H. (2018) Understanding the impacts of climate change for fisheries and aquaculture: applying a poverty lens. In: Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture:

References

Synthesis of Current Knowledge, Adaptation and Mitigation Options (M. Barange, T. Bahri, M.C.M. Beveridge, K.L. Cochrane, S. Funge-­Smith & F. Poulain). FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, 627. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome. p. 19–39. http://www.fao.org/3/i9705en/i9705en.pdf (accessed 27 December 2022). Kalland, A. (1996). Marine management in coastal Japan. In: Fisheries Management in Crisis (ed. K. Crean and D. Symes), 71–83. Oxford, UK: Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science. Karamanlidis, A., Dendrinos, P., Larrinoa, P. et al. (2016). The Mediterranean monk seal Monachus monachus: status, biology, threats, and conservation priorities. Mammal Review 46 (2): 92–105. Kates, W., Parris, M., and Leiserowitz, A. (2005). What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 47 (3): 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2005.10524444. Kaur, H. and Garg, P. (2019). Urban sustainability assessment tools: a review. Journal of Cleaner Production 210: 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.009. Kearney, J. (2005). Community-­based fisheries management in the Bay of Fundy: sustaining communities through resistance and hope. In: Natural Resources as Community Assets: Lessons from Two Continents (ed. B. Child and M.W. Lyman). Washington: Aspen Institute and Sand County Foundation. Kearney, J. (2007). Fulfilled, healthy, secure? SAMUDRA Report 46: 18–21. Kearney, J., Berkes, F., Charles, A. et al. (2007). The role of participatory governance and community-­based management in integrated coastal and ocean management in Canada. Coastal Management 35: 79–104. Keen, M., Schwarz, A., and Wini-­Simeon, L. (2018). Towards defining the Blue Economy: practical lessons from Pacific Ocean governance. Marine Policy 88: 333–341. Kelleher, G. (1999). Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. Gland/Cambridge: IUCN, xxiv +107 p. Kelley, E. and Sherman, K. (2018). Trends of the Large Marine Ecosystem assessment and management approach as reflected in the literature. Ocean & Coastal Management 155: 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.12.008. Kempf, A., Dingsør, G., Huse, G. et al. (2010). The importance of predator-­prey overlap: predicting North Sea cod recovery with a multispecies assessment model. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67 (9): 1989–1997. Kent, G. (2019). Fish, Food, and Hunger: The Potential of Fisheries for Alleviating Malnutrition. Routledge. Kerezi, V., Pietruszka, D.K., and Chuenpagdee, R. (2020). Blue Justice for Small-­Scale Fisheries – A Global Scan, vol. 1. TBTI Global http://toobigtoignore.net/blue-­justice-­for-­ small-­scale-­fisheries-­a-­global-­scan-­e-­book-­released/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Kerr, L.A., Hintzen, N.T., Cadrin, S.X. et al. (2016). Lessons learned from practical approaches to reconcile mismatches between biological population structure and stock units of marine fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74 (6): 1708–1722. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw188. Kerwath, S.E., Winker, H., Götz, A., and Attwood, C.G. (2013). Marine protected area improves yield without disadvantaging fishers. Nature Communications 4: https://doi.org/10.1038/ ncomms3347. Khalilian, S., Froese, R., Proelss, A., and Requate, T. (2010). Designed for failure: a critique of the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union. Marine Policy 34 (6): 1178–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.04.001.

593

594

References

Khan, A., Charles, A., and Armitage, D. (2018). Place-­based or sector-­based adaptation? A case study of municipal and fishery policy integration. Climate Policy 18: 14–23. Kimball, L.A. (2001). International Ocean Governance. Using International Law and Organizations to Manage Marine Resources Sustainably. Gland/Cambridge: The World Conservation Union, 123 pp. + maps. Kincaid, K.B. and Rose, G.A. (2014). Why fishers want a closed area in their fishing grounds: exploring perceptions and attitudes to sustainable fisheries and conservation 10 years post closure in Labrador, Canada. Marine Policy 46: 84–90. King, M. (1995). Fisheries Biology: Assessment and Management, 2e. Oxford: Fishing New Books, Blackwell Science. (2007) Wiley-­Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118688038. Kirby, M.J.L. (1983). Navigating Troubled Waters: A New Policy for the Atlantic Fisheries. Report of Task Force on Atlantic Fisheries. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada. Kittinger, J.N., Finkbeiner, E.M., Ban, N.C. et al. (2013). Emerging frontiers in social-­ecological systems research for sustainability of small-­scale fisheries. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5 (3, 4): 352–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-­2400.2012. 00870.x. Kittinger, J.N., Teh, L.C., Allison, E.H. et al. (2017). Committing to socially responsible seafood. Science 356 (6341): 912–913. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9969. Klarin, T. (2018). The concept of sustainable development: from its beginning to the contemporary issues. Zagreb International Review of Economics and Business 21 (1): 67–94. https://doi.org/10.2478/zireb-­2018-­0005. Kleiber, D., Harris, L.M., and Vincent, A.C. (2015). Gender and small-­scale fisheries: a case for counting women and beyond. Fish and Fisheries 16 (4): 547–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/ faf.12075. Kleiber, D., Frangoudes, K., Snyder, H. et al. (2017). Promoting gender equity and equality through the small-­scale fisheries guidelines: experiences from multiple case studies. In: The Small-­Scale Fisheries Guidelines: Global Implementation, Chapter 35 (ed. S. Jentoft, R. Chuenpagdee, M.J. Barragán-­Paladines, and N. Franz), 737–759. Amsterdam: Springer. Klein, E.S. and Watters, G.M. (2020). What’s the catch? Profiling the benefits and costs associated with marine protected areas and displaced fishing in the Scotia Sea. PLoS One 15 (8): e0237425. Klein, C.J., Chan, A., Kircher, L. et al. (2008). Striking a balance between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic viability in the design of marine protected areas. Conservation Biology 22 (3): 691–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-­1739.2008.00896.x. Klein, C.J., Steinback, C., Watts, M. et al. (2009). Spatial marine zoning for fisheries and conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 349–353. Klimpel, S., Kuhn, T., Münster, J. et al. (ed.) (2019). Anatomy and morphology of fish and cephalopods. In: Parasites of Marine Fish and Cephalopods, 15–27. Cham: Springer https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­16220-­7_2. Klinger, D.H., Eikeset, A.M., Davíðsdóttir, B. et al. (2018). The mechanics of blue growth: management of oceanic natural resource use with multiple, interacting sectors. Marine Policy 87: 356–362. Kliskey, A., Alessa, L., and Barr, B. (2009). Integrating local and traditional ecological knowledge. In: Ecosystem-­Based Management for the Oceans (ed. K. McLeod and H. Leslie), 145–161. Washington, DC: Island Press, 368 p.

References

Knowlton, A.R., Hamilton, P.K., Marx, M.K. et al. (2012). Monitoring North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis entanglement rates: a 30 yr retrospective. Marine Ecology Progress Series 466: 293–302. Knudsen, E.E. and McDonald, D. (ed.) (2020). Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific Salmon. CRC Press. Knútsson, Ö., Kristófersson, D.M., and Gestsson, H. (2016). The effects of fisheries management on the Icelandic demersal fish value chain. Marine Policy 63: 172–179. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.015. Kofinas, G. (2009). Adaptive co-­management in social-­ecological governance. In: Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship (ed. C. Folke, G.P. Kofinas, and S.F. Chapin), 77–101. New York, NY: Springer New York. Kokorsch, M. and Benediktsson, K. (2018). Prosper or perish? The development of Icelandic fishing villages after the privatisation of fishing rights. Maritime Studies 17 (1): 69–83. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40152-­018-­0089-­5. Kolding, J., van Zwieten, P., Marttin, F. et al. (2019). Freshwater Small Pelagic Fish and Fisheries in Major African Lakes and Reservoirs in Relation to Food Security and Nutrition. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 642. Rome: FAO, 124 pp. Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., and Pullin, R. (2005). Fish for Life. Interactive Governance for Fisheries. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Koranteng, K.A., Vasconcellos, M.C, & Satia, B.P. (eds.) (2014). Preparation of Management Plans for Selected Fisheries in Africa – Baseline Reports. Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone and Tanzania. FAO EAF-­Nansen Project Report No. 23 (Part A – English) EAF-­N/PR/23. Kuo, T., Laksanawimol, P., Aylesworth, L. et al. (2018). Changes in the trade of bycatch species corresponding to CITES regulations: the case of dried seahorse trade in Thailand. Biodiversity and Conservation 27 (13): 3447–3468. Kuperan, K. and Abdullah, N.M.R. (1994). Small-­scale coastal fisheries and co-­management. Marine Policy 18: 306–313. Kurien, J. (1998). Traditional ecological knowledge and ecosystem sustainability: new meaning to Asian coastal proverbs. Ecological Applications 8 (Supplement): S2–S5. Kurien, J. (2000). Community property rights: re-­establishing them for a secure future for small-­scale fisheries. In: Use of Property Rights in Fisheries Management. Proceedings of the FishRights99 Conference. Fremantle, Western Australia. 11–19 November 1999. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 404/1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Kurlansky, M. (1998). Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World. Vintage Canada. Ladyman, J., Lambert, J., and Wiesner, K. (2013). What is a complex system? European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3 (1): 33–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-­012-­0056-­8. Lagabrielle, E., Lombard, A.T., Harris, J.M., and Livingston, T.-­C. (2018). Multi-­scale multi-­ level marine spatial planning: a novel methodological approach applied in South Africa. PLoS One 13 (7): e0192582. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192582. Lam, V.W.Y. and Pauly, D. (2019). Status of fisheries in 13 Asian Large Marine Ecosystems. Deep-­Sea Research. Part II, Topical Studies in Oceanography 163: 57–64. Lamb, W. and Steinberger, J. (2017). Human well-­being and climate change mitigation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change 8 (6): 1–16.

595

596

References

Lane, D.E. and Stephenson, R.L. (1997). A framework for risk analysis in fisheries decision making. ICES Journal of Marine Science 55 (1): 1–13. Langdon, S.J. (2008). The community quota program in the Gulf of Alaska: a vehicle for Alaska native village sustainability? American Fisheries Society Symposium 68: 155–194. Larkin, P.A. (1977). An epitaph for the concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield. Transactions of American Fisheries Society 106: 1–11. Larkin, P.A. (1996). Concepts and issues in marine ecosystem management. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 6: 139–164. Lauria, V., Das, I., Hazra, S. et al. (2018). Importance of fisheries for food security across three climate change vulnerable deltas. Science of the Total Environment 640: 1566–1577. Lazaridis, M. (ed.) (2011). Atmospheric circulation. In: First Principles of Meteorology and Air Pollution, 119–149. Dordrecht: Springer. Le Prestre, P.G. (ed.) (2017). Governing Global Biodiversity: The Evolution and Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Routledge. Lebel, L. (2013). Local knowledge and adaptation to climate change in natural resource-­based societies of the Asia-­Pacific. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18 (7): 1057–1076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-­012-­9407-­1. Lenfest Fishery Ecosystem Task Force (2016). Building effective fishery ecosystem plans. https://www.lenfestocean.org/-­/media/assets/2016/11/building_effective_fishery_ ecosystem_plans.pdf (accessed 26 Deceber 2022). Léopold, M., Thébaud, O., and Charles, A. (2019). The dynamics of institutional innovation: crafting co-­management in small-­scale fisheries through action research. Journal of Environmental Management 237: 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.01.112. Leslie, H.M. and McLeod, K.L. (2007). Confronting the challenges of implementing marine ecosystem-­based management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 540–548. Levin, S., Xepapadeas, T., Crépin, A.S. et al. (2013). Social-­ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: modeling and policy implications. Environment and Development Economics 18 (2): 111–132. Levkoe, C.Z., Lowitt, K., and Nelson, C. (2017). “Fish as food”: exploring a food sovereignty approach to small-­scale fisheries. Marine Policy 85: 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2017.08.018. Levontin, P., Baranowski, P., Leach, A.W. et al. (2017). On the role of visualisation in fisheries management. Marine Policy 78: 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.01.018. Lilly, G.R., Nakken, O., and Brattey, J. (2013). A review of the contributions of fisheries and climate variability to contrasting dynamics in two Arcto-­boreal Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) stocks: persistent high productivity in the Barents Sea and collapse on the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelf. Progress in Oceanography 114: 106–125. Lindegren, M., Möllmann, C., Nielsen, A., and Stenseth, N.C. (2009). Preventing the collapse of the Baltic cod stock through an ecosystem-­based management approach. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (34): 14722–14727. Link, J.S. and Browman, H.I. (2017). Operationalizing and implementing ecosystem-­based management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74 (1): 379–381. https://doi.org/10.1093/ icesjms/fsw247. Link, J.S., Bundy, A., Overholtz, W.J. et al. (2011). Ecosystem-­based fisheries management in the Northwest Atlantic. Fish and Fisheries 12: 152–170.

References

Link, J.S., Ihde, T.F., Harvey, C.J. et al. (2012). Dealing with uncertainty in ecosystem models: the paradox of use for living marine resource management. Progress in Oceanography 102: 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2012.03.008. Linke, S. and Bruckmeier, K. (2015). Co-­management in fisheries – experiences and changing approaches in Europe. Ocean & Coastal Management 104: 170–181. Linke, S. and Jentoft, S. (2013). A communicative turnaround: shifting the burden of proof in European fisheries governance. Marine Policy 38: 337–345. Little, A.S., Needle, C.L., Hilborn, R. et al. (2015). Real-­time spatial management approaches to reduce bycatch and discards: experiences from Europe and the United States. Fish and Fisheries 16 (4): 576–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12080. Liu, X. and Heino, M. (2019). Evaluating effort regulation in mixed fisheries: a Monte Carlo approach. ICES Journal of Marine Science 76 (7): 2114–2124. Liu, O.R., Thomas, L.R., Clemence, M. et al. (2016). An evaluation of harvest control methods for fishery management. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 24 (3): 244–263. https:// doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2016.1161002. Lloret, J., Cowx, I.G., Cabral, H. et al. (2018). Small-­scale coastal fisheries in European Seas are not what they were: ecological, social and economic changes. Marine Policy 98: 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.11.007. Lohan, D. (2003). Governing global biodiversity-­-­the evolution and implementation of the convention on biological diversity (review). Global Environmental Politics 3 (4): 110–112. Lomonico, S., Gleason, M.G., Wilson, J.R. et al. (2021). Opportunities for fishery partnerships to advance climate-­ready fisheries science and management. Marine Policy 123: 104252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104252. Long, R.D., Charles, A., and Stephenson, R.L. (2015). Key principles of marine ecosystem-­ based management. Marine Policy 57: 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.013. Long, R.D., Charles, A., and Stephenson, R.L. (2017). Key principles of ecosystem-­based management: the fishermen’s perspective. Fish and Fisheries 18 (2): 244–253. https://doi. org/10.1111/faf.12175. Longhurst, A.R. (ed.) (1981). Analysis of Marine Ecosystems. London: Academic Press. Lopes, P.F.M., Rosa, E.M., Salyvonchyk, S. et al. (2013). Suggestions for fixing top-­down coastal fisheries management through participatory approaches. Marine Policy 40: 100–110. López-­Delgado, E.O., Winemiller, K.O., and Villa-­Navarro, F.A. (2020). Local environmental factors influence beta-­diversity patterns of tropical fish assemblages more than spatial factors. Ecology 101 (2): e02940. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2940. López-­Ridaura, S., Masera, O., and Astier, M. (2002). Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-­environmental systems. The MESMIS framework. Ecological Indicators 2 (1, 2): 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-­160X(02)00043-­2. Lotze, H.K. and Milewski, I. (2004). Two centuries of multiple human impacts and successive changes in a North Atlantic food web. Ecological Applications 14 (5): 1428–1447. https://doi. org/10.1890/03-­5027. Loucks, L. (2021). Nuu-­chah-­nulth Nation, Canada. In: Communities, Conservation and Livelihoods (ed. A. Charles), 9. Gland/Halifax: IUCN/Community Conservation Research Network, 132 p. Loucks, L., Charles, A., and Butler, M. (ed.) (1998). Managing Our Fisheries, Managing Ourselves. Halifax: Gorsebrook Research Institute.

597

598

References

Low Impact Fishers of Europe (LIFE) (2016). Rights based management and small scale fisheries in the EU: human rights versus property rights. A LIFE Position Paper on ITQs. https://lifeplatform.eu/wp-­content/uploads/2017/01/LIFE-­Statement-­on-­ITQs_Abridged-­ version.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). Lowitt, K., Levkoe, C.Z., Lauzon, R. et al. (2019). Indigenous self-­determination and food sovereignty through fisheries governance in the Great Lakes region. In: Civil Society and Social Movements in Food System Governance (ed. P. Andrée, J.K. Clark, C.Z. Levkoe, and K. Lowitt), 145–163. Routledge. Lowry, G.K., White, A.T., and Christie, P. (2009). Scaling up to networks of marine protected areas in the Philippines: biophysical, legal, institutional, and social considerations. Coastal Management 37: 274–290. Lozano, A.J.G. and Heinen, J.T. (2016). Identifying drivers of collective action for the co-­ management of coastal marine fisheries in the Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica. Environmental Management 57 (4): 759–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-­015-­0646-­2. Lu, W., Cusack, C., Baker, M. et al. (2019). Successful blue economy examples with an emphasis on international perspectives. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fmars.2019.00261. Lucey, S.M., Aydin, K.Y., Gaichas, S.K. et al. (2021). Evaluating fishery management strategies using an ecosystem model as an operating model. Fisheries Research 234: 105780. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105780. Ma, P., Ye, G., Peng, X. et al. (2017). Development of an index system for evaluation of ecological carrying capacity of marine ecosystems. Ocean & Coastal Management 144: 23–30. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.04.012. Mace, P.M. (2001). A new role for MSY in single-­species and ecosystem approaches to fisheries stock assessment and management. Fish and Fisheries 2 (1): 2–32. https://doi.org/10.1046/ j.1467-­2979.2001.00033.x. Mace, G.M., Barrett, M., Burgess, N.D. et al. (2018). Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nature Sustainability 1: 448–451. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-­018­0130-­0. Mackinson, S., Deas, B., Beveridge, D., and Casey, J. (2009). Mixed-­fishery or ecosystem conundrum? Multispecies considerations inform thinking on long-­term management of North Sea demersal stocks. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66 (7): 1107–1129. Mackinson, S., Wilson, D.C., Galiay, P., and Deas, B. (2011). Engaging stakeholders in fisheries and marine research. Marine Policy 35 (1): 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010. 07.003. Mackinson, S., Park, M., and Deas, B. (2020). Does slow-­burn collaboration deliver results? Towards collaborative development of multi-­annual multi-­species management plans in North Sea mixed demersal fisheries. In: Collaborative Research in Fisheries (ed. P. Holm, M. Hadjimichael, S. Linke, and S. Mackinson), 179–191. Cham: Springer. Magnusson, A., Punt, A.E., and Hilborn, R. (2013). Measuring uncertainty in fisheries stock assessment: the delta method, bootstrap, and MCMC. Fish and Fisheries 14 (3): 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­2979.2012.00473.x. Mahajan, S.L. and Daw, T. (2016). Perceptions of ecosystem services and benefits to human well-­being from community-­based marine protected areas in Kenya. Marine Policy 74: 108–119.

References

Mahmud, K.T., Islam, M.S., Parvez, A., and Haque, S. (2017). Impact of fishery training programs on the household income of the rural poor women in Bangladesh. Human Resource Management Research 7 (3): 97–101. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.hrmr.20170703.01. Mahon, R., McConney, P., and Roy, R.N. (2008). Governing fisheries as complex adaptive systems. Marine Policy 32 (1): 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2007.04.011. Mahon, R., Fanning, L., McConney, P., and Pollnac, R. (2010). Governance characteristics of Large Marine Ecosystems. Marine Policy 34: 919–927. Maillet, D.G.C., Wiber, M.G., and Barnett, A. (2019). Actions towards the joint production of knowledge: the risk of salmon aquaculture on American Lobster. Journal of Risk Research 22 (1): 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1351471. Makino, M. (2011). Fisheries Management in Japan: Its Institutional Features and Case Studies. Springer, 200 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­1777-­0. Makino, M., Matsuda, H., and Sakurai, Y. (2009). Expanding fisheries co-­management to ecosystem-­based management: a case in the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage area, Japan. Marine Policy 33 (2): 207–214. Makino, M., Cabanban, A.S., and Jentoft, S. (2014). Fishers’ organizations: their role in decision-­making for fisheries and conservation. In: Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution (ed. S. Garcia, J. Rice, and A. Charles), 385–397. Chichester/Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 552 p. Mangel, M. and Levin, P.S. (2005). Regime, phase and paradigm shifts: making community ecology the basic science for fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360 (1453): 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1571. Mann, K.H. and Lazier, J.R. (2005). Dynamics of Marine Ecosystems: Biological-­Physical Interactions in the Oceans, 3e. Wiley. Mansfield, B. (2004). Neoliberalism in the oceans: “rationalization,” property rights, and the commons question. Geoforum 35 (3): 313–326. Mantyka-­Pringle, C., Visconti, P., Di Marco, M. et al. (2015). Climate change modifies risk of global biodiversity loss due to land-­cover change. Biological Conservation 187: 103–111. Margulis, S. and Narain, U. (2010). The Costs to Developing Countries of Adapting to Climate Change: New Methods and Estimates – The Global Report of the Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change Study (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Marine Ecosystems and Management (MEAM) (2011). Newsletter Published by: Marine Affairs Research and Education, School of Marine Affairs. Seattle: University of Washington. Marine Mammal Commission (2020). North Atlantic right whale. https://www.mmc.gov/ priority-­topics/species-­of-­concern/north-­atlantic-­right-­whale/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Marrocoli, S., Nielsen, M.R., Morgan, D. et al. (2019). Using wildlife indicators to facilitate wildlife monitoring in hunter-­self monitoring schemes. Ecological Indicators 105: 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.05.050. Marschke, M. and Vandergeest, P. (2016). Slavery scandals: unpacking labour challenges and policy responses within the off-­shore fisheries sector. Marine Policy 68: 39–46. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.02.009. Marshak, A., Link, J., Shuford, R. et al. (2017). International perceptions of an integrated, multi-­sectoral, ecosystem approach to management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74 (1): 414–420.

599

600

References

Marshall, K.N., Levin, P.S., Essington, T.E. et al. (2018). Ecosystem-­based fisheries management for social-­ecological systems: renewing the focus in the United States with next generation fishery ecosystem plans. Conservation Letters 11 (1): https://doi.org/10.1111/ conl.12367. Marszalec, D. (2018). Auctions for quota: a primer and perspectives for the future. Fisheries Research 203: 84–92. Martell, S.J.D. (2008). Fisheries management. In: Encyclopedia of Ecology (ed. B. Fath), 1572–1582. Newnes, 2014. Martin, J.F., Roy, E.D., Diemont, S.A.W., and Ferguson, B.G. (2010). Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK): ideas, inspiration, and designs for ecological engineering. Ecological Engineering 36 (7): 839–849. Marzuki, M.I., Gaspar, P., Garello, R. et al. (2017). Fishing gear identification from vessel-­ monitoring-­system-­based fishing vessel trajectories. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 43 (3): 689–699. https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2017.2723278. Mather, C. (2013). From cod to shellfish and back again? The new resource geography and Newfoundland’s fish economy. Applied Geography 45: 402–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apgeog.2013.06.009. Maunder, M.N. and Punt, A.E. (2013). A review of integrated analysis in fisheries stock assessment. Fisheries Research 142: 61–74. Maunder, M.N. and Thorson, J.T. (2019). Modeling temporal variation in recruitment in fisheries stock assessment: a review of theory and practice. Fisheries Research 217: 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2018.12.014. Mazaris, A., Schofield, G., Gkazinou, C. et al. (2017). Global sea turtle conservation successes. Science Advances 3 (9): E1600730. McCann, K.S., Gellner, G., McMeans, B.C. et al. (2016). Food webs and the sustainability of indiscriminate fisheries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 73 (4): 656–665. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-­2015-­0044. McCay, B.J. and Acheson, J. (1987). The Question of the Commons: Anthropological Contributions to Natural Resource Management. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press. McCay, B.J. and Jones, P.J.S. (2011). Marine protected areas and the governance of marine ecosystems and fisheries: marine protected area governance. Conservation Biology 25 (6): 1130–1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-­1739.2011.01771.x. McClanahan, T.R. (2018). Community biomass and life history benchmarks for coral reef fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 19 (3): 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12268. McClanahan, T.R., Marnane, M.J., Cinner, J.E., and Kiene, W.E. (2006). A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-­reef management. Current Biology 16 (14): 1408–1413. McClanahan, T., Allison, E.H., and Cinner, J.E. (2015). Managing fisheries for human and food security. Fish and Fisheries 16 (1): 78–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12045. McCluney, J.K., Anderson, C.M., and Anderson, J.L. (2019). The fishery performance indicators for global tuna fisheries. Nature Communications 10 (1): 1–9. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41467-­019-­09466-­6. McConney, P. and Charles, A. (2010). Managing small-­scale fisheries: moving towards people-­ centred perspectives. In: Handbook of Marine Fisheries Conservation and Management (ed. R.Q. Grafton, R. Hilborn, D. Squires, et al.), 532–545. Oxford University Press.

References

McConney, P. and Salas, S. (2011). Why incorporate social considerations into marine EBM? In: Towards Marine Ecosystem-­Based Management in the Wider Caribbean (ed. L. Fanning, R. Mahon, and P. McConney), 99–109. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. McConney, P., Pomeroy, R., and Khan, Z. (2014). ENGOs and SIDS: environmental interventions in small island developing states. In: Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution (ed. S.M. Garcia, J.C. Rice, and A. Charles), 360–373. Chichester, UK/Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. McConney, P., Phillips, T., Nembhard, N., and Lay, M. (2017). Caribbean fisherfolk engage the small-­scale fisheries guidelines, Chapter 21. In: The Small-­Scale Fisheries Guidelines: Global Implementation (ed. S. Jentoft, R. Chuenpagdee, M.J. Barragán-­Paladines, and N. Franz), 451–472. Amsterdam: Springer. McDonald, G., Campbell, S.J., Karr, K. et al. (2018). An adaptive assessment and management toolkit for data-­limited fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management 152 (5): 100–119. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.11.015. McLeod, K. and Leslie, H. (ed.) (2009). Ecosystem-­Based Management for the Oceans. Washington, DC: Island Press, 368 p. McMillan, L.J. and Prosper, K. (2016). Remobilizing netukulimk: indigenous cultural and spiritual connections with resource stewardship and fisheries management in Atlantic Canada. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 26 (4): 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11160-­016-­9433-­2. Mehring, M., Bernard, B., Hummel, D. et al. (2017). Halting biodiversity loss: how social-­ ecological biodiversity research makes a difference. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystems Services & Management 13 (1): 172–180. Mellado, T., Brochier, T., Timor, J., and Vitancurt, J. (2014). Use of local knowledge in marine protected area management. Marine Policy 44: 390–396. Memorial University (2022). Management of the Northern Cod Fishery: a guide to information sources. https://www.library.mun.ca/cns/cod/chrono/ (accessed 26 December 2022). Ménard, C. and Shirley, M.M. (2014). The future of new institutional economics: from early intuitions to a new paradigm? Journal of Institutional Economics 10 (4): 541–565. https://doi. org/10.1017/S174413741400006X. Mendenhall, E., Hendrix, C., Nyman, E. et al. (2020). Climate change increases the risk of fisheries conflict. Marine Policy 117: 103954. Menzies, C.R. (ed.) (2006). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management. University of Nebraska Press. Merrifield, M., Gleason, M., Bellquist, L. et al. (2019). eCatch: enabling collaborative fisheries management with technology. Ecological Informatics 52: 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoinf.2019.05.010. Merrill, N.H., Mulvaney, K.K., Martin, D.M. et al. (2018). A resilience framework for chronic exposures: water quality and ecosystem services in coastal social-­ecological systems. Coastal Management 46 (4): 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2018.1474066. Mi’kmaw Conservation Group (2020). Mission and Netukulimk. https://mikmawconservation. ca/mission-­netukulimk/ (accessed 27 December 2022). Milhorance, C. and Soule-­Kohndou, F. (2017). South-­South cooperation and change in international organizations. Global Governance 23: 461.

601

602

References

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a). Ecosystems and human well-­being: a framework for assessment. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Framework.aspx (accessed 27 December 2022). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b). Ecosystems and human well-­being: synthesis. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf (accessed 27 December 2022). Miller, K., Charles, A., Barange, M. et al. (2010). Climate change, uncertainty, and resilient fisheries: institutional responses through integrative science. Progress in Oceanography 87: 338–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2010.09.014. Mills, M., Pressey, R.L., Weeks, R. et al. (2010). A mismatch of scales: challenges in planning for implementation of marine protected areas in the Coral Triangle. Conservation Letters 3 (5): 291–303. Mindjimba, K., Rosenthal, I., Diei-­Ouadi, Y., Bomfeh, K. and Randrianantoandro, A. 2019. FAO-­Thiaroye Processing Technique: Towards Adopting Improved Fish Smoking Systems in the Context of Benefits, Trade-­Offs and Policy Implications from Selected Developing Countries. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Paper no. 634. FAO, Rome, 160 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/ ca4667en/ca4667en.pdf (accessed 27 December 2022). Mizrahi, M., Duce, S., Khine, Z.L. et al. (2020). Mitigating negative livelihood impacts of no-­take MPAs on small-­scale fishers. Biological Conservation 245: 108554. Molenveld, A., van Buuren, A., and Ellen, G. (2020). Governance of climate adaptation, which mode? An exploration of stakeholder viewpoints on how to organize adaptation. Climatic Change 162 (2): 233–254. Möllmann, C., Lindegren, M., Blenckner, T. et al. (2014). Implementing ecosystem-­based fisheries management: from single-­species to integrated ecosystem assessment and advice for Baltic Sea fish stocks. ICES Journal of Marine Science 71 (5): 1187–1197. https://doi. org/10.1093/icesjms/fst123. Monroy, C., Salas, S., and Bello-­Pineda, J. (2010). Dynamics of fishing gear and spatial allocation of fishing effort in a multispecies fleet. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30 (5): 1187–1202. https://doi.org/10.1577/M09-­101.1. Montgomery, M. and Vaughan, M. (2018). Ma Kahana ka ’Ike: lessons for community-­based fisheries management. Sustainability 10 (10): 3799. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103799. Mooers, A.Ø., Prugh, L.R., Festa-­Bianchet, M., and Hutchings, J.A. (2007). Biases in legal listing under Canadian endangered species legislation. Conservation Biology 21 (3): 572–575. Morales-­Nin, B., Grau, A.M., and Palmer, M. (2010). Managing coastal zone fisheries: a Mediterranean case study. Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (3): 99–106. Morf, A., Kull, M., Piwowarczyk, J., and Gee, K. (2019). Towards a ladder of marine/maritime spatial planning participation. In: Maritime Spatial Planning (ed. J. Zaucha and K. Gee), 219–243. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Morse, C.E. and Mudgett, J. (2018). Happy to be home: Place-­based attachments, family ties, and mobility among rural stayers. The Professional Geographer 70 (2): 261–269. https://doi. org/10.1080/00330124.2017.1365309. Mota, R.P. (2020). Fishery harvest control rules from bioeconomic optimization. Marine Policy 103865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103865. Moussaoui, A. and Auger, P. (2021). A bioeconomic model of a fishery with saturated catch and variable price: stabilizing effect of marine reserves on fishery dynamics. Ecological Complexity 45: 100906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2020.100906.

References

Msomphora, M.R. (2016). The role of science in fisheries management in Europe: from mode 1 to mode 2. Maritime Studies 15 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40152-­016-­0042-­4. Mucina, L. (2019). Biome: evolution of a crucial ecological and biogeographical concept. New Phytologist 222 (1): 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15609. Muhling, B.A., Lamkin, J.T., Alemany, F. et al. (2017). Reproduction and larval biology in tunas, and the importance of restricted area spawning grounds. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 27 (4): 697–732. Mullowney, D.R., Baker, K.D., Zabihi-­Seissan, S., and Morris, C. (2020). Biological perspectives on complexities of fisheries co-­management: a case study of Newfoundland and Labrador snow crab. Fisheries Research 232: 105728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105728. Munro, G.R. (1979). The optimal management of transboundary renewable resources. The Canadian Journal of Economics 12 (3): 355–376. https://doi.org/10.2307/134727. Myers, R.A., Hutchings, J.A., and Barrowman, N.J. (1997). Why do fish stocks collapse? The example of cod in Atlantic Canada. Ecological Applications 7 (1): 91–106. https://doi.org/ 10.1890/1051-­0761(1997)007[0091:WDFSCT]2.0.CO;2. NAFO: Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (2021). Canadian Research Report for 2020. (Compiled by Bob Rogers and Mark Simpson). In: NAFO SCS Doc. 21/08. Scientific Council Meeting June 2021. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Nascimento, D.M., Alves, R.R.N., Barboza, R.R.D. et al. (2017). Commercial relationships between intermediaries and harvesters of the mangrove crab Ucides cordatus (Linnaeus, 1763) in the Mamanguape River estuary, Brazil, and their socio-­ecological implications. Ecological Economics 131: 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.017. Nash, K.L. and Graham, N.A. (2016). Ecological indicators for coral reef fisheries management. Fish and Fisheries 17 (4): 1029–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12157. Nasuchon, N. and Charles, A. (2010). Community involvement in fisheries management: experiences in the Gulf of Thailand countries. Marine Policy 34: 163–169. Natale, F., Hofherr, J., Fiore, G., and Virtanen, J. (2013). Interactions between aquaculture and fisheries. Marine Policy 38: 205–213. National Marine Fisheries Service (2022). Fisheries of the United States, 2020. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Current Fishery Statistics No. 2020. https://www. fisheries.noaa.gov/national/sustainable-­fisheries/fisheries-­united-­states (accessed 27 December 2022). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2008). The Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. http://hawaiireef.noaa.gov/welcome.html (accessed 27 December 2022). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2020). North Atlantic right whale. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-­atlantic-­right-­whale (accessed 27 December 2022). National Research Council (1999). Sustaining Marine Fisheries. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Native Council of Nova Scotia (1994). Mi’kmaq Fisheries Netukulimk: Towards a Better Understanding. Truro: Native Council of Nova Scotia. Nauen, C.E. (2006). Implementing the WSSD decision of restoring marine ecosystems by 2015 – scientific information support in the public domain. Marine Policy 30: 455–461. Nayak, P.K. (2017). Fisher communities in transition: understanding change from a livelihood perspective in Chilika Lagoon, India. Maritime Studies 16 (1): 1–33.

603

604

References

NCFA: Norwegian Coastal Fishermen’s Association (2022). Welcome to the Norway Coastal Fishing Association. Norwegian Coastal Fishermen’s Association. https:// norgeskystfiskarlag.no/ (accessed 27 December 2022). Neis, B., Felt, L., Schneider, D.C. et al. (1996). Northern cod stock assessment: what can be learned from interviewing resource users? Atlantic Fisheries Research Document 96/45. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, Canada. Neis, B., Gerrard, S., and Power, N.G. (2013). Women and children first: the gendered and generational social-­ecology of smaller-­scale fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador and northern Norway. Ecology and Society 18 (4): https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­06010-­180464. Nelson, J.S. (1994). Fishes of the World, 3e. New York: Wiley. Neuenhoff, R.D., Swain, D.P., Cox, S.P. et al. (2019). Continued decline of a collapsed population of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) due to predation-­driven Allee effects. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 76 (1): 168–184. NFA: Norwegian Fishermen’s Association (2022). Welcome to the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association. Norges Fiskarlag. https://www.fiskarlaget.no/english (accessed 27 December 2022). Ngoc, Q.T.K. (2014). Marine protected areas: a review on their benefits and designs for fisheries management. Asian Fisheries Science 27: 185–198. Nielsen, J.R., Degnbol, P., Viswanathan, K.K. et al. (2004). Fisheries co-­management – an institutional innovation? Lessons from South East Asia and Southern Africa. Marine Policy 28 (1): 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-­597X(03)00083-­6. Nielsen, J.R., Thunberg, E., Holland, D.S. et al. (2018). Integrated ecological-­economic fisheries models – evaluation, review and challenges for implementation. Fish and fisheries 19 (1): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12232. Ñiquen, M. and Bouchon, M. (2004). Impact of El Niño events on pelagic fisheries in Peruvian waters. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 51 (6–9): 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2004.03.001. Njaya, F. (2007). Governance challenges for the implementation of fisheries co-­management: experiences from Malawi. International Journal of the Commons 1 (1): 137–153. Norman, E. (2012). Cultural politics and transboundary resource governance in the Salish Sea. Water Alternatives 5 (1): 138. Norse, E. (2010). Ecosystem-­based spatial planning and management of marine fisheries: why and how? Bulletin of Marine Science 86: 2. Norse, E.A., Brooke, S., Cheung, W.W.L. et al. (2012). Sustainability of deep-­sea fisheries. Marine Policy 36 (2): 307–320. North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nøstbakken, L. (2008a). Fisheries law enforcement – a survey of the economic literature. Marine Policy 32 (3): 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2007.06.002. Nøstbakken, L. (2008b). Stochastic modelling of the North Sea herring fishery under alternative management regimes. Marine Resource Economics 23 (1): 65–86. Nøstbakken, L., Thébaud, O., and Sørensen, L.C. (2011). Investment behaviour and capacity adjustment in fisheries: a survey of the literature. Marine Resource Economics 26 (2): 95–117. https://doi.org/10.5950/0738-­1360-­26.2.95.

References

NSW MEMA (2013). Managing the NSW Marine Estate: Purpose, Underpinning Principles and Priority Setting. Marine Estate Management Authority, NSW www.marine.nsw.gov.au/__ data/assets/pdf_file/0004/498604/Managing-­Marine-­Estate.pdf (accessed 27 December 2022). Nunan, F. (2014). Wealth and welfare? Can fisheries management succeed in achieving multiple objectives? A case study of Lake Victoria, East Africa. Fish and Fisheries 15 (1): 134–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12012. Nunan, F., Hara, M., and Onyango, P. (2015). Institutions and co-­management in East African inland and Malawi fisheries: a critical perspective. World Development 70: 203–214. Odum, E.P. (1974). The Fundamentals of Ecology. New York: Saunders. OECD (2019). Encouraging Policy Change for Sustainable and Resilient Fisheries. Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Fisheries Committee http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publi cdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=TAD/FI(2017)13/FINAL&docLanguage=En. Oettel, J. and Lapin, K. (2021). Linking forest management and biodiversity indicators to strengthen sustainable forest management in Europe. Ecological Indicators 122: 107275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107275. Ogutu-­Ohwayo, R., Natugonza, V., Musinguzi, L. et al. (2016). Implications of climate variability and change for African lake ecosystems, fisheries productivity, and livelihoods. Journal of Great Lakes Research 42 (3): 498–510. Ojea, E., Pearlman, I., Gaines, S.D., and Lester, S.E. (2017). Fisheries regulatory regimes and resilience to climate change. Ambio 46: 399–412. Olale, E. and Henson, S. (2012). Socio-­economic characteristics of fish workers in Western Kenya. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquaculture 4 (7): 139–153. https://doi. org/10.5897/IJFA11.122. Oliveros-­Ramos, R. and Peña, C. (2011). Modeling and analysis of the recruitment of Peruvian anchovy (Engraulis ringens) between 1961 and 2009. Ciencias Marinas 37 (4B): 659–674. Olson, J. (2011). Understanding and contextualizing social impacts from the privatization of fisheries: an overview. Ocean & Coastal Management 54 (5): 353–363. Ommer, R.E., Perry, R.I., Murray, G., and Neis, B. (2012). Social-­ecological dynamism, knowledge, and sustainable coastal marine fisheries. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4 (3): 316–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.05.010. Opaluch, J.J. and Bockstael, N.E. (1984). Behavioral modelling and fisheries management. Marine Resource Economics 1: 105–115. Oracion, E.G., Miller, M.L., and Christie, P. (2005). Marine protected areas for whom? Fisheries, tourism, and solidarity in a Philippine community. Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (3–6): 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.013. Orbach, M.K. (1980). The human dimension. In: Fisheries Management (ed. R.T. Lackey and L.A. Nielsen), 149–163. New York: Wiley. Orrego, C.M. and Rodríguez, N. (2017). The positive relationship between the Ostional community and the conservation of olive ridley sea turtles at Ostional National Wildlife Refuge in Costa Rica. In: Marine Protected Areas: Interactions with Fishery Livelihoods and Food Security. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 603 (ed. L. Westlund, A. Charles, S. Garcia, and J. Sanders), 69–84. Rome: FAO. Österblom, H., Crona, B.I., Folke, C. et al. (2017). Marine ecosystem science on an intertwined planet. Ecosystems 20 (1): 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-­016-­9998-­6.

605

606

References

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 280 pp. Ostrom, E. (1992). The rudiments of a theory of the origins, survival, and performance of common-­property institutions. In: Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice and Policy (ed. D.W. Bromley, D. Feeny, M.A. McKean, et al.), 293–318. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies. Ostrom, E. (2002). Common-­pool resources and institutions: toward a revised theory. Handbook of Agricultural Economics 2: 1315–1339. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-­0072(02)10006-­5. Ostrom, E. (2012). Why do we need to protect institutional diversity? European Political Science 11 (1): 128–147. Ostrom, E. and Hess, C. (2007). Private and Common Property Rights. Indiana University, Bloomington: School of Public & Environmental Affairs Research Paper No. 2008-­11-­01. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1936062 (accessed 27 December 2022). Ostrom, E. and Schlager, E. (1996). The formation of property rights. In: Rights to Nature: Ecological, Economic, Cultural and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment (ed. S. Hanna, C. Folke, and K.G. Mäler), 127–156. Washington: Island Press. Ouréns, R., Cambiè, G., and Freire, J. (2015). Characterizing the complexity of the fleet dynamics for an effective fisheries management: the case of the Cíes Islands (NW Spain). Scientia Marina 79 (4): 453–464. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.04228.08A. Ovando, D.A., Deacon, R.T., Lester, S.E. et al. (2013). Conservation incentives and collective choices in cooperative fisheries. Marine Policy 37: 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2012.03.012. Ovando, D., Poon, S., and Costello, C. (2017). Opportunities and precautions for integrating cooperation and individual transferable quotas with territorial use rights in fisheries. Bulletin of Marine Science 93 (1): 101–115. https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2016.1081. Oviedo, G., Jeanrenaud, S., and Otegui, M. (2005). Protecting sacred natural sites of Indigenous and traditional peoples: an IUCN perspective. Gland, Switzerland. Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (2019). Fisheries Development. Solomon Islands: Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency https://www.ffa.int/fisheries_development (accessed 27 December 2022). Palacios-­Abrantes, J., Sumaila, U.R., and Cheung, W. (2020). Challenges to transboundary fisheries management in North America under climate change. Ecology and Society 25 (4): https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­11743-­250441. Palomo, L.E. and Hernández-­Flores, A. (2020). Integrating a spatial model and decision theory towards optimal boating density and carrying capacity in a recreational fishery. Marine Policy 112: 103740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103740. Panayotou, T. (1980). Economic conditions and prospects of small-­scale fishermen in Thailand. Marine Policy 4: 142–146. Panayotou, T. (1982). Management Concepts for Small-­Scale Fisheries: Economic and Social Aspects. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper #228. Rome: FAO. Panayotou, T. (ed.) (1985). Small-­Scale Fisheries in Asia: Socioeconomic Analysis and Policy. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Parés, C., Dresdner, J., and Salgado, H. (2015). Who should set the total allowable catch? Social preferences and legitimacy in fisheries management institutions. Marine Policy 54: 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.011.

References

Parlee, C.E. and Wiber, M.G. (2014). Institutional innovation in fisheries governance: adaptive co-­management in situations of legal pluralism. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 11: 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.09.012. Parton, K.J., Galloway, T.S., and Godley, B.J. (2019). Global review of shark and ray entanglement in anthropogenic marine debris. Endangered Species Research 39: 173–190. Pascoe, S.D., Kahui, V., Hutton, T., and Dichmont, C.M. (2016). Experiences with the use of bioeconomic models in the management of Australian and New Zealand fisheries. Fisheries Research 183: 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.01.008. Pascoe, S.D., Plagányi, É.E., and Dichmont, C.M. (2017). Modelling multiple management objectives in fisheries: Australian experiences. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74 (2): 464–474. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw051. Passino, D.R.M. (1980). Biology of fishes. In: Fisheries Management (ed. R.T. Lackey and L.A. Nielsen), 81–109. New York: Wiley. Paterson, B. and Charles, A. (2019). Community-­based responses to climate hazards: typology and global analysis. Climatic Change 152: 327–343. Paterson, B., Sowman, M., Raemaekers, S. et al. (eds.) (2014). Strengthening the human dimension of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the BCC region. FINAL REPORT of FAO-­BCC Project EAF 09/12. Windhoek. Benguela Current Commission, 93 pp. Paukert, C.P., Lynch, A.J., Beard, T.D. et al. (2017). Designing a global assessment of climate change on inland fishes and fisheries: knowns and needs. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 27 (2): 393–409. Paul, K. (2018). First nations, oceans governance and indigenous knowledge systems. In: The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Mann Borgese (1918–2002) (ed. International Ocean Institute – Canada, D. Werle, P.R. Boudreau, et al.), 46–52. Leiden/Boston: Brill Nijhoff. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J. et al. (1998). Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279: 860–863. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guénette, S. et al. (2002). Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418 (6898): 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01017. Pauwels, S. and Fache, E. (ed.) (2016). Fisheries in the Pacific: The Challenges of Governance and Sustainability. Pacific-­credo Publications https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pacific.395. Payne, M.R., Barange, M., Cheung, W.W. et al. (2016). Uncertainties in projecting climate-­ change impacts in marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 73 (5): 1272–1282. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv231. Pearse, P.H. (1980). Property rights and regulation of commercial fisheries. Journal of Business Administration 11: 185–209. Pedroza-­Gutiérrez, C. (2019). Seafood supply chain structure of the fishing industry of Yucatan, Mexico. In: Viability and Sustainability of Small-­Scale Fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean (ed. S. Salas, M.J. Barragán-­Paladines, and R. Chuenpagdee), 353–378. Cham: Springer. Pendleton, L.H., Ahmadia, G.N., Browman, H.I. et al. (2018). Debating the effectiveness of marine protected areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science 75 (3): 1156–1159. Pentz, B. and Klenk, N. (2017). The ’responsiveness gap’ in RFMOs: the critical role of decision-­making policies in the fisheries management response to climate change. Ocean & Coastal Management 145: 44–51.

607

608

References

Perry, R.I., Cury, P., Brander, K. et al. (2010). Sensitivity of marine systems to climate and fishing: concepts, issues and management responses. Journal of Marine Systems 79: 427–435. Petkovová, L., Hartman, D., and Pavelka, T. (2020). Problems of aggregation of sustainable development indicators at the regional level. Sustainability 12: 7156. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12177156. Petrik, C.M., Stock, C.A., Andersen, K.H. et al. (2019). Bottom-­up drivers of global patterns of demersal, forage, and pelagic fishes. Progress in Oceanography 176: 102124. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pocean.2019.102124. Petursdottir, G., Hannibalsson, O., and Turner, J. M. (2001). Safety at sea as an integral part of fisheries management. FAO Fisheries Circular. Phillipson, J. and Symes, D. (2013). Science for sustainable fisheries management: an interdisciplinary approach. Fisheries Research 139: 61–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fishres.2012.09.012. Phillipson, J. and Symes, D. (2015). Finding a middle way to develop Europe’s fisheries dependent areas: the role of fisheries local action groups. Sociologia Ruralis 55 (3): 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12098. Phukan, S.C. and Barman, A. (2013). Selection of distribution channels by small and marginal fish farmers in rural India and its impact on fish prices and fish farmers’ income level: a survey of available literature. International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research 2 (11): 1–5. Pinkerton, E.W. (1989). Cooperative Management of Local Fisheries. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Pinkerton, E.W. (1994). Local fisheries co-­management: a review of international experiences and their implications for salmon management in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51: 2363–2378. Pinkerton, E. (2009). Partnerships in management. In: Handbook of Marine Fisheries Conservation and Management (ed. R.Q. Grafton, R. Hilborn, D. Squires, et al.), 283–298. Oxford University Press, 784 p. Pinkerton, E. (2013). Alternatives to ITQs in equity-­efficiency-­effectiveness trade-­offs: how the lay-­up system spread effort in the BC halibut fishery. Marine Policy 42: 5–13. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.01.010. Pinkerton, E. (2018). Legitimacy and effectiveness through fisheries co-­management. In: The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Mann Borgese (1918–2002) (ed. International Ocean Institute – Canada, D. Werle, P.R. Boudreau, et al.), 333–337. Leiden/Boston: Brill Nijhoff https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004380271_056. Pinkerton, E. and Davis, R. (2015). Neoliberalism and the politics of enclosure in North American small-­scale fisheries. Marine Policy 61: 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2015.03.025. Pinkerton, E. and Weinstein, M. (1995). Fisheries that Work: Sustainability Through Community-­Based Management. Vancouver: The David Suzuki Foundation, 199 p. Pinsky, M.L. and Byler, D. (2015). Fishing, fast growth and climate variability increase the risk of collapse. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282 (1813): 20151053. Pinto, C., Travers-­Trolet, M., Macdonald, J.I. et al. (2019). Combining multiple data sets to unravel the spatiotemporal dynamics of a data-­limited fish stock. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 76 (8): 1338–1349.

References

Pita, C., Dickey, H., Pierce, G.J. et al. (2010a). Willingness for mobility amongst European fishermen. Journal of Rural Studies 26 (3): 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud. 2010.02.004. Pita, C., Pierce, G.J., and Theodossiou, I. (2010b). Stakeholders’ participation in the fisheries management decision-­making process: fishers’ perceptions of participation. Marine Policy 34 (5): 1093–1102. Pita, P., Fernández-­Vidal, D., García-­Galdo, J., and Muíño, R. (2016). The use of the traditional ecological knowledge of fishermen, cost-­effective tools and participatory models in artisanal fisheries: towards the co-­management of common octopus in Galicia (NW Spain). Fisheries Research 178: 4–12. Pita, P., Villasante, S., Arlinghaus, R. et al. (2018). A matter of scales: does the management of marine recreational fisheries follow the ecosystem approach to fisheries in Europe? Marine Policy 97: 61–71. Pitcher, T.J. and Hart, P.J.B. (1982). Fisheries Ecology. London: Croom Helm. Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D., Pramod, G., and Short, K. (2008). Safe Conduct? Twelve Years Fishing Under the UN Code. Gland: WWF, 34 pp. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?154581/ Safe-­Conduct-­Twelve-­years-­fishing-­under-­the-­UN-­Code. Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D., Short, K. et al. (2009). An evaluation of progress in implementing ecosystem-­based management of fisheries in 33 countries. Marine Policy 33 (2): 223–232. Plagányi, É.E. (2007). Models for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 477. Rome: FAO. 2007, 108 p. https://www.fao.org/3/a1149e/a1149e00.htm (accessed 27 December 2022). Plagányi, É.E., Rademeyer, R.A., Butterworth, D.S. et al. (2007). Making management procedures operational -­innovations implemented in South Africa. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64 (4): 626–632. Plagányi, É.E., Skewes, T.D., Dowling, N.A., and Haddon, M. (2013). Risk management tools for sustainable fisheries management under changing climate: a sea cucumber example. Climatic Change 119 (1): 181–197. Planque, B. and Mullon, C. (2020). Modelling chance and necessity in natural systems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 77 (4): 1573–1588. Pollnac, R.B. and Littlefield, S.J. (1983). Sociocultural aspects of fisheries management. Ocean Development and International Law 12: 209–246. Pollnac, R., Christie, P., Cinner, J.E. et al. (2010). Marine reserves as linked social-­ecological systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107 (43): 18262–18265. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908266107. Poloczanska, E.S., Burrows, M.T., Brown, C.J. et al. (2016). Responses of marine organisms to climate change across oceans. Frontiers in Marine Science 3. Pomeroy, R.S. (1995). Community-­based and co-­management institutions for sustainable coastal fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Ocean & Coastal Management 27: 143–162. Pomeroy, R.S. (2001). Devolution and fisheries co-­management. In: Collective Action, Property Rights and Devolution of Natural Resource Management: Exchange of Knowledge and Implications for Policy (ed. R. Meinzen-­Dick, A. Knox, and M. Di Gregorio), 108–145. Germany: DSE/GTZ.

609

610

References

Pomeroy, R. (2012). Managing overcapacity in small-­scale fisheries in Southeast Asia. Marine Policy 36 (2): 520–527. Pomeroy, R. and Berkes, F. (1997). Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-­ management. Marine Policy 21 (5): 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0308-­597X(97)00017-­1. Pomeroy, R. and Courtney, C.A. (2018a). Southeast Asia: recognize tenure rights. Samudra Report 78: 27–29. https://www.icsf.net/samudra/recognize-­tenure-­rights/ (accessed 27 December 2022). Pomeroy, R. and Courtney, C.A. (2018b). The Philippines context for marine tenure and small-­scale fisheries. Marine Policy 95: 283–293. Pomeroy, R.S. and Rivera-­Guieb, R. (2005). Fishery Co-­management: A Practical Handbook. Wallingford: CABI Publishing and International Development Research Centre https:// www.idrc.ca/sites/default/files/openebooks/184-­1/index.html (accessed 27 December 2022). Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E., and Watson, L.M. (2004). How Is Your MPA Doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Gland/Cambridge: IUCN, 216 pp. Pomeroy, R.S., Watson, L.M., Parks, J.E., and Cid, G.A. (2005). How is your MPA doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 485–502. Pomeroy, R.S., Mascia, M.B. & Pollnac, R.B. (2007a). Marine protected areas: the social dimension. In: Report and documentation of the Expert Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Management: Review of Issues and Considerations. Rome (12–14 June 2006). FAO Fisheries Report. No. 825. Rome: FAO, 332 pp. Pomeroy, R., Parks, J., Pollnac, R. et al. (2007b). Fish wars: conflict and collaboration in fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Marine Policy 31 (6): 645–656. Pomeroy, R., Thi Nguyen, K., and Thong, H. (2009). Small-­scale marine fisheries policy in Vietnam. Marine Policy 33 (2): 419–428. Pomeroy, R., Parks, J., Mrakovcich, K.L., and LaMonica, C. (2016). Drivers and impacts of fisheries scarcity, competition, and conflict on maritime security. Marine Policy 67: 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.005. Pomeroy, R.S., Garces, L.R., Pido, M.D. et al. (2019). The role of scale within an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: policy and practice in Southeast Asian seas. Marine Policy 106: 103531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103531. Ponder, W.F. and Lindberg, D.R. (2008). Phylogeny and Evolution of the Mollusca. University of California Press. Poos, J.J., Bogaards, J.A., Quirijns, F.J. et al. (2010). Individual quotas, fishing effort allocation, and over-­quota discarding in mixed fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67 (2): 323–333. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsp241. Popova, E., Vousden, D., Sauer, W.H.H. et al. (2019). Ecological connectivity between the areas beyond national jurisdiction and coastal waters: safeguarding interests of coastal communities in developing countries. Marine Policy 104: 90–102. Pringle, J.D. (1985). The human factor in fishery resource management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 389–392.

References

Privitera-­Johnson, K.M. and Punt, A.E. (2020). A review of approaches to quantifying uncertainty in fisheries stock assessments. Fisheries research 226: 105503. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105503. Project Seahorse (2022). Project Seahorse: advancing marine conservation. https:// projectseahorse.org/ (accessed 27 December 2022). Province of Nova Scotia (2015). Industry overview. https://novascotia.ca/fish/commercial-­ fisheries/industry-­overview/ (accessed 27 December 2022). Province of Nova Scotia (2020). Accountability Report 2019–2020. https://novascotia.ca/ government/accountability/2019-­2020/2019-­2020-­accountability-­report-­Department-­of-­ Fisheries-­and-­Aquaculture.pdf (accessed 27 December 2022). Puley, M. and Charles, A. (2022). Dissecting co-­management: fisher participation across management components and implications for governance. Fish and Fisheries 23 (3): 719–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12645. Punt, A.E. and Donovan, G.P. (2007). Developing management procedures that are robust to uncertainty: lessons from the International Whaling Commission. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64 (4): 603–612. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsm035. Punt, A.E., Butterworth, D.S., de Moor, C.L. et al. (2016). Management strategy evaluation: best practices. Fish and Fisheries 17 (2): 303–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12104. Punt, A.E., Day, J., Fay, G. et al. (2018). Retrospective investigation of assessment uncertainty for fish stocks off southeast Australia. Fisheries Research 198: 117–128. Purcell, S.W., Crona, B.I., Lalavanua, W., and Eriksson, H. (2017). Distribution of economic returns in small-­scale fisheries for international markets: a value-­chain analysis. Marine Policy 86: 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.001. Purvis, B., Mao, Y., and Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science 14 (3): 681–695. Quaempts, E.J., Jones, K.L., O’Daniel, S.J. et al. (2018). Aligning environmental management with ecosystem resilience. Ecology and Society 23 (2): https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­10080-­230229. Queffelec, B., Cummins, V., and Bailly, D. (2009). Integrated management of marine biodiversity in Europe: perspectives from ICZM and the evolving EU Maritime Policy framework. Marine Policy 33 (6): 871–877. Quimby, B. and Levine, A. (2018). Participation, power, and equity: examining three key social dimensions of fisheries comanagement. Sustainability 10 (9): 3324. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su10093324. Quispe-­Ccalluari, C., Tam, J., Demarcq, H. et al. (2018). An index of coastal thermal effects of El Niño Southern Oscillation on the Peruvian Upwelling Ecosystem. International Journal of Climatology 38 (7): 3191–3201. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5493. Quynh, C.N.T., Schilizzi, S., Hailu, A., and Iftekhar, S. (2017). Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries (TURFs): state of the art and the road ahead. Marine Policy 75: 41–52. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.10.004. Quynh, C.N.T., Schilizzi, S., Hailu, A., and Iftekhar, S. (2020). Vietnam’s Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries: how do they perform against Ostrom’s institutional design principles? World Development Perspectives 17: 100171. Radulovici, A.E., Sainte-­Marie, B., and Dufresne, F. (2009). DNA barcoding of marine crustaceans from the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence: a regional-­scale approach. Molecular Ecology Resources 9: 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-­0998.2009.02643.x.

611

612

References

Raemaekers, S., Hauck, M., Bürgener, M. et al. (2011). Review of the causes of the rise of the illegal South African abalone fishery and consequent closure of the rights-­based fishery. Ocean & Coastal Management 54 (6): 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011. 02.001. Rainville, T. (2010). Climate change in ecuador’s coastal communities and mangrove ecosystems: a case for the incorporation of local perceptions and knowledge in collaborative dialogue. Master of Environmental Studies. Dalhousie University. Halifax. Ramieri, E., Bocci, M., and Markovic, M. (2019). Linking integrated coastal zone management to maritime spatial planning: the Mediterranean experience. In: Maritime Spatial Planning (ed. J. Zaucha and K. Gee), 271–294. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Ramírez-­Monsalve, P., Raakjær, J., Nielsen, K.N. et al. (2016). Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) in the EU – current science–policy–society interfaces and emerging requirements. Marine Policy 66: 83–92. Rasmussen, L.V., Bierbaum, R., Oldekop, J.A., and Agrawal, A. (2017). Bridging the practitioner-­researcher divide: indicators to track environmental, economic, and sociocultural sustainability of agricultural commodity production. Global Environmental Change 42: 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.001. Ravagnan, E., Gjerstad, B., Provan, F. et al. (2017). Sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture: the multidisciplinary approach as a key for success: an active discussion. Transdisciplinary research towards fisheries and aquaculture: a road to sustainability and social acceptance. In: Proceedings of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade Conference 2016, Aberdeen, Scotland (11–15 July 2016). Corvallis: IIFET. Ravi, R., Vipin, P.M., Boopendranath, M.R. et al. (2014). Structural changes in the mechanised fishing fleet of Kerala, South India. Indian Journal of Fisheries 61 (2): 1–6. Recanatesi, F., Clemente, M., Grigoriadis, E. et al. (2016). A fifty-­year sustainability assessment of Italian agro-­forest districts. Sustainability 8 (1): 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su8010032. Reed, M.S., Fraser, E.D., and Dougill, A.J. (2006). An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological Economics 59 (4): 406–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.008. Rees, W.E. and Wackernagel, M. (1994). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: measuring the natural capital requirements of the human economy. In: Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability (ed. A. Jansson, M. Hammer, C. Folke, and R. Costanza), 362–390. Washington: Island Press. Rees, S.E., Attrill, M.J., Austen, M.C. et al. (2013). A thematic cost-­benefit analysis of a marine protected area. Journal of Environmental Management 114: 476–485. Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) (2022). SPAMIs. http:// www.rac-­spa.org/spami (accessed 27 December 2022). Resilience Alliance (2010). Assessing resilience in social-­ecological systems: Workbook for practitioners. Version 2.0. https://www.resalliance.org/resilience-­assessment (accessed 27 December 2022). Rice, J. (2006). Every which way but up: the sad story of Atlantic groundfish, featuring Northern cod and North Sea cod. Bulletin of Marine Science 78 (3): 429–465. Rice, J. (2011). Managing fisheries well: delivering the promises of an ecosystem approach. Fish and Fisheries 12 (2): 209–231.

References

Rice, J. (2018). Northern (Newfoundland) cod collapse and rebuilding. In: Rebuilding of Marine Fisheries. Part 2: Case Studies. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 630/2 (ed. S.M. Garcia and Y. Ye), 144–181. Rome: FAO, 232 pp. Rice, J., Moksness, E., Attwood, C. et al. (2012). The role of MPAs in reconciling fisheries management with conservation of biological diversity. Ocean & Coastal Management 69: 217–230. Ricker, W.E. (1958). Handbook of Computations for Biological Statistics of Fish Populations. Ottawa: Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Ricker, W.E. (1975). Computation and interpretation of biological dtatistics of fish populations. Bulletin 191, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa. Riehl, T., Wölfl, A.C., Augustin, N. et al. (2020). Discovery of widely available abyssal rock patches reveals overlooked habitat type and prompts rethinking deep-­sea biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of Sciences of the United States of America 117: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920706117. Rindorf, A., Cardinale, M., Shephard, S. et al. (2017a). Fishing for MSY: using “pretty good yield” ranges without impairing recruitment. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74 (2): 525–534. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw111. Rindorf, A., Dichmont, C.M., Thorson, J. et al. (2017b). Inclusion of ecological, economic, social, and institutional considerations when setting targets and limits for multispecies fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74 (2): 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw226. Ringer, D., Carothers, C., Donkersloot, R. et al. (2018). For generations to come? The privatization paradigm and shifting social baselines in Kodiak, Alaska’s commercial fisheries. Marine Policy 98: 97–103. Ritzman, J., Brodbeck, A., Brostrom, S. et al. (2018). Economic and sociocultural impacts of fisheries closures in two fishing-­dependent communities following the massive 2015 U.S. West Coast harmful algal bloom. Harmful Algae 80: 35–45. Roberts, C.M., O’Leary, B.C., McCauley, D.J. et al. (2017). Marine reserves can mitigate and promote adaptation to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of Sciences of the United States of America 114 (24): 6167–6175. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1701262114. Rocliffe, S., Peabody, S., Samoilys, M., and Hawkins, J.P. (2014). Towards a network of locally managed marine areas (LMMAs) in the Western Indian Ocean. PLoS One 9 (7): E103000. Roeger, J., Foale, S., and Sheaves, M. (2016). When ‘fishing down the food chain’ results in improved food security: evidence from a small pelagic fishery in Solomon Islands. Fisheries Research 174: 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.10.016. Rogers, R.A. (1995). The Oceans are Emptying: Fish Wars and Sustainability. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Rohe, J., Schlüter, A., and Ferse, S.C. (2018). A gender lens on women’s harvesting activities and interactions with local marine governance in a South Pacific fishing community. Maritime Studies 17 (2): 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-­018-­0106-­8. Rohe, J.R., Govan, H., Schlüter, A., and Ferse, S.C.A. (2019). A legal pluralism perspective on coastal fisheries governance in two Pacific Island countries. Marine Policy 100: 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.020. Rombouts, I., Beaugrand, G., Artigas, L.F. et al. (2013). Evaluating marine ecosystem health: case studies of indicators using direct observations and modelling methods. Ecological Indicators 24: 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.07.001.

613

614

References

Rosales, R.M., Pomeroy, R., Calabio, I.J. et al. (2017). Value chain analysis and small-­scale fisheries management. Marine Policy 83: 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017. 05.023. Rose, G.A. (2004). Reconciling overfishing and climate change with stock dynamics of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) over 500 years. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 1553–1557. Rosencranz, A. and Vora, A. (2016). Two decades of the tuna-­dolphin dispute. Environmental Policy and Law 46 (3/4): 213. Rossetto, M., Bitetto, I., Spedicato, M.T. et al. (2015). Multi-­criteria decision-­making for fisheries management: a case study of Mediterranean demersal fisheries. Marine Policy 53: 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.11.006. Rossi, V., Ser-­Giacomi, E., Dubois, M. et al. (2016). Lagrangian Flow Networks: a new framework to study the multi-­scale connectivity and the structural complexity of marine populations. CIESM International Research Workshop. Rossiter, J.S. and Levine, A. (2014). What makes a “successful” marine protected area? The unique context of Hawaii′s fish replenishment areas. Marine Policy 44: 196–203. Rouxel, Y. and Montevecchi, W. (2018). Gear sustainability assessment of the Newfoundland inshore northern cod fishery. Ocean & Coastal Management 163: 285–295. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.05.018. Royce, W.F. (1996). Introduction to the Practice of Fishery Science. San Diego: Academic Press. Ruckdeschel, G.S., Davies, K.T., and Ross, T. (2020). Biophysical drivers of zooplankton variability on the Scotian shelf observed using profiling electric gliders. Frontiers in Marine Science https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00627. Ruddle, K., Hviding, E., and Johannes, R.E. (1992). Marine resources management in the context of customary tenure. Marine Resource Economics 7: 249–273. Ruiz-­Frau, A., Possingham, H.P., Edwards-­Jones, G. et al. (2015). A multidisciplinary approach in the design of marine protected areas: integration of science and stakeholder based methods. Ocean & Coastal Management 103: 86–93. Russ, G.R. and Alcala, A.C. (1994). Sumilon Island reserve: 20 years of hopes and frustrations. Naga: The ICLARM Quarterly 17: 8–12. Rust, S., Jennings, S., and Yamazaki, S. (2016). Excess capacity and capital malleability in a fishery with myopic expectations. Marine Resource Economics 31 (1): 63–81. https://doi. org/10.1086/684079. Rust, S., Yamazaki, S., Jennings, S. et al. (2017). Excess capacity and efficiency in the quota managed Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishery. Marine Policy 76: 55–62. Saila, S.B. and Gallucci, V.F. (1996). Overview and background. In: Stock Assessment: Quantitative Methods and Applications for Small-­Scale Fisheries (ed. V.F. Gallucci, S.B. Saila, D.J. Gustafson, and B.J. Rothschild), 1–8. Boca Raton: CRC Lewis. Sainsbury, J.C. (1996). Commercial Fishing Methods: An Introduction to Vessels and Gears. Oxford: Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science. Sainsbury, K.J., Punt, A.E., and Smith, A.D.M. (2000). Design of operational management strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57 (3): 731–741. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.2000.0737. Sala, E. and Giakoumi, S. (2018). No-­take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas in the ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science 75 (3): 1166–1168.

References

Salas, S. and Gaertner, D. (2004). The behavioural dynamics of fishers: management implications. Fish and Fisheries 5 (2): 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­2979.2004. 00146.x. Salas, S., Chuenpagdee, R., Seijo, J.C., and Charles, A. (2007). Challenges in the assessment and management of small-­scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Fisheries Research 87 (1): 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2007.06.015. Salierno, J.D., Overton, A.S., and Benson, C.L. (2018). Optimization of hook size to reduce discards and injury in the New Jersey summer flounder hook-­and-­line fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 38 (2): 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10046. Salm, R.V., Clark, J., and Siirila, E. (2000). Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Manager. Washington, DC: IUCN, 400 pp. Salz, P. (1986). Policy Instruments for Development of Fisheries. Publication No. 574. The Hague: Agricultural Economics Research Institute, 80 p. San Martín, G., Parma, A.M., and Orensanz, J.L. (2010). The Chilean experience with territorial use rights in fisheries. In: Handbook of Marine Fisheries Conservation and Management (ed. R.Q. Grafton, R. Hilborn, D. Squires, et al.), 324–337. Oxford University Press. Sanchirico, J.E., Smith, M.D., and Lipton, D.W. (2008). An empirical approach to ecosystem-­ based fishery management. Ecological Economics 64: 586–596. Santos, L.C.M., Gasalla, M.A., Dahdouh-­Guebas, F., and Bitencourt, M.D. (2017). Socio-­ ecological assessment for environmental planning in coastal fishery areas: a case study in Brazilian mangroves. Ocean & Coastal Management 138: 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2017.01.009. Satizábal, P., Dressler, W.H., Fabinyi, M., and Pido, M.D. (2020). Blue economy discourses and practices: reconfiguring ocean spaces in the Philippines. Maritime Studies 19: 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-­020-­00168-­0. Satria, A., Matsuda, Y., and Sano, M. (2006). Contractual solution to the tragedy of property right in coastal fisheries. Marine Policy 30 (3): 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2005.01.003. SCBD/STAP (2012). Marine spatial planning in the context of the convention on biological diversity: a study carried out in response to CBD COP 10 decision X/29. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel – GEF Montreal, Technical Series No. 68. Schaap, R. and Richter, A. (2019). Overcapitalization and social norms of cooperation in a small-­scale fishery. Ecological Economics 166: 106438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2019.106438. Schaefer, M.B. (1954). Some aspects of the dynamics of populations important to the management of the commercial marine fisheries. Bulletin of the Inter-­American Tropical Tuna Commission 1: 27–56. Schaefer, M.B. (1957). Some considerations of population dynamics and economics in relation to the management of marine fisheries. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 14: 669–681. Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S.R., Dakos, V., and van Nes, E.H. (2015). Generic indicators of ecological resilience: inferring the chance of a critical transition. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 46: 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­ecolsys-­112414-­054242.

615

616

References

Schijns, R., Froese, R., Hutchings, J.A., and Pauly, D. (2021). Five centuries of cod catches in Eastern Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science 78 (8): 2675–2683. https://doi.org/10.1093/ icesjms/fsab153. Schmidt, J.O., Bograd, S.J., Arrizabalaga, H. et al. (2019). Future ocean observations to connect climate, fisheries and marine ecosystems. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: https://doi. org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00550. Schoen, E.R., Wipfli, M.S., Trammell, E.J. et al. (2017). Future of Pacific Salmon in the face of environmental change: lessons from one of the world’s remaining productive Salmon regions. Fisheries 42 (10): 538–553. Schreiber, M.A. (2012). The evolution of legal instruments and the sustainability of the Peruvian anchovy fishery. Marine Policy 36 (1): 78–89. Schuhmann, P.W., Seijo, J.C., and Casey, J. (2011). Economic considerations for marine EBM in the Caribbean. In: Towards Marine Ecosystem-­Based Management in the Wider Caribbean (ed. L. Fanning, R. Mahon, and P. McConney), 111–121. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Schumann, S. and Macinko, S. (2007). Subsistence in coastal fisheries policy: what’s in a word? Marine Policy 31: 706–718. Schupp, M.F., Bocci, M., Depellegrin, D. et al. (2019). Toward a common understanding of ocean multi-­use. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 165. Schupp, M.F., Kafas, A., Buck, B.H. et al. (2021). Fishing within offshore wind farms in the North Sea: stakeholder perspectives for multi-­use from Scotland and Germany. Journal of Environmental Management 279: 111762. Schwaab, E., Cadrin, S., Henderschedt, J. et al. (2015). Addressing Uncertainty in Fisheries Science and Management. Baltimore: National Aquarium. Schweigert, J.F., Boldt, J.L., Flostrand, L., and Cleary, J.S. (2010). A review of factors limiting recovery of Pacific herring stocks in Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67 (9): 1903–1913. Scott, A.D. (1955). The fishery: the objectives of sole ownership. Journal of Political Economy 63: 116–124. Scott, A.D. (1988). Development of property in the fishery. Marine Resource Economics 5: 289–311. Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2010). A Community-­Based Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management: Guidelines for Pacific Island Countries. Noumea Cedex: Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Seijo, J.C. and Sutinen, J.G. (ed.) (2018). Advances in Fisheries Bioeconomics: Theory and Policy. Routledge. Seijo, J.C., Villanueva-­Poot, R., and Charles, A. (2016). Bioeconomics of ocean acidification effects on fisheries targeting calcifier species: a decision theory approach. Fisheries Research 176: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.11.029. Seixas, C.S. and Berkes, F. (2009). Community-­based enterprises: the significance of partnerships and institutional linkages. International Journal of the Commons 4 (1): 183–212. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.133. Selden, R.L., Warner, R.R., and Gaines, S.D. (2018). Ontogenetic shifts in predator diet drive tradeoffs between fisheries yield and strength of predator-­prey interactions. Fisheries Research 205: 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2018.03.021.

References

Selig, E.R., Kleisner, K.M., Ahoobim, O. et al. (2017). A typology of fisheries management tools: using experience to catalyse greater success. Fish and Fisheries 18 (3): 543–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12192. Sen, S. and Nielsen, J. (1996). Fisheries co-­management: a comparative analysis. Marine Policy 20 (5): 405–418. Sethi, S.A. (2010). Risk management for fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 11 (4): 341–365. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­2979.2010.00363.x. Sethi, G., Costello, C., Fisher, A. et al. (2005). Fishery management under multiple uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50 (2): 300–318. Sharma, R., Levontin, P., Kitakado, T. et al. (2020). Operating model design in tuna Regional Fishery Management Organizations: current practice, issues and implications. Fish and Fisheries 21 (5): 940–961. Shelley, P. and van Rijn, T. (2014). The role of courts in fisheries management and marine biodiversity protection. In: Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution (ed. S. Garcia, J. Rice, and A. Charles), 398–409. Chichester/ Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 552 p. Shelton, P.A. (2007). The weakening role of science in the management of groundfish off the east coast of Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64 (4): 723–729. Shelton, C. (2014). Climate Change Adaptation in Fisheries and Aquaculture – Compilation of Initial Examples. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular, 1088. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Sherman, K. (2014). Adaptive management institutions at the regional level: the case of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean & Coastal Management 90: 38–49. Sherman, K. and Hempel, G., (eds.) (2008). The UNEP large marine ecosystem report: a perspective on changing conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas. UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies No. 182. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. Silver, J., Gray, N., Campbell, L. et al. (2015). Blue economy and competing discourses in international oceans governance. The Journal of Environment & Development 24 (2): 135–160. Sinan, H. and Whitmarsh, D. (2010). Wealth-­based fisheries management and resource rent capture: an application to the Maldives marine fisheries. Marine Policy 34 (3): 389–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.09.001. Singleton, R.L. (2018). Freedom from the fortress: the role of human rights in marine conservation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of British Columbia. http:// open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0369734 (accessed 27 December 2022). Skern-­Mauritzen, M., Ottersen, G., Handegard, N.O. et al. (2016). Ecosystem processes are rarely included in tactical fisheries management. Fish and Fisheries 17 (1): 165–175. Smallhorn-­West, P.F., Bridge, T.C., Malimali, S.A. et al. (2019). Predicting impact to assess the efficacy of community-­based marine reserve design. Conservation Letters 12 (1): e12602. Smith, A.D.M., Fulton, E.J., Hobday, A.J. et al. (2007). Scientific tools to support the practical implementation of ecosystem-­based fisheries management. Journal of Marine Science 64: 633–639. Smith, H. and Basurto, X. (2019). Defining small-­scale fisheries and examining the role of science in shaping perceptions of who and what counts: a systematic review. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 236. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00236.

617

618

References

Smith, I.R. (1979). A Research Framework for Traditional Fisheries. ICLARM Studies & Reviews #2. Manila: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management. Smith, I.R. (1981). Improving fishing incomes when resources are overfished. Marine Policy 5: 17–22. Smith, S.L., Battista, W., Sarto, N. et al. (2019). A framework for allocating fishing rights in small-­scale fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management 177: 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2019.04.020. Smith, T.D. (1994). Scaling Fisheries: The Science of Measuring the Effects of Fishing, 1855–1955. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, V.L. (1968). Economics of production from natural resources. American Economic Review 58: 409–431. Sobel, J. (1993). Conserving biological diversity through marine protected areas. Oceanus 36: 19–26. Soejima, K. and Frangoudes, K. (2019). Fisheries women groups in Japan: a shift from well-­being to entrepreneurship. Maritime Studies 18 (3): 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40152-­019-­00160-­3. Sogn-­Grundvåg, G., Asche, F., Zhang, D., and Young, J.A. (2019). Eco-­labels and product longevity: the case of whitefish in UK grocery retailing. Food Policy 88: 101750. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101750. Sogn-­Grundvåg, G., Zhang, D., and Dreyer, B. (2020). Fishing methods for Atlantic cod and haddock: quality and price versus costs. Fisheries Research 230: 105672. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105672. Solórzano-­Chavez, E., Solís-­Rivera, V., and Ayales-­Cruz, I. (2017). Decent Rural Employment in Small-­Scale and Semi-­Industrial Fishing Sectors in Costa Rica. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations http://www.fao.org/3/b-­i6519e.pdf (accessed 27 December 2022). Soltanpour, Y., Monaco, C., and Peri, I. (2017). Defining small-­scale fisheries from a social perspective. Calitatea 18 (S2): 425–430. Sowman, M. (2006). Subsistence and small-­scale fisheries in South Africa: a ten-­year review. Marine Policy 30: 60–73. Sowman, M. and Sunde, J. (2018). Social impacts of marine protected areas in South Africa on coastal fishing communities. Ocean & Coastal Management 157: 168–179. Sowman, M., Sunde, J., Raemaekers, S., and Schultz, O. (2014). Fishing for equality: policy for poverty alleviation for South Africa’s small-­scale fisheries. Marine Policy 46: 31–42. Spangenberg, J.H. (2011). Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environmental Conservation 38 (3): 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000270. Spijkers, J. and Boonstra, W.J. (2017). Environmental change and social conflict: the northeast Atlantic mackerel dispute. Regional Environmental Change 17 (6): 1835–1851. Spijkers, J., Morrison, T.H., Blasiak, R. et al. (2018). Marine fisheries and future ocean conflict. Fish and Fisheries 19 (5): 798–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12291. Spijkers, J., Singh, G., Blasiak, R. et al. (2019). Global patterns of fisheries conflict: forty years of data. Global Environmental Change 57: 101921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2019.05.005. Squires, D. and Kirkley, J. (1996). Individual transferable quotas in a multiproduct common property industry. Canadian Journal of Economics 29: 318–342.

References

Squires, D. and Vestergaard, N. (2013). Technical change in fisheries. Marine Policy 42: 286–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.03.019. Standal, D. and Hersoug, B. (2014). Back to square one? Fisheries allocation under pressure. Marine Policy 43: 236–245. Stanford, R.J., Wiryawan, B., Bengen, D.G. et al. (2017). The fisheries livelihoods resilience check (FLIRES check): a tool for evaluating resilience in fisher communities. Fish and Fisheries 18 (6): 1011–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12220. Staples, D. and Funge-­Smith, S. (2009). Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries and Aquaculture: Implementing the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, RAP Publication 2009/11. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 48 pp. Stave, K. and Kopainsky, B. (2017). System dynamics as a framework for understanding human-­environment dynamics. In: Social and Ecological System Dynamics (ed. K. Stave, G. Goshu, and S. Aynalem), 25–36. Cham: Springer. Steenberg, J.W., Duinker, P.N., Van Damme, L., and Zielke, K. (2013). Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management in a changing climate: an evaluation of Canada’s national framework. Journal of Sustainable Development 6 (1): 32. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd. v6n1p32. Steneck, R.S. and Wahle, R.A. (2013). American lobsters in a brave new ocean. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 70: 1612–1624. Steneck, R., Parma, A.M., Ernst, B., and Wilson, J.A. (2017). Two lobster tales: lessons from the convergent evolution of TURFs in Maine (USA) and the Juan Fernández Islands (Chile). Bulletin of Marine Science 93 (1): 13–33. https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2016.1006. Stenseth, N.C., Mysterud, A., Ottersen, G. et al. (2002). Ecological effects of climate fluctuations. Science 297: 1292–1296. Stephens, T. (2008). Fisheries-­Led development in the South Pacific: charting a “Pacific way” to a sustainable future. Ocean Development & International Law 39 (3): 257–286. Stephenson, R.L., Benson, A.J., Brooks, K. et al. (2017). Practical steps toward integrating economic, social and institutional elements in fisheries policy and management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74 (7): 1981–1989. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx057. Stephenson, R.L., Paul, S., Wiber, M. et al. (2018). Evaluating and implementing social-­ ecological systems: a comprehensive approach to sustainable fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 19: https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12296. Stephenson, R.L., Wiber, M., Paul, S. et al. (2019). Integrating diverse objectives for sustainable fisheries in Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 76: 480–496. https:// doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-­2017-­0345. Sterling, E.J., Filardi, C., Toomey, A. et al. (2017). Biocultural approaches to well-­being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1 (12): 1798–1806. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41559-­017-­0349-­6. Stevenson, J., Crimmins, M., Whitehead, J. et al. (2016). Connecting climate information with practical uses: extension and the NOAA RISA program. In: Climate in Context: Science and Society Partnering for Adaptation, Chapter 4 (ed. A.S. Parris, G.M. Garfin, K. Dow, et al.), 75–97. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Stewart, K.R., Lewison, R.L., Dunn, D.C. et al. (2010). Characterizing fishing effort and spatial extent of coastal fisheries. PLoS One 5 (12): e14451. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0014451.

619

620

References

Stocks, A., Foster, S., Bat, N., and Vincent, A. (2017). Catch as catch can: targeted and indiscriminate small-­scale fishing of seahorses in Vietnam. Fisheries Research 196: 27–33. Stöhr, C., Lundholm, C., Crona, B., and Chabay, I. (2014). Stakeholder participation and sustainable fisheries: an integrative framework for assessing adaptive comanagement processes. Ecology and Society 19 (3): https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­06638-­190314. Suarez de Vivero, J.L., Mateos, R., and del Corral, D.F. (2008). The paradox of public participation in fisheries governance. The rising number of actors and the devolution process. Marine Policy 32: 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2007.06.005. Sumaila, U.R. (2010). A cautionary note on individual transferable quotas. Ecology and Society 15 (3): http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art36/ (accessed 27 December 2022). Sumaila, U.R., Khan, A.S., Dyck, A.J. et al. (2010). A bottom-­up re-­estimation of global fisheries subsidies. Journal of Bioeconomics 12 (3): 201–225. Sumaila, U.R., Cheung, W.W.L., Lam, V.W.Y. et al. (2011). Climate change impacts on the biophysical and economics of world fisheries. Nature Climate Change 1: 449–456. Sumaila, U.R., Lam, V., LeManach, F. et al. (2016). Global fisheries subsidies: an updated estimate. Marine Policy 69: 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.026. Sumby, J., Haward, M., Fulton, E.A., and Pecl, G.T. (2021). Hot fish: the response to climate change by regional fisheries bodies. Marine Policy 123: 104284. Sundar, A. (2018). Skills for work and the work of skills: community, labour and technological change in India’s artisanal fisheries. Journal of South Asian Development 13 (3): 272–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973174118804449. Sunde, J. and Erwin, K. (2020). Cast out: the systematic exclusion of the KwaZulu Natal Subsistence Fishers from the fishing rights regime in South Africa. Policy Research Report. KZN Subsistence Fisher’s Forum and South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA). https://static.pmg.org.za/201027Cast_Out-­_Policy_Document-­2020.pdf (accessed 27 December 2022). Sunoko, R. and Huang, H. (2014). Indonesia tuna fisheries development and future strategy. Marine Policy 43: 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.05.011. Sustainable Blue Economy Conference (2018a). Report on the Global Sustainable Blue Economy Conference. 26th–28th November 2018. Nairobi. http://www. blueeconomyconference.go.ke/wp-­content/uploads/2018/12/SBEC-­FINAL-­REPORT-­8-­ DECEMBER-­2018-­rev-­2-­1-­2-­PDF2-­3-­compressed.pdf (accessed 27 December 2022). Sustainable Blue Economy Conference (2018b). Theme: People, culture, communities and societies – the inclusive blue economy. Sustainable Blue Economy Conference (26–28 November 2018). Nairobi. http://www.blueeconomyconference.go.ke/wp-­content/ uploads/2018/09/Themes-­9-­compressed.pdf (accessed 27 December 2022). Sutinen, J.G. and Andersen, P. (1985). The economics of fisheries law enforcement. Land Economics 61: 387–397. Suuronen, P. and Sarda, F. (2007). The role of technical measures in European fisheries management and how to make them work better. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64 (4): 751–756. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsm049. Swain, D.P. (2011). Life-­history evolution and elevated natural mortality in a population of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Evolutionary Applications 4: 18–29. Symes, D. (1997). The European Community’s common fisheries policy. Ocean and Coastal Management 35: 137–155.

References

Symes, D. and Hoefnagel, E. (2010). Fisheries policy, research and the social sciences in Europe: challenges for the 21st century. Marine Policy 34 (2): 268–275. Szymkowiak, M. and Himes-­Cornell, A. (2018). Fisheries allocations for socioeconomic development: lessons learned from the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) program. Ocean & Coastal Management 155: 40–49. Taggart, C.T., Anderson, J., Bishop, C. et al. (1994). Overview of cod stocks, biology, and environment in the Northwest Atlantic region of Newfoundland, with emphasis on northern cod. ICES Marine Science Symposium 198: 140–157. Takashina, N. and Baskett, M.L. (2016). Exploring the effect of the spatial scale of fishery management. Journal of Theoretical Biology 390: 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jtbi.2015.11.005. Taljaard, S., Slinger, J.H., and Van Der Merwe, J.H. (2011). Criteria for evaluating the design of implementation models for integrated coastal management. Coastal Management 39 (6): 628–655. van Tatenhove, J.P.M. (2017). Transboundary marine spatial planning: a reflexive marine governance experiment? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 19 (6): 783–794. Taylor, S.F., Roberts, M.J., Milligan, B., and Ncwadi, R. (2019). Measurement and implications of marine food security in the Western Indian Ocean: an impending crisis? Food Security 11 (6): 1395–1415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-­019-­00971-­6. Techera, E.J. (2014). Approaches to conservation and governance of marine species. In: Sharks: Conservation, Governance and Management (ed. E.J. Techera and N. Klein), 9–26. London: Routledge. Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P. et al. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond – lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26, 27 (C): 17–25. Thiault, L., Collin, A., Chlous, F. et al. (2017). Combining participatory and socioeconomic approaches to map fishing effort in small-­scale fisheries. PLoS One 12 (5): e0176862. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176862. Thomas, P., Reeves, R., and Brownell, R. (2016). Status of the world’s baleen whales. Marine Mammal Science 32 (2): 682–734. Thompson, A., Sanders, J., Tandstad, M. et al. (2016). Vulnerable marine ecosystems: processes and practices in the high seas. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. Rome Iss, 595. Thorp, J.H. and Rogers, C. (ed.) (2011). Introduction to freshwater invertebrates in the Phylum Arthropoda. In: Field Guide to Freshwater Invertebrates of North America. Academic Press. Thorpe, R. (2019). What is multispecies MSY? A worked example from the North Sea. Journal of Fish Biology 94 (6): 1011–1018. Thorpe, R., Le Quesne, W., Luxford, F. et al. (2015). Evaluation and management implications of uncertainty in a multispecies size-­structured model of population and community responses to fishing. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 6 (1): 49–58. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/2041-­210X.12292. Thorpe, R.B., Jennings, S., and Dolder, P.J. (2017). Risks and benefits of catching pretty good yield in multispecies mixed fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74 (8): 2097–2106. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx062. Thorson, J.T., Cope, J.M., Branch, T.A., and Jensen, O.P. (2012). Spawning biomass reference points for exploited marine fishes, incorporating taxonomic and body size information.

621

622

References

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 69 (9): 1556–1568. https://doi.org/ 10.1139/f2012-­077. Thurlow, G. and Jones, P.J.S. (2021). A governance analysis of Soufriere Marine Management Area, Saint Lucia: previously effective but increasingly challenged by driving forces. Marine Policy 127: 104220. Thurstan, R.H. and Roberts, C.M. (2010). Ecological meltdown in the Firth of Clyde, Scotland: two centuries of change in a coastal marine ecosystem. PLoS One 5 (7): e11767. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011767. Tilley, A., Hunnam, K.J., Mills, D.J. et al. (2019). Evaluating the fit of co-­management for small-­scale fisheries governance in Timor-­Leste. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 392. Tipton, E. (2013). Municipal Climate Change Action Plan. Shelburne, Canada: Municipality of the District of Shelburne. Tokunaga, K., Ishimura, G., Iwata, S. et al. (2019). Alternative outcomes under different fisheries management policies: a bioeconomic analysis of Japanese fisheries. Marine Policy 108: 103646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103646. Torres-­Irineo, E., Gaertner, D., Chassot, E., and Dreyfus-­León, M. (2014). Changes in fishing power and fishing strategies driven by new technologies: the case of tropical tuna purse seiners in the eastern Atlantic Ocean. Fisheries Research 155: 10–19. Townsend, R. and Shotton, R. (2008). Fisheries Self-­governance: New Directions in Fisheries Management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 504, 1. FAO http://www.fao.org/tempref/ docrep/fao/010/a1497e/a1497e02.pdf (accessed 27 December 2022). Tran, N., Chu, L., Chan, C.Y. et al. (2019). Fish supply and demand for food security in Sub-­Saharan Africa: an analysis of the Zambian fish sector. Marine Policy 99: 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.009. Trimble, M. and Berkes, F. (2013). Participatory research towards co-­management: lessons from artisanal fisheries in coastal Uruguay. Journal of Environmental Management 128: 768–778. Trimble, M. and Berkes, F. (2015). Towards adaptive co-­management of small-­scale fisheries in Uruguay and Brazil: lessons from using Ostrom’s design principles. Maritime Studies 14: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40152-­015-­0032-­y. Troadec, J.-­P. (1982). Introduction to Fisheries Management: Advantages, Difficulties and Mechanisms. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 224. Rome: FAO, 57 p. Trochta, J.T., Pons, M., Rudd, M.B. et al. (2018). Ecosystem-­based fisheries management: perception on definitions, implementations, and aspirations. PLoS One 13 (1): e0190467. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190467. Trudelle, L., Cerchio, S., Zerbini, A.N. et al. (2016). Influence of environmental parameters on movements and habitat utilization of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Madagascar breeding ground. Royal Society Open Science 3 (12): 160616. https://doi. org/10.1098/rsos.160616. Tsikliras, A.C. and Froese, R. (2019). Maximum sustainable yield. Encyclopedia of Ecology 1: 108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­409548-­9.10601-­3. Tsujimoto, M., Kajikawa, Y., Tomita, J., and Matsumoto, Y. (2018). A review of the ecosystem concept – towards coherent ecosystem design. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 136: 49–58.

References

Tuler, S., Agyeman, J., Agyeman, J. et al. (2008). Assessing vulnerabilities: integrating information about driving forces that affect risks and resilience in fishing communities. Human Ecology Review 15 (2): 171–184. Tunca, S., Ünal, V., Miran, B. et al. (2016). Biosocioeconomic analysis of marine recreational fisheries: a comparative case study from the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey. Fisheries Research 174: 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.10.025. Turcu, C. (2013). Re-­thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56 (5): 695–719. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.698984. Turley, C. (2010). Impacts of a high CO2 world on marine ecosystems. In: Climate Change and Policy (ed. S.H. Schneider, A. Rosencranz, M. Mastrandrea, and K. Kuntz-­Duriseti), 66–73. Island Press. Turner, C. (2018). Climate Change and Biodiversity. London: ED-­Tech Press. ISBN 1839472480, 9781839472480. 364 pp. Twichell, J., Pollnac, R., and Christie, P. (2018). Lessons from Philippines MPA Management: social ecological interactions, participation, and MPA performance. Environmental Management 61 (6): 916–927. Ulrich, C., Vermard, Y., Dolder, P.J. et al. (2017). Achieving maximum sustainable yield in mixed fisheries: a management approach for the North Sea demersal fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74 (2): 566–575. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw126. U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) (2012). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July 2012. The Future We Want. UN Resolution 66/288, United Nations, NY. Unama’ki Institute of Natural Resources (2020). Netukulimk. https://www.uinr.ca/programs/ netukulimk/ (accessed 27 December 2022). UNEP/MAP/PAP (2008). Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean. Priority Actions Programme, 2008. United Nations Environment Programme Mediterranean Action Plan. UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme (2006). Ecosystems and biodiversity in deep waters and high seas. (Prepared by K.M. Gjerde) UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 178. UNEP/ IUCN, Switzerland. UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme (2009). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992 reaffirming the Declaration of the UN Conference on the Human Environment, adopted at Stockholm, 1972. www.unep.org (accessed 27 December 2022). UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme (2011). Taking Steps toward Marine and Coastal Ecosystem-­Based Management – An Introductory Guide. T. Agardy, J. Davis, K. Sherwood, & O. Vestergaard. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 189, 67 p. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/ taking-­steps-­toward-­marine-­and-­coastal-­ecosystem-­based-­management-­introductory United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 217 [III] of 10 December 1948. United Nations, New York. United Nations (1992). Results of the World Conference on Environment and Development: Agenda 21: Programme of action for sustainable development; Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. UNCED -­United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (3–14 June 1992). United Nations Department of Public Information.

623

624

References

United Nations (UN) (1995). United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Documents of the Conference. https://www.un.org/depts/los/ fish_stocks_conference/fish_stocks_conference.htm (accessed 27 December 2022). United Nations (2012). Paragraph 158. Future We Want. A/RES/66/288 -­Rio+20 Outcome Document. United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20/futurewewant (accessed 27 December 2022). United Nations (2015). Sustainable Development Goals. http://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/oceans/ (accessed 27 December 2022). United Nations (2016). Guide on Measuring Human Capital. Geneva. https://unstats.un.org/ unsd/nationalaccount/consultationDocs/HumanCapitalGuide.web.pdf (accessed 27 December 2022). United Nations (2020). About the Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-­development-­goals/ (accessed 27 December 2022). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2019). Sustainable Development. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-­sustainable-­ development/what-­is-­esd/sd (accessed 27 December 2022). Upadhyay, R.K. and Tiwari, S.K. (2017). Ecological chaos and the choice of optimal harvesting policy. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 448 (2): 1533–1559. Uu-­a-­thluk (2016). Nuu-­chah-­nulth Principles Alive Today with Rights-­Based T’aaq-­wiihak Fishery. Port Alberni: Nuu-­chah-­nulth Tribal Council http://uuathluk.ca/wordpress/ wp-­content/uploads/2016/11/Principles.pdf (accessed 27 December 2022). do Val, J.B.R., Guillotreau, P., and Vallée, T. (2019). Fishery management under poorly known dynamics. European Journal of Operational Research 279 (1): 242–257. Van Beveren, E., Duplisea, D.E., Marentette, J.R. et al. (2020). An example of how catch uncertainty hinders effective stock management and rebuilding. Fisheries Research 224: 105473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2019.105473. Van Dijk, D., Hendrix, E.M., Haijema, R. et al. (2014). On solving a bi-­level stochastic dynamic programming model for analyzing fisheries policies: fishermen behavior and optimal fish quota. Ecological Modelling 272: 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.09.015. Van Gennip, S.J., Popova, E.E., Yool, A. et al. (2017). Going with the flow: the role of ocean circulation in global marine ecosystems under a changing climate. Global Change Biology 23 (7): 2602–2617. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13586. Van Putten, I.E., Kulmala, S., Thébaud, O. et al. (2012). Theories and behavioural drivers underlying fleet dynamics models. Fish and Fisheries 13 (2): 216–235. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-­2979.2011.00430.x. Vance, A. and Rangeley, R. (2019). Non-­governmental organization roles in shaping future ocean governance and management. In: The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development, 53–58. Brill Nijhoff https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004380271_011. Varela, R., Lima, F.P., Seabra, R. et al. (2018). Coastal warming and wind-­driven upwelling: a global analysis. Science of the Total Environment 639: 1501–1511. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2018.05.273. Vatn, A. (2018). Environmental governance–from public to private? Ecological Economics 148: 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.01.010. Veiga, P., Pita, C., Leite, L. et al. (2013). From a traditionally open access fishery to modern restrictions: Portuguese anglers’ perceptions about newly implemented recreational fishing regulations. Marine Policy 40: 53–63.

References

Veitayaki, J. (2000). Fisheries resources-­use cultures in Fiji and its implications. In: Culture and Sustainable Development in the Pacific (ed. A. Hooper), 116–130. Canberra: Asia Pacific Press, 227 pp. Verheyen, R. (2002). Adaptation to the impact of anthropogenic climate change – the international legal framework. RECIEL 11 (2): 129–143. Vernet, M., Geibert, W., Hoppema, M. et al. (2019). The Weddell Gyre, Southern Ocean: present knowledge and future challenges. Reviews of Geophysics 57: 623–708. Viana, D.F., Gelcich, S., Aceves-­Bueno, E. et al. (2019). Design trade-­offs in rights-­based management of small-­scale fisheries. Conservation Biology 33 (2): 361–368. https://doi. org/10.1111/cobi.13208. Vieira, R.P., Trueman, C.N., Readdy, L. et al. (2019). Deep-­water fisheries along the British Isles continental slopes: status, ecosystem effects and future perspectives. Journal of Fish Biology 94 (6): 981–992. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13927. Viet Thang, H. (2018). Rethinking Fisheries Governance: The Role of States and Meta-­ Governance. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­61055-­9. Villanueva, R., Lara, O.H., Seijo, J.C. et al. (2019). Distributional performance of two different rights-­based managed small-­scale lobster fisheries: individual and collective territorial use rights regimes. Ocean & Coastal Management 178: 104804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2019.05.006. Vincent, A., Foster, S., and Koldewey, H. (2011). Conservation and management of seahorses and other Syngnathidae. Journal of Fish Biology 78 (6): 1681–1724. Vivekanandan, E. (2017). Concept and objectives of stock assessment. In: Course Manual Summer School on Advanced Methods for Fish Stock Assessment and Fisheries Management, Lecture Note Series No. 2/2017, 113–122. Kochi: CMFRI http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/12171/. Vogt, N., Pinedo-­Vasquez, M., Brondízio, E. et al. (2016). Local ecological knowledge and incremental adaptation to changing flood patterns in the Amazon delta. Sustainability Science 11 (4): 611–623. Von Benda-­Beckmann, F. (1995). Anthropological approaches to property law and economics. European Journal of Law and Economics 2: 309–336. Voora, V.A. and Venema, H.D. (2008). The natural capital approach. A Concept Paper, Funded by and Prepared for Environment Canada – Policy Development Division, Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Canada, pp. 1–85. https://www. iisd.org/pdf/2008/natural_capital_approach.pdf (accessed 27 December 2022). de Vos, B., Döring, R., Aranda, M. et al. (2016). New modes of fisheries governance: implementation of the landing obligation in four European countries. Marine Policy 64: 1–8. Voyer, M. and van Leeuwen, J. (2019). ‘Social license to operate’ in the Blue Economy. Resources Policy 62: 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.02.020. Voyer, M., Barclay, K., McIlgorm, A., and Mazur, N. (2017). Connections or conflict? A social and economic analysis of the interconnections between the professional fishing industry, recreational fishing and marine tourism in coastal communities in NSW, Australia. Marine Policy 76: 114–121. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W.E. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. British Columbia: Gabriola Press New Society Publishing. Wade, E., Spalding, A.K., and Biedenweg, K. (2019). Integrating property rights into fisheries management: the case of Belize’s journey to managed access. Marine Policy 108: 103631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103631.

625

626

References

Wahyudin, Y., Welly, M., Dos Santos, C., and Pahlevi, M.R. (2019). The Socio-­Economic Survey on Atauro Island and Liquica Village, Timor Leste, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 241. IOP Publishing https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/1755-­1315/241/1/012004/pdf. Walters, C.J. (1986). Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. Walters, C.J. (1998). Designing fisheries management systems that do not depend upon accurate stock assessment. In: Re-­inventing Fisheries Management (ed. T.J. Pitcher, P.J.B. Hart, and D. Pauly), 279–288. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Walters, C. and Pearse, P.H. (1996). Stock information requirements for quota management systems in commercial fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 6: 21–42. Walters, C., Christensen, V., Fulton, B. et al. (2016). Predictions from simple predator-­prey theory about impacts of harvesting forage fishes. Ecological Modelling 337: 272–280. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.07.014. Walters, C., English, K., Korman, J., and Hilborn, R. (2019). The managed decline of British Columbia’s commercial salmon fishery. Marine Policy 101: 25–32. Wang, Y., Pan, H., Li, S., and Failler, P. (2015). An integrated socio-­economic and ecological framework for evaluating the societal costs and benefits of fishing activities in the Pearl River Delta. Open Journal of Marine Science 5 (4): 477–497. https://doi.org/10.4236/ ojms.2015.54038. Wang, Y., Hu, J., Pan, H., and Failler, P. (2020). Ecosystem-­based fisheries management in the Pearl River Delta: applying a computable general equilibrium model. Marine Policy 112: 103784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103784. Ward, T.D., Algera, D.A., Gallagher, A.J. et al. (2016). Understanding the individual to implement the ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Conservation Physiology 4 (1): https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/cow005. Waring, T. and Acheson, J. (2018). Evidence of cultural group selection in territorial lobstering in Maine. Sustainability Science 13 (1): 21–34. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s11625-­017-­0501-­x. Warming, J. (1911). Om grundrente af fiskegrunde (On rent of fishing grounds). National okonomisk Tidsskrift 49: 499–505. Warner, R., Gjerde, K.M., and Freestone, D. (2014). Regional governance for fisheries and biodiversity. In: Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution (ed. S. Garcia, J. Rice, and A. Charles), 211–224. Chichester/Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 552 p. Watters, G.M., Hinke, J.T., and Reiss, C.S. (2020). Long-­term observations from Antarctica demonstrate that mismatched scales of fisheries management and predator-­prey interaction lead to erroneous conclusions about precaution. Scientific Reports 10 (1): 1–9. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-­020-­59223-­9. Weber, C.T., Borit, M., and Aschan, M. (2019). An interdisciplinary insight into the human dimension in fisheries models. a systematic literature review in a European Union context. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 369. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00369. Weeratunge, N., Béné, C., Siriwardane, R. et al. (2014). Small-­scale fisheries through the wellbeing lens. Fish and Fisheries 15 (2): 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12016. Weigel, J.-­Y., Mannle, K.O., Bennett, N.J. et al. (2014). Marine protected areas and fisheries: bridging the divide. Aquatic Conservation 24 (S2): 199–215.

References

Welch-­Devine, M. (2012). Searching for success: defining success in co-­management. Human Organization 71: 358–370. Wells, S., Ray, G.C., Gjerde, K.M. et al. (2016). Building the future of MPAs–lessons from history. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 26: 101–125. Westlund, L. (2004). Guide for Identifying, Assessing and Reporting on Subsidies in the Fisheries Sector. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 438. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 71 p. https://www.fao.org/3/y5424e/y5424e00.htm (accessed 27 December 2022). Westlund, L., Charles, A., Garcia, S. M., and Sanders, J. (2017). Marine protected areas: Interactions with fishery livelihoods and food security. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 603. https://www.fao.org/3/i6742e/i6742e.pdf (accessed 27 December 2022). White, C. and Costello, C. (2014). Close the high seas to fishing? PLoS Biology 12 (3): e1001826. White, A.T., Aliño, P.M., Cros, A. et al. (2014). Marine protected areas in the coral triangle: progress, issues, and options. Coastal Management 42 (2): 87–106. https://doi.org/10.108 0/08920753.2014.878177. Whitehouse, L.M. and Fowler, M.S. (2018). Meta-­analysis reveals that fisheries co-­management alters socio-­economic outcomes and resource well-­being. Marine Ecology Progress Series 600: 127–140. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12681. Wiber, M., Berkes, F., Charles, A., and Kearney, J. (2004). Participatory research supporting community-­based fishery management. Marine Policy 28: 459–468. Wiber, M., Charles, A., Kearney, J., and Berkes, F. (2009). Enhancing community empowerment through participatory fisheries research. Marine Policy 33 (1): 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.05.009. Wiedenmann, J. and Jensen, O.P. (2018). Uncertainty in stock assessment estimates for New England groundfish and its impact on achieving target harvest rates. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 75 (3): 342–356. Wiedmann, T. and Barrett, J. (2010). A review of the ecological footprint indicator – perceptions and methods. Sustainability 2 (6): 1645–1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su2061645. Wiens, J.J. (2016). Climate-­related local extinctions are already widespread among plant and animal species. PLoS Biology 14 (12): E2001104. Wilhelm, T.’.A., Sheppard, C.R.C., Sheppard, A.L.S. et al. (2014). Large marine protected areas – advantages and challenges of going big. Aquatic Conservation 24 (S2): 24–30. Williams, B.K. (2011). Adaptive management of natural resources – framework and issues. Journal of Environmental Management 92 (5): 1346–1353. Willis, C. and Bailey, M. (2020). Tuna trade-­offs: balancing profit and social benefits in one of the world’s largest fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 21: https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12458. Wilson, J.A. (2006). Matching social and ecological systems in complex ocean fisheries. Ecology and Society 11 (1): 9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­01628-­110109. Wilson, D.C., Nielsen, J.R., and Degnbol, P. (2003). The Fisheries Co-­management Experience: Accomplishments, Challenges, and Prospects. Kluwer Academic. Wilson, L.J., Fulton, C.J., Hogg, A.M. et al. (2016). Climate-­driven changes to ocean circulation and their inferred impacts on marine dispersal patterns. Global Ecology and Biogeography 25 (8): 923–939. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12456. Winder, G.M. (2018). Context and challenges: the limited “Success” of the Aotearoa/New Zealand fisheries experiment, 1986–2016. In: Fisheries, Quota Management and Quota

627

628

References

Transfer (ed. G.M. Winder), 77–98. Springer International Publishing https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-­3-­319-­59169-­8_4. Winther, J., Dai, M., Rist, T. et al. (2020). Integrated ocean management for a sustainable ocean economy. Nature Ecology & Evolution 4 (11): 1451–1458. Wo, J., Zhang, C., Pan, X. et al. (2020). Modeling the dynamics of multispecies fisheries: a case study in the coastal water of North Yellow Sea, China. Frontiers in Marine Science 7: 946. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.524463. Wolanski, E. and McLusky, D.S. (ed.) (2011). Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Wong, H.S. and Yong, C.C. (2020). Fisheries regulation: a review of the literature on input controls, the ecosystem, and enforcement in the straits of Malacca of Malaysia. Fisheries Research 230: 105682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105682. Woodhouse, P., Howlett, D., & Rigby, D. (2000). Sustainability Indicators for Natural Resource Management & Policy. Working Paper 2. A Framework for Research on Sustainability Indicators for Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods. Department for International Development Research Project No. R7076CA. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d70 ed915d622c0019c3/2WoodhouseHowlettRigby.pdf (accessed 28 December 2022). World Bank (2006). Scaling Up Marine Management: the Role of Marine Protected Areas. World Bank Report No. 36635-­GLB. Washington, DC, 100 pp. World Bank (2017). Blue economy. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2017/ 06/06/blue-­economy (accessed 26 December 2022). World Bank and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2017). The Potential of the Blue Economy: Increasing Long-­term Benefits of the Sustainable Use of Marine Resources for Small Island Developing States and Coastal Least Developed Countries. World Bank, Washington, DC. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. WSSD: World Summit of Sustainable Development (2002). Plan of implementation of the world summit of sustainable development. https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/ WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf (accessed 26 December 2022). Würsig, B., Thewissen, J.G.M., and Kovacs, K.M. (ed.) (2017). Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­804327-­1.00034-­0. Xue, X., Hong, H., and Charles, A. (2004). Linking integrated coastal management and cumulative impact assessment: a case study of Xiamen, China. Journal of Environmental Management 71: 271–283. Yagi, N., Clark, M.L., Anderson, L.G. et al. (2012). Applicability of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) in Japanese fisheries: a comparison of rights-­based fisheries management in Iceland, Japan, and United States. Marine Policy 36 (1): 241–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2011.05.011. Ying, R., Cao, Y., Yin, F. et al. (2020). Trophic structure and functional diversity reveal pelagic-­benthic coupling dynamic in the coastal ecosystem of Daya Bay, China. Ecological Indicators 113: 106241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106241. Yoshino, K. (2017). TURFs in the post-­quake recovery: case studies in Sanriku fishing communities, Japan. Marine Policy 86: 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.029.

References

Young, T.R. (2007). The legal framework for MPAs and successes and failures in their incorporation into national legislation. In: Report and documentation of the Expert Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Management: Review of Issues and Considerations. Rome, 12–14 June 2006. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 825. Rome: FAO. 332 pp. Young, T., Fuller, E.C., Provost, M.M. et al. (2019). Adaptation strategies of coastal fishing communities as species shift poleward. ICES Journal of Marine Science 76 (1): 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsy140. Zhao, Q., Basher, Z., and Costello, M.J. (2020). Mapping near surface global marine ecosystems through cluster analysis of environmental data. Ecological Research 35 (2): 327–342. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1440-­1703.12060. Zhou, S., Kolding, J., Garcia, S. et al. (2019). Balanced harvest: concept, policies, evidence, and management implications. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 29: 711–733. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11160-­019-­09568-­w.

629

630

Index locators followed by ‘f’ and ‘t’ refer figures and tables respectively.

a

above‐normal (excessive) profits  82, 152, 170, 231 access, and power  470 active adaptive management  305 adaptation  487–488, 488f, 490–492 approaches  498–499 climate (See climate adaptation) community‐based  494–496, 495f differential impacts and benefits of  496–498 fishery  498–500 of governance  500 inequity and power imbalances in  498 institutional  498 management and governance  500 pro‐poor climate mitigation and  497 types of  492–494 adaptive management  303–304, 508–509 concepts and methods  305–306 flexibility  304–305 level of  305f moving to robust  307 fallacy of controllability  308–309 illusion of certainty  307–308 lack of robustness  309–313 technological change and  305–306 adaptiveness  252, 275 age‐structured population dynamics model  44, 45 alienation rights  345, 346, 350–351 allowable catches  245, 304. See also total allowable catches (TACs) anchovies  31–32, 47, 95 anti‐conservationist behaviour  340, 344 anti‐conservationist incentives  370

aquaculture  29, 101, 176 development  238–239 fisheries and  185 interactions with  521 management of  134 policies  186 production  238 sectors  101 aquarium, international trade for  444 aquatic ecosystems  27, 50–52, 76, 118, 445–446, 458, 471 impacts on  63 variety of  322 aquatic plants  27, 29, 30 aquatic resources  268 natural scales of  476 aquatic space  228, 238, 327, 387, 416, 456, 474–476 aquatic species  35f, 99, 439 characteristics  37 classification of  29f spatial distribution of  38 aquatic systems  63–64, 261, 335–336 aquatic uses  167, 456, 460, 463, 466, 469–471, 477 Atlantic Canada’s Groundfish Fishery System  253, 516, 522, 522f, 523 ecosystem and biophysical environment  517 fish/fishers  516–518 communities  519 development  523 knowledge  523 internal allocation conflict in  237

Sustainable Fishery Systems, Second Edition. Anthony Charles. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Index management  520–522, 522f policy and planning  519–520 post‐harvest sector  518 socioeconomic environment  519 attitudes: blame for  248–250 burden of proof  250 conservation  252–254 fishing gear  251–252 stock assessment  250–251 certainty and fallacy of controllability  254–255 collapse  242–243, 243f aftermath  243–244, 244f future  246 recovery  245–246 understanding  244–245 role of regulator  247–248 synthesis  256–257 Australia: Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA)  132–133 fisheries resources  37–38

b

balanced harvesting (BH) strategy  165 baleen whales  442–443 Bangkok Statement  355 Barcelona Convention  460–461 Barents Sea  55 ‘Bayesian’ approach  302 Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project  334 Bay of Biscay  164 BBNJ. See Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) behavioural models  526, 528–532 assumptions and parameter values of  532 benefit–cost analysis  292 BH strategy. See balanced harvesting (BH) strategy biodiversity  55–58, 309, 323, 418, 433, 438–439, 450–451, 507 beyond national jurisdiction  450–451 conservation of  57f (See biodiversity conservation) discussions of  437 into fishery management  169 goals  427 governance  417–418

implication of  278–279 mainstreaming  437 natural resource use  454–455 and resource use considerations  452f in South Africa  198–199 sustainability and resilience within fishery system  278, 279f value of  445, 448 Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ)  56–57 biodiversity conservation  57f, 416, 422–423, 438, 439, 446, 448 CBD and IPBES  454–455 description of  437 fisheries  439–440, 445–446, 448, 455 bycatch  440–441 common ground of  448–449 context  437–439 stream  446, 447f tensions between  447–448 turtles  441–442, 442f imperatives of  453–454 incentives and opportunities  453–454 marine mammals: baleen whales  442–443 dolphins  443–444 seals  444 opportunities across scales for linking fisheries and: global  449–450 local  452, 452f national  451 regional  451 seahorses  444–445 streams  454 bioeconomic graph  149, 150f bioeconomic models  526–528 biological diversity. See biodiversity biophysical dynamics  63–64 biophysical environment  517 bio‐socio‐economic modelling  527 bivalves  34 blue economy  454, 456, 471, 475f, 512–513 challenge of  466–467 ideas of  466 blue growth  467, 472, 473 bony fish  29, 31 bottom‐dwelling fish  77

631

632

Index bottom trawler  161, 244f, 523 Brazilian mangrove crab harvesters  98 burden of proof  250, 251–252, 313–314, 316 applications of  316 approach vs. principle  314–315, 314f conservation  252–254 fishing gear  251–252 habitat protection  318–320 implementing precautionary approach  315–316 over‐fishing vs. environment  317–318 stock assessment  250–251 stock–recruitment relationship  317 bycatch  440–441 dealing with  440 problem  440 regulations  442

c

Cabo de Palos  421f Canada: Canada’s Oceans Act  521 Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Advisory Committee (CAFSAC)  244 Maritimes, local‐level values in  474 stock assessment  245 capacity: appropriate  152 building  506 enhancing subsidies  281 reduction  280, 281 capital dynamics  12, 83–85, 83f, 86–87 capital stuffing  363 carrying capacity  219, 221, 291, 483, 529–531, 542–543 catch/catching: history of  243f, 374, 375 levels  147 power  84, 152 catch (output) quotas  366–367 in China  161 community quotas  370–371 concerns with ITQs  369–370 individual quotas and ITQs  367–368 catfish  31, 33 CBD. See Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) CCAMLR. See Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)

CCRN. See Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN) cenotes  31, 204, 207f cephalopods  34 certainty, illusion of  307–308 chaos  225–226 Chile: Management and Exploitation Areas for Benthic Fisheries (MEABR)  469 territorial use rights in  362–363 CITES. See Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) civil society  446, 510 classification: of aquatic species  29f of fishers  67f process for indicator development  539 climate adaptation: description of  491 differential impacts and benefits of  497–498 place‐based and sector‐based  499 planning process  494 strategies  495 climate change  6. See also climate adaptation adaptation  487–488, 488f, 490–492, 513 community‐based  494–496 differential impacts and benefits of  496–498 of fishery management and governance to  498–499 instruments for  432–433 management and governance  500 types of  492–494 fisheries and  513–514 impacts of  481–482 differential  485–486 on human dimensions of fishery system  482–485 physical, chemical, and biological  482 mitigation  487–488, 488f, 489–490, 513 responses to  487–488, 488f, 491, 493f and variability  102 vulnerability and adaptive capacity  486–487 climate impacts  209–210, 484, 487, 491, 498 climate mitigation  487–488, 488f, 489–490 climate responses  487, 492, 496–497, 500 climate‐sensitive poverty reduction  497

Index ‘climate‐smart’ practices  497 climate uncertainties  492, 498 clupeids (herring‐like) species  31 coastal aquaculture  239 coastal areas, socioeconomic environment of  180–181 coastal communities  10, 18, 20, 121, 125, 177, 182, 184, 187, 211, 231, 278, 343, 346, 357, 380, 420, 474, 507 in fishery management  105 coastal economy  109, 112, 175, 177–178, 425, 433 coastal marine  286 conservation  452 systems  506 coastal states, benefit from resources  176 cod collapse  86, 242–243, 243f, 246, 250, 516 aftermath  243–244, 244f fishery  256 future  246 recovery  245–246 understanding  244–245 cod stocks: health of  251 recovery of  245 collective‐choice rights  345–347, 350–351 collective management  347, 402 co‐management  121, 281, 372, 382–383 community‐based  388–390 components  396–397 of fishery management  395–396 fisher‐government  387 forms of  386–387 goals of  386 governance  510 involvement in  383–385 of Japan’s Coastal Fisheries  390–391 ladder of  393, 394f, 510 levels of  393–395 marine protected areas (MPAs)  429–431 modes of  393–394 multi‐stakeholder  391–393 in the Netherlands  388 policy aspects of  397 small‐scale fisheries  392–393 triangle of  389, 389f commercial fishers  66, 68 commercial fishing/fisheries/fishers  31, 236, 248, 352, 518

commercial groundfishery  402, 517–518 Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)  325 Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union  203 common property  341, 348, 352 open access and  352 communal property rights  359–360 communities  408 adaptation  495f approaches  121, 431 co‐management  388–390 components of  105–110 conservation  405 development needs of  495 health  534 institutions  131, 407 of interest  105 knowledge  192, 193 organisations  273 quotas  162–163, 370–371, 521 rights  371–372 science  406–407 small‐scale  107f sustainability  4, 269, 288, 289t use rights  371–374 community‐based fisheries management  105, 146, 339, 397–398, 500, 510–511 activities in  400–401 benefits of  399–400 on Canada’s Atlantic Coast  401–402 community science  406–407 conservation  403–406 definition of  398–399 experiences with  401–403 factors of success in  407–409 involvement in  400–401 rationale for  399–400 Thailand and community of Koh Pitak  402–403 in Vietnam  402 Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN)  404, 415 community science  406–407 complexity: definition of  24–25 fishery systems  24–25 compliance  120, 157, 189, 379, 381, 395, 396, 399, 430, 476, 509, 511

633

634

Index conch  168f conflict: conservation paradigm  230 description of  227–228 external allocation conflicts  237 domestic vs. foreign fisheries  237–238 fishers/fishery: and competing industries  240 vs. competing industries  239–241 vs. fish farming (aquaculture)  238–239 jurisdiction  235 paradigms in practice  232–233 forms of  228 internal allocation  236–237 management mechanisms  236, 286–287 over priorities  229–230 paradigm triangle  229f rationalisation paradigm  230–231 reduction  425 resolution  461, 467 social/community paradigm  231–232 source of  129, 130f typology of  234–235 conservation  5, 252–254, 396 benefits  399 community‐based fishery management  403–406 decision‐making  243–244 ethic  256–257, 343 fisheries and biodiversity  511–512 measures in Pacific Islands  188 sustainability and  264 consumer: demand  100–101, 111–112 preferences  99–100 continental shelves  54 continental slopes  54 continuous winds  58–59 controllability  308–309 certainty and fallacy of  254–255 fallacy of  308–309 lack of  309 conventional fishery management  169, 321 Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)  439–440 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)  49, 55, 278, 323, 418, 439, 511–512

Aichi Biodiversity Targets  418, 454–455 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)  454 and IPBES  454–455 COP. See Conference of Parties (COP) ‘Coral Triangle’ in Southeast Asia  422–423 costs of displacement  425–426 cross‐fishery issues  457 crustaceans  29, 33–34 customary tenure  346, 359–363 system in Indonesia  360 cyprinid (carp) species  31

d

decentralisation/devolution, desirability of  145–146 decision‐making: delay  470, 471, 479 participation in  196 role in  398 deep sea  54, 416 delay decision‐making  470, 471, 479 demand shifts  111 demersal fish  30 demersal marine fish  32–33 Department for Fisheries in Norway  133–134 designing indicators, process of  539 development, fishery  183 choices  180 description of  174 direct support to fishing activities  183 economics and planning  184 goals of  179–180 initiatives  185f institutional enhancement  183 management and monitoring/control/ surveillance  184–185 objectives of  175–178 participatory  185–186 planning  182f post‐harvest support  185 process of  179 rationale for  174–175 scientific, assessment, statistical, and information support  184 strategic choices in  178 existing fisheries  179–180 integrated development  180–181 new fisheries  178–179 support for  174–175

Index sustainability in  175 targeting  181 training and human resource development  183–184 DFO  520–521 fishery managers  521 management  521 scientific structure  250 disciplinary knowledge  208 discounting  533 discount rate  533 displacement, costs of  425–426 disturbance  265 natural rates of  319 diversity  285, 507 in community structure  48 of fishers  67 of objectives  428 dolphins  443–444 domestic vs. foreign conflicts  235 domestic vs. foreign fisheries  237–238 drift  77–78 dynamics  11–12 bioeconomic modelling  526–527 biophysical  63–64 capital  12, 83–85, 83f, 86–87 ecosystem  62 effort  86–87 fish (See fish dynamics) of fish stock  43f, 224, 224f, 529, 536 information  214 knowledge system  213–214 labour  82, 527–528 management  172 multi‐species  45–47, 62 open‐access  81–82 predator‐prey  46f single‐species  41–45 suitable population  531 uncertainty and  224–226, 224f, 225f

e

EA. See ecosystem approach (EA) EAF. See ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) EBM. See ecosystem‐based management (EBM) echinoderms  29 ecological/ecology: based management  168–170

footprint analysis  543 indicators  293 resilience  295 science  190–191 sustainability  4, 231, 269, 288, 289t, 291, 344 index  546 indicators  541–544, 541t economic/economy: development policy  109 globalisation  98–99 rents  128 rights  353 wealth (rent generation)  533 ecosystem  5, 48, 439, 463, 517 aquatic/fishery ecosystems  50–52 biodiversity  55–58 and biophysical environment  62–64 characteristics of  50 components within  48 definition of  21, 49–50, 389 description of  48–50 dynamics  62 elements of  12–13 in fishery outcomes  505 functioning of  48 health: and sustainability  520 value of  445 and human communities  261 importance of  513–514 integrity of  330 management  322 models  525 natural scales of  476 natural science aspects of  326 physical–chemical environment  58 ocean currents  59–61 physical features  62 upwellings  61 winds  58–59 resilience in  506–507 species mix in  453–454 stewardship  396, 403 ‘structure and function’  165 sustainability of  176 systems view of  50 typology of  53–55 value of  448

635

636

Index ecosystem approach (EA)  51–52, 321, 322, 325, 326, 328, 331–332 adoption of  324 for aquatic areas  335 essential components  324 to fisheries  330f ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF)  146, 321, 438, 457, 461, 509 in Australia  334 concepts and principles of  329 description of  321, 328–330 effective implementation of  336 history of  322–325 human dimensions  334–335, 338, 338f across scales  337–340 components of  335 cultural  336 economic  336 legal and institutional  336–337 political  336 social  335–336 implementation of  330–331, 334, 337 entry points  332–333 institutional arrangements for  337 principles  331–332 process  334 rationale for  321–322 resources for  333–334 roots of  329 scope of  325–328, 330, 331 source of guidance on  333 ecosystem‐based management (EBM)  211, 321, 322, 327, 332f, 461 adoption of  466 application of  332 definitions of  326–327 and ecosystem approach  325 perspectives  326 principles  327 EEZs. See Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) efficiency  232 concept of  282 conservation‐oriented view of  376 effort dynamics  86–87 effort (input) rights  364–366 El Niño phenomenon  61 employment  128, 534 endangered species  445 enforcement  156–157, 396 conflicts  236

environment/environmental: change  317–318 concerns  471–473 damage  240, 277 impacts  457–458 organisations  447f stewardship practices  126f systems view of  50 variability  498 equity  476 escapement controls  163 estuaries  53, 53f European Union: Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)  139 Directorate‐General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries  134–135 fisheries  145 fishing fleet  79t Europe, fish processing  94–95 exclusion rights  345 Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)  176, 178, 179, 237, 238, 432, 527, 716 external allocation  234 external conflicts  228 externalities, dealing with  469

f

fallacy of controllability  255, 310, 311, 500 FAO. See Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) financial debt  403 fishable biomass  41–42 Fisheries Act  520 Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC)  244, 321 fishery indicators, framework of  538 ecological, socioeconomic/community, and institutional sustainability indicators  541–544 aggregation  544–546, 545t process for indicator development  538 classification  539 context‐specific criteria  540–541 data‐specific criteria  541 general quality criteria  539–540 indicator identification  539 participants  539 fishery systems  6–7, 13–14, 28–30, 427, 506, 531 alternatives  14–18

Index approaches  23–24, 505 behaviour of  526 bioeconomic analysis of  526 complete view of  14f complexity  12–13, 24–25 components of  524 depicting  10–18 description of  3 dynamics  11–12, 531f efficiency  282 embedded sub‐systems  15f, 16 fishing effort  10–11 integrated analysis of  528 integrated models of  524–526 integrated treatment of  527 organisational aspects of  104 perspectives on  511 rationale for systems approach  6–7 resilience  3–5, 507 schematic of  79f small‐scale vs. large‐scale  18–20 as social‐ecological systems  7–10 spatial scales  21–22, 22f structure of sub‐systems  15f, 16 sustainability of  3–5, 515f time scales  22–23 fish/fisher/fisheries  30–31, 351, 445–446, 456–459, 516–518 adaptation  499–500 behaviour  525 benefits and costs of  424 and biodiversity conservation  438, 511–512 capacity  83–85, 83f carrying capacity  529 characteristics  37–38 classification of  67f and climate change  513–514 closed areas  413–414 and coastal communities  406f collapses  252 communities  356, 359, 377, 476–477, 495, 505–506, 510–511, 519 vs. competing industries  239–241 conservation  268, 271 cumulative effects of  458 decision‐making  407 demersal marine fish  32–33 dependent economy  284–285 development of  124, 523 dynamics  41

multi‐species  45–47 single‐species  41–45 ecological sustainability of  524–525 ecosystem approach to  324f, 509 on ecosystem‐based management  427–428 efficiency in  279f, 366 effort  10–11 dynamics of  81–83 and endangered species  439–440 bycatch  440–441 turtles  441–442, 442f exploitation  441 farming  238–239 and fishworkers  65–66 organisations  73–75 in post‐harvest sector  73 typology of  66–70 women in fishing  70–73 fleet  79t, 80–81, 83f, 86–88 capital and fishing capacity  83–85, 83f fishing effort  81–83 technological  85–86 future of  512–513 gear  76, 251–252, 444 gender aspects in  505 gender distinction in  71–72 governance and management in  507, 514 co‐management  510 institutions  507–508 robust, adaptive, and precautionary  508–509 historical and cultural importance of  469 for income and economic wealth  176 incomes  534 indicators beyond  291–292 inland (freshwater) fish  31 institutions  276, 276f integrated development of  506 investment  523 behavioural aspects of  84 jurisdiction  234 knowledge  124, 189, 192–195, 312–313, 523 Galapagos Islands of Ecuador  195f and knowledge acquisition  194 in Newfoundland, Canada  193–194 traditional  192–193 labour dynamics  527–528 labour force  528–530 management  351, 358–359, 506, 521–522, 522f in marine/aquatic context  469 methods  79–80, 79f

637

638

Index fish/fisher/fisheries (cont’d) MPAs and OECMs  512 and multi‐sectoral management  480, 512–513 negative externalities for  456 organisations  73–74 in Belize  75 in Norway  74 patterns, understanding  207–208 pelagic marine fish  31–32 policy: debates  229 market forces in  369 measures  438–439 and planning  519–520 prices  111 vs. processors  236 production of  127–128 property rights within  346–347 resources  247, 407–408 spatial distribution of  38–39 rights  358 based approaches in  509–510 rationale for  341–342 science  188 biological traditions of  527 and management  217 shellfish  33–34 stock vs. population  35–36 survival rates  224 sustainability  271 and resilience  506–507 tensions between  447–448 Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW)  518 fishing methods: choice of  79–80 quotas  370–371 selectivity of  164 typology of  75–76 gill nets and entangling nets  77–78 lines  78 other methods  78–79 seines/encircling gear  77 traps and pots  78 trawls and other towed/dragged gear  77 fishing rights  355–356 concentration of  377–378 fish stocks  117, 227, 230, 528 ’bigger picture’ around  326–327 dynamics of  43f, 224, 224f, 529, 536 single‐species scenario  225f

fishworkers  7–8 fixed gear  518 flatfishes  32 flood patterns  191 food  176 chain  318–319 fishery  518 fish for  176 insecurity  497 security (See food security) sovereignty  268 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)  28, 49, 138f, 199, 278, 333, 344, 354, 446 Code of Conduct  449 EAF‐Nansen Programme  334 Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries  290 Technical Guidelines on the Human Dimensions of the EAF  335 food security  101–102, 227, 268, 497, 512 concepts and priorities  490 livelihoods and  432–433 subsistence fishing to  357 foreign exchange/balance of payments  128 FRCC. See Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC) freshwater/saltwater interactions  62 fronts  61 fuel use  490

g

gastropods  33 gear: configuration  154–156 conflicts  518 incidental mortality in  440–441 passive and active  76 restrictions  165–166, 521 selectivity of  76 types  78–79 Gear Wars  236 geographically based communities  105 Geographic Information Systems (GIS)  453 ghost fishing  77–78 gill net  77 GIS. See Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)  454 globalisation  112 GNP. See gross national product (GNP) good governance  119–120, 337

Index Gordon–Schaefer Graph  149–150, 150f Governance/Management System  117 government/governance  8, 124, 198–199, 492, 494, 506, 507 co‐management  510 decision making  315 description of  117 dynamics of  140–141 fishery management institutions: choice of institutions  132 examples of institutions  132–136 types and roles of institutions  131 fishery values and objectives  125–127 portfolio of  127–129 priorities and conflict  129–130 institutions  507–508 international fisheries  137–138 legal framework  138–139 legal pluralism  139–140 and management  117–121 marine protected areas (MPAs)  428–429 organizations  467–468 participation in  122 robust, adaptive, and precautionary  508–509 stages of  448 structure of  123f Great Barrier Reef Marine Park  431 greenhouse gas emissions  490 Greenland halibut catch  516 gross national product (GNP)  519 groundfish  31, 413, 516–518, 520 collapse  243–244, 249, 519–520 fisheries  402, 519, 521, 522, 522f management  253–254 quotas  254 species  243, 516 gyres  60

h

habitats  438 protection  318–319 haddock box  413 hakes  32 harvesting  7–8 management  396, 402 policy  532–537 herrings  31–32 historical commercial whaling  442 home ports  425–426 hook‐and‐line fishing  78

households  102–108 in Japan  104 human dimensions  89, 335 appreciation of  339 human‐environment interactions  467–468 human‐environment relationship  50 ‘human’ objectives  127 human rights  341, 353–359 considerations  380 in fisheries  353 fishery rights and  355 nature of  353 perspective to fisheries  354 human system  117, 142, 145–146, 205–207 perspective on  65 sources in  218–219 structure of  66, 66f, 89, 90f sustainability of  176 uncertainty in  218–219 human uses, spatial distribution of  463 human well‐being  489–490

i

ICZM. See Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) illegal fishing  120, 156, 237, 248, 364 illusion of certainty  254, 308, 310, 311, 500 IM. See integrated management (IM) incentives, creation and reinforcement of  131 indicator development process  538 classification  539 participants  539 quality  539 Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs)  415 Indigenous communities  494–495 in Canada  389 Indigenous cultures  452f Indigenous fishers  66, 67, 69–70 Indigenous knowledge  189, 190–192, 197–198 definition of  192f example of  191 individual catch quotas  374 individual catch rights  368 individual fishers  341, 364, 424 behaviour of  336 economic responses of  300 individual nontransferable quotas (INTQs)  367 individual quotas (IQs)  162, 367–368 individual transferable quotas (ITQs)  377, 401–402 in Chile  368

639

640

Index individual transferable quotas (ITQs) (cont’d) concerns with  369–370 conservation implications of  369 in fisheries  369 individual quotas and  367–368 in New Zealand  367–368 Indonesia, customary tenure system in  360 industrial fisheries  129, 367, 399 informal protected areas  421 information dynamics  214 infrastructure  492, 494 inland (freshwater) fish  31 inland fishery ecosystems  52–53 inland vs. marine  9 input controls, challenges with  160 input rights: in Canadian Lobster Fishery  365 multidimensional approach to  365 programme  364–365 ‘inshore’ fisheries  518 institutional/institutions  399, 406, 477 adaptation  498 arrangements  498 choice of  132 definition of  131 description of  4 effectiveness  275–277 examples of  132 framework  336–337, 467 governance, fisheries  507–508 incentives  276 indicators  293–294 knowledge system within: governments  198–199 international agencies  199 private sector and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs)  200 universities  199–200 resilience  274–275 sustainability  4, 268–270, 273–274, 288, 289t cross‐cutting aspects of  506 indicators  541–544, 544t integrated coastal development  181 integrated coastal management  460 Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)  463 integrated development  180–181 integrated fishery models  524–526 integrated management (IM)  153, 416, 456, 459–462, 478, 512–513

and fisheries management  468, 469, 473, 478–479 initiatives  468, 471 local involvement in  474 multi‐sectoral perspective of  469–470 multi‐stakeholder and multi‐sectoral processes  470 integrated marine management  460 integrated ocean management  460 interdisciplinary ‘systems’ perspective  514 intergovernmental conflicts  235 Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission  467 Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)  55, 278, 454–455, 511–512 CBD and  454–455 internal allocation  234 international agencies  136, 199 international agreements  460 marine protected areas (MPAs)  417–418 International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF)  55, 355, 356 international institutions. See international agencies International Ocean Institute (IOI)  200 International Pacific Halibut Commission  161 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)  200 INTQs. See individual nontransferable quotas (INTQs) IOI. See International Ocean Institute (IOI) IPBES. See Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) IQs. See individual quotas (IQs) ITQs. See individual transferable quotas (ITQs) IUCN. See International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

j

Japan: coastal fisheries  390–391 fishery cooperative in  389, 390f

k

knowledge  187, 188, 406, 479–480 base in fisheries  201f building  396, 506 on communities  105

Index co‐production of  196 dynamics  213–214 with fishery science/research  195–198 forms of  189–190, 196, 432 human system  205–207 of indigenous peoples, fishers, and communities  189–190 fisher knowledge and local knowledge  192–195 Indigenous knowledge  190–192 traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)  190 levels of  189 marine protected areas (MPAs)  432 modern perspective on  188 natural system  200 stock assessment  201–205 nature of production  208 disciplinary knowledge  208 interdisciplinary approach  209 multidisciplinary approach  209 transdisciplinary approach  209–210 pure (basic) and applied (targeted)  211 sources of  275, 508 structure of production  211 organized by function  212–213 organized by species  211–212 organized on geographical/ecosystem basis  213 Koh Pitak community  402–403

l

labour  108–109 dynamics  82 effects on fishery  110–111 mobility  109–110, 528 outmigration  109–110 supply  110–111 ladder of citizen participation  393 ‘laissez‐faire’ approaches  247 large marine ecosystems (LMEs)  52, 475–476 large‐scale fishers, small‐scale vs.  18–20 legal pluralism  139–140, 353 Lenfest Fishery Ecosystem Task Force  50–51 Lennox Island  495–496 licences: differing classes of  375 limited entry  158 licencing  363–364 systems  352

lines  78 livelihoods: diversity  283–284 encourage multiple sources of livelihood for fishers  284 encourage multi‐species fisheries  284 fishery‐dependent economy  284–285 for fishers  284 and food security  432–433 living with uncertainty  217, 304 LMEs. See large marine ecosystems (LMEs) LMMAs. See Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs) lobster  118–119, 168f, 491–492 fisheries  166 fishery  250 fishing boats  255, 255f local/community marine protected areas (MPAs)  421 local knowledge  189, 192–195, 197–198 Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs)  415, 422–424

m

mackerels  32 Malaysia spatial zoning regulations in  156–160 manageability  541 management  123, 124, 142–143, 303–304, 352, 401, 473–474, 507, 517, 521 appropriate fishing effort and catch levels  147 fishery objectives influence choice of effort levels  150–152 Gordon–Schaefer Graph  149–150, 150f Yield‐Effort Curve  147–149 in Belize  146 co‐management  510 and components of  395–396 components  21, 510 conventional  330 decision making  188, 307, 474 dynamics of  172–173 fisheries  262, 328, 329, 426, 457, 471, 478 aspects of  434 enforcement  156–157 IM and  478–479 ingredients in  379 objectives  414 streams  448 tool  433–435 functional components of  395–396

641

642

Index management (cont’d) implementation at operational level  154–156 institutions  271, 273, 507–508, 520–521 instruments  309, 433 limits to  308–309 measures  157–158, 307–308, 478 broad classes of  153 ecologically based management  168–170 input (effort) controls  158 limited entry  158 location of fishing  159 output (catch) controls (See output (catch) controls) subsidies  170–171 technical (See technical measures of management) time fishing  158–159 multiple participants in  146 need for  118, 119f operational and tactical levels of  316 optimisation problem of  532 participation in  120, 146–147 performance of  197 philosophy of  307 plans  236, 378 and policy measures  5 portfolio of  153–154 rights  345–346, 351–352, 358, 359 rights‐based approach to  356f robust, adaptive, and precautionary  508–509 ’robust’ portfolio of  274 spatial scales of  143–144, 144f decentralisation/devolution  145–147 international coordination  145 strategic level of  315 systems  196, 298, 304, 308, 361, 498 time scales of  143, 143f ‘toolkit’  479 mangroves  37, 53f, 72, 239, 406f marine  420 ecosystems  50–51, 323, 337–338, 461 environments  53, 58 fishes  439–440 species, biological diversity and productivity of  438 marine mammals  34, 444 baleen whales  442–443 dolphins  443–444 seals  444

marine protected areas (MPAs)  74, 315, 427, 429–431, 512, 521 benefits and costs of  426 community‐based approaches  431 creation of  417 current state of  435 definition of  416, 428 description of  413 design of  423–424 fisheries: benefits and costs of  424 closed areas  413–414 management tool  433–435, 434f governance  428–429 and management of  512 human dimensions of  423 international agreements  417–418 knowledge  432 livelihoods  432–433 local/community  421 multi‐zoned  424 networks  422–423 nongovernmental (informal)  414–415 no‐take  419 objectives of  427–428 and OECMs  415–419 open‐ocean  422 participation and co‐management  429–431 policy  423, 428 possible benefits of  425 possible costs of  425–426 regulatory zones of  466 rights  429 success with  433–434 zoned  419–421 marine spatial planning (MSP)  327, 456, 462–464, 464f, 475f, 512–513 description of  462–463 multi‐sectoral integrated management  464f process of planning ocean uses  465 maritime security  227 market‐based use rights  379–380 market/marketing  95–97 dynamics of  111–112 interactions  98 of seafood  97, 97f value  92–93 marketplace  98–99 maximum biomass  150–151

Index maximum economic yield (MEY)  151 maximum fishing employment  151 maximum social yield  151 maximum sustainable yield (MSY)  151, 262 Mayan communities  494 MCS mechanism. See monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) mechanisms measurement errors  219 MEY. See maximum economic yield (MEY) mitigation: choices  489 options for  490 portfolios  490 mobile gear  518 molluscs  29, 33–34 monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) mechanisms  157 Monte Carlo simulation  300–301 MPAs. See marine protected areas (MPAs) MSP. See marine spatial planning (MSP) MSY. See maximum sustainable yield (MSY) multi‐objective optimisation, mathematical details of  534–535 multi‐party co‐management  392–393 multi‐sectoral conflict  461 multi‐sectoral governance: vs. fishery management  477 initiatives in  470 multi‐sectoral integrated management  456, 460, 462, 471f, 473–475, 479, 512–513 blue economy  466–467 features of institutional framework  467 rationale  467 scale  468 spatial delimitation  468 fisheries  456–459, 468, 480 access and power  470 benefits  468 boundaries  474–475 and costs  478–479 dealing with externalities  469 environmental concerns  471–473 human angles and participatory approaches  477–478 institutions  477 knowledge  479–480 objectives  473 spatial and organisational scale  475–477

spatial management  469–470 time constraints  470–471 values  473–474 Integrated Management (IM)  459–462 marine spatial planning (MSP)  462–464, 464f ocean zoning  464–466 small‐scale fisheries and  458–459 multi‐species dynamics  45–47, 62 multi‐species fisheries  284, 310 multi‐stakeholder  391–393

n

National Adaptation Plans of Action  499 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)  489 natural capital  39–40 natural mortality coefficient  51 natural resources: community‐based management of  162–163 systems  117 natural sciences  207f natural system  142, 200 definition of  49 description of  27 stock assessment  201 evolution of  202–205 process  201–202 structure of  27–28f, 49f uncertainty  218–219 nature‐based activities  456 NDCs. See Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) nearshore ‘municipal’ fisheries  139 NGOs. See nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)  200, 212 non‐selective fishing  444 ‘non‐use’ values  473–474 North Atlantic right whales  443 Northern cod, commercial and recreational fishing of  246 nutrition  514 Nuu‐chah‐nulth stewardship  404

o

ocean: currents  59–61 ecosystem  249 fluctuations and uncertainties in  252 governance mechanisms  463

643

644

Index ocean (cont’d) near‐surface, waters  54 productivity  318–319 space  59–60, 512–513 surface waters  54 system, biophysical aspects of  62 users  118 ocean zoning  456, 464–466, 512–513 in China  465 history of implementation  465 knowledge needs and implementation methods for  465 OECMs. See other effective area‐based measures (OECMs) offshore fin fisheries  72 offshore fisheries  518 oligotrophic lakes  52–53 open access  341, 352 dynamics  81–82 fishery governance  118 hazards of  352–353 problems of  342, 352 operational level of decision‐making  346 operational‐level rights  342 operational management  157 opportunity costs  284 optimal harvest  532–537 optimal harvesting  300 optimisation models  526, 528, 532–537 assumptions and parameter values of  536 of fishery  537f optimum sustainable yield (OSY)  151 organisational scale  475–477 organizational development  402 OSPAR Commission  451 other effective area‐based measures (OECMs)  169, 415–419, 423, 427, 512 definition of  416 designation of  417 with fisheries  426–427 fishery benefits and costs of  424 governance and management of  512 output controls, challenges with  163–164 over‐capacity  84, 278, 279, 279f over‐capitalisation  280, 364 over‐exploitation  247–248, 251, 314 over‐fishing  246–247, 249, 316, 317–318 vs. environment  317–318 over‐harvesting  252

p

PA. See precautionary approach (PA) paradigm triangle  230 parameter uncertainty  219, 221 participants  539 participation  406 level of  406–407 marine protected areas (MPAs)  429–431 participatory approach  186, 477–478 need for  121–122 rationale for  430 participatory decision‐making  478 participatory management, need for  119–121 participatory research  197, 406–407 passive adaptive learning  305 pelagic fish  30, 31 pelagic marine fish  31–32 pelagic species  77 peoples’ knowledge, forms of  190 permanent closures  166 Peru: Anchovy Collapse  63 Anchovy fishery  248–249 petuanan laut  346 physical–chemical environment  48, 58 ocean currents  59–61 physical features  62 relatively localised phenomena  61–62 upwellings  61 winds  58–59 place‐based community  397–398 plankton  38 policy linkages  428 population health  128–129 post‐harvest  90, 518 consumer demand  100–101 consumer preferences  99–100 distribution  98 dynamics: of communities and socioeconomic environment  112–113 of markets and consumer demand  111–112 and fishing communities  285 fishworkers in  73 food security  101–102 households and  102–108 marketing  95–96 markets  96–97 processing  92–95, 93f

Index socioeconomic environment  108 labour  108–111 links of fishery systems and  108 trade  98–99 pots  78 poverty  490, 497 power: access and  470 imbalances and inequities  474 precautionary approach (PA)  307, 314f, 319 application of  318 and burden of proof  313–314, 316 framework  246 implementing  315–316 precautionary management  508–509 precautionary principle  314, 447 implementation of  315–316 precautionary risk‐averse decision rule  302 predator–prey dynamics  46f predator–prey interactions  47 private cost of labour  110 private property  347 private sector  200, 446 processing  92–95, 93f companies  99 quality control in  100 property: fisheries  352 ideas of  350 property rights  235, 346–347 classified by regime  348, 349f ideas of  349 perspective on  350 structure of  348, 349f pro‐poor climate mitigation  497

q

quasi‐property rights  350 quota allocations  308 quota management  161, 309, 310 forms of  371 over‐reliance on  310 system  275

r

random fluctuations  226, 299–300 rationalisation paradigm  230–231 recreational activity  128–129 recreational fisheries  67, 129, 518, 525

recreational fishers  66 recruitment overfishing  317 regime shifts  111–112 regional co‐operation  137 regional economy  519, 528 regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs)  137, 416–417, 475–476 regional fora  447f rehabilitation  396 relational well‐being  492, 493–494 renewable resources  542–543 management  147 research  213, 396 centres  523 resilience  3–5, 265–267, 291f, 304 analysis  294 assessment and indicators  294–295 building  490 characteristics of  271, 272t components of  268–273, 539 definition of  5, 265 in ecosystem  506–507 within fishery system  277–278, 288 indicators  295 institutional  274–275 maintaining  267f ’normative’ aspect of  267 of social and normative aspects  295 sustainability and  506 theory  266 resource  508 enhancement of  402–403 fishery  342 management  119–120 science  147 systems  273 status, assessments of  212 responsible fisheries  448 RFMOs. See regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) rights: to access fishing areas  344f vs. ownership  350–351 rights‐based approaches to fisheries management  358, 366, 509–510 catch (output) quotas  366–367 community quotas  370–371 concerns with ITQs  369–370 individual quotas and ITQs  367–368

645

646

Index rights‐based approaches to fisheries management (cont’d) choosing use rights system  379–381 commons  351–353 community‐based use rights  371–374 customary tenure/territorial use rights in fishing (TURFs)  359–363 description of  341 effort (input) rights  364–366 forms of use rights  359 human rights  353–358 initial allocation  374–375 limited entry  363–364 management rights  345–346 practicalities of use rights  358–359 rationale for fishery rights  341–342 rights vs. ownership  350–351 transferability  375 concentration of rights  377–379 efficiency  376–377 social cohesion  377 use rights  342–345 and management rights in context  346–350 Rio conference 1992  438 risk assessment  299–300, 315 analytical approaches  300–303 management and methods of  469 risk management  299, 302–303, 315 risk preferences  447 robust, and precautionary management: adaptive management  303–304 concepts and methods  305–306 flexibility  304–305 precautionary approach and burden of proof  313–314, 316 approach vs. principle  314–315, 314f habitat protection  318–320 implementing precautionary approach  315–316 over‐fishing vs. environment  317–318 stock–recruitment relationship  317 risk assessment  299–300 analytical approaches  300–303 structural uncertainty  306–307 uncertainty and risk  298–299 robust institutions  408 robust management  306–307, 312–313, 500, 508–509

approaches  307 lack of  309–313 royalties  169–170

s

SAIAB. See South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB) salmon  32 fishers  304 stocks  118–119, 304 ‘trolling’ for  78 SBT. See Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT) scale  468 mis‐matches  476 spatial and organisational  475–477 scalloped hammerhead shark  440–441 science‐based management  222 science of sustainability  147, 262 scientific monitoring  197–198 SDGs. See Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) seafood: consumption  100 markets  98–99 seahorse  444–445 conservation effort  445 in trade  445 seals  444 sea turtles  442f in Ostional  405 secondary industry  92–93 seines/encircling gear  77 selective fishing  166 negative impacts of  165 self‐management  399, 400 self‐regulation  400, 408 SES. See social‐ecological systems (SES) shared stewardship  452 sharks  32 shellfish  33–34, 166, 413 assessments  211–212 shipping  456 Shiretoko Peninsula of Japan  478 shrimp trawl fisheries  165 SIDS. See small island developing states (SIDS) simulation methods  535 simulation modelling  302 single‐species: approach  202–203 assessments  203

Index dynamics  41–45 nature  51 small‐boat fleet  18 small‐boat inshore fishers  518 small fish  370 protocol  166–167 small island developing states (SIDS)  446 small‐scale fisheries (SSF)  19–20, 19t, 66–69, 311f, 339, 354, 392–393, 401, 472–473, 500, 513–514 access and tenure  344–345 adaptive, robust, and precautionary  319 and biodiversity conservation  453 and blue economy  472–473 and climate change responses  488 context of  357 decision‐making  185–186 definitions of  19–20 efficiency of  282–283 framework of community‐based indicators  296–297 and gender  72 global guidance from  122 guidelines  268, 453 and multi‐sectoral management  458–459 and post‐harvest  92 role of women in  71f in stewardship  404 and sustainability  264 social cohesion  377 in community  357 social/community paradigm  231–232, 239 social cost of labour  110 social‐ecological systems (SES)  7–10, 374, 403, 505 social science, research  207 social sustainability  512 imperative of  454 social well‐being  377 societal benefits  351 societal well‐being  232 society  177–178 socio‐cultural values  127 socioeconomic benefits  399 socioeconomic/community sustainability indicators  541–544 socioeconomic environment  13, 65–66, 108, 112, 505–506, 519 labour  108–111

links of fishery systems and  108 socioeconomic indicators  293 socioeconomic outcomes  76 socioeconomic sustainability  4, 269, 288, 289t socioeconomic well‐being for fishing communities  176 South Africa  357–358 South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB)  198–199 Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT)  60 spatial allocation  467 spatial delimitation  468 spatial distribution of fished resources  38–39 spatial management  418, 469–470 approaches  414–415 areas  413 systems  453 ’toolkit’ of  469 spatial scales  475–477 appropriateness in  540 of fishery management  143–144, 144f decentralisation/devolution  145–147 international coordination  145 fishery systems  21–22 range of  21, 22f spawner–recruitment relationships  317 spawning stocks  317 spillover effect  425 spiny rayed fishes  32 SSF. See small‐scale fisheries (SSF) stakeholders  399, 430f interaction among  407 state property  347–348 state uncertainty  221 static gear  77–78 stewardship  520 initiatives  452 stock: abundance  280–281 assessments  201, 250–251, 300 activities  211–212 Canadian  245 evolution of  202–205 knowledge system  201–205 methods  204, 205 problems in  226 process  201–202 single species and multi‐species  202–204 conservation and sustainable harvest  520

647

648

Index stock (cont’d) and recruitment relationship  42, 302, 317 structure of  220 specific objectives  520 Straddling Stocks Agreement  286 strategic fishery management  346 structural uncertainty  222–223, 306–307, 317 and ecosystem modelling  223 effects of  223 problems of  306 sturgeon  31 subjective well‐being  489–490 subsidiarity  145, 477 principle  400, 500 subsidies  170–171, 279–281 capacity‐enhancing  281 harmful vs. beneficial  170–171 subsistence fishers  66, 357–358 subsistence fishing rights  357–358 ‘survival of the fittest’ process  376 sustainability  3–5, 261–264, 291f, 353, 466, 507 assessment  292 framework  545t attributes, checklist of  288, 290t characteristics of  271, 272t, 538 checklist  288, 289t components of  4, 268–273, 539 and conservation  264 criteria  541 discussion of  3–4 of ecosystems and human systems  176 of fisheries  4, 73–74, 229, 256, 261–262, 277–278, 288, 341–342, 344 indicators  288–294, 542–543 institutional  273–274 reflection on  272–273 and resilience  506 biodiversity  278, 279f dependent economy  284–285 developing framework of indicators  296–297 efficiency  282–283 fleets, capacity, and subsidies  279–281 livelihood diversity  283–284 managing conflict  286–287 multiple sources of  284 multi‐species fisheries  284 objectives and principles  285–286 post‐harvest and fishing communities  285 socio‐economic dimensions of  539

tools of  288–289 triangle  270, 270f use  448 women leading in  277 yield  3, 147, 148, 290 sustainable development  3, 175, 262–263, 321, 540 approach  89–90 definitions and interpretations of  263 key goals  263 multidimensional view of  506 social dimension of  454 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)  268, 449, 466, 487, 489–490, 506 systems approach, rationale for  6–7 system stability, and resilience  266 systems thinking  261, 321, 326, 335, 336

t

Tarituba, area of environmental protection’ in  414f taxes  169–170 technical interactions  46, 47 technical measures of management  164–165 closed areas  166–167 closed seasons  167–168 gear restrictions  165–166 size limits  166 technological change  86 and adaptive management  305–306 process of  85–86 technological creep  86, 366 technological improvement, natural process of  366 TEDs. See turtle exclusion devices (TEDs) TEK. See traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) temporary area closures  167 territorial use rights in fisheries (TURFs)  235, 359–363, 469, 510 tidal currents  61 tilapia  31 time constraints  470–471 time scales: fishery management  143, 143f fishery systems  22–23 tortoiseshell trade  441 total allowable catches (TACs)  145, 161, 227–228, 251–254, 262, 308, 310–311, 521 single‐species  168–169

Index tourism  456 benefits  128–129 towed/dragged gear  77 trade  98–99 traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)  71, 190, 399–400, 508, 523 and local knowledge  338 traditional fishery management  212 traditional food  98 traditional knowledge of Torres Strait fishers  191 traditional management  120, 414–415 Tragedy of the Commons  247, 248, 348, 352, 361 transboundary fisheries  527 transdisciplinary knowledge  210, 210f transferability  350, 375 advantages of  378 concentration of rights  377–379 efficiency  376–377 social cohesion  377 transferable rights  370, 377 traps  78 trawls  77 tropical reefs  53 trout  32 fisheries  166 tunas  32 fishing  165 turbo trawl  86 turbot war  238 TURFs. See territorial use rights in fisheries (TURFs) turtle  168f, 441–442, 442f harvesting  441 populations  441 turtle exclusion devices (TEDs)  86

u

UN. See United Nations (UN) uncertainty  368, 508–509 conditions of  300 description of  217 and dynamics  224–226, 224f, 225f forms of  218–219 living with  298, 305f in market structure  218–219 in random fluctuations  220 and risk  298–299 sources of  218

in human system  218–219 in natural system  218–219 in stocks  304 typology of  219 in data and parameters  221–222 randomness  220–221 stock–recruitment relationship  219–220 structural uncertainty  222–223 and variability  491–492 UN Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012  449–450 UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)  323 UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)  418 United Nations (UN) Law of the Sea Convention 1992  422 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)  418 United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)  323 United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)  460 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)  490 Universal Declaration of Human Rights  355–356 ‘unselective’ fishing  165 upwellings  61 user group conflicts  236 use rights  350–352, 359, 373 approaches  380 arrangements  359, 360f framework  379 informal and traditional  343 and management  347 operational aspects of  359 practicalities of  358–359 sub‐categories of  342 systems  379 and tenure  343

v

value/values  125–127, 473–474 chain  90–91 portfolio of  127–129 priorities and conflict  129–130 virtual population analysis (VPA)  321 VMEs. See vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) VPA. See virtual population analysis (VPA)

649

650

Index vulnerability  267 and building resilience  490 fishery rights and  357 vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs)  451

w

WCS. See Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) white fish  98–99 Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)  200 winds  58–59 withdrawal (harvest) rights  359 World Bank  466 World Forum of Fisher People (WFFP)  355 World Summit of Sustainable Development (WSSD)  314, 325, 417–418, 438 World Wildlife Fund (WWF)  200

x

Xcalak National Reef Park  430

y

yield‐effort curve  147–149

z

Zambia  100–101 zoned MPAs  419–421 community‐based  421 large‐scale  420 offshore  420

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT Go to www.wiley.com/go/eula to access Wiley’s ebook EULA.