Fishery improvement projects: Performance over the past decade

Cannon, J. W.; Sousa, Pedro; Katara, Isidora; Veiga, Pedro; Spear, Braddock; Beveridge, Douglas; Holt, Tracy Van

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.007

Cited by 31 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with previous studies, our results indicate that the FIP model can be an effective tool for guiding change towards sustainability (e.g. Cannon et al., ; Sampson et al., ), with over half of the projects in our dataset demonstrating better fishing practices, policy and/or outcomes. However, a considerable proportion (40 %) of projects had yet not demonstrated improvements, signifying that FIP enrolment alone may not be sufficient to effect positive change.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…This approach aligns with previous studies of FIP performance (e.g. Cannon et al., ; Sampson et al., ), and by using this measure of effectiveness, we were able to include all FIPs listed on Fishery Progress , regardless of initial baseline performance or improvement goals. Additionally, the use of FIP stage to score effectiveness ensured each FIP was assessed against its own individual improvement aims and stated workplan activities.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…() suggested that FIPs in the developing world underperformed compared to those in the developing world. A more recent study (using a similar sample size), however, found no difference in FIP performance according to socio‐economic status (Cannon et al., ). These previous evaluations of FIP performance focused on a limited number of fishery attributes, specifically socio‐economic context and fishery scale (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…There have also been multiple broad reviews of FIP performance globally (e.g. Cannon et al, 2018;CEA, 2015;Sampson et al, 2015). These studies conclude that project performance is highly variable across different fishery contexts; however, there is still a limited understanding of the factors that drive this variation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Key attributes related to fishery improvement project (FIP) effectiveness in promoting improvements towards sustainability

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fishery improvement projects (FIPs) are emerging as a popular market‐based means to improve fisheries sustainability and have been employed in scores of fisheries around the world; however, project ability to realize improvements has been highly variable, and little is known about how fishery and project conditions affect improvement efforts. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the FIP model as a tool for improving diverse fisheries around the world, we compile a unique dataset of social, ecological and economic characteristics for over 60 FIPs globally, which we use to identify key attributes correlated with improvements in fishing practices, management and/or on‐the‐water outcomes. Using a random forest classifier, we identify three important attributes related to FIP effectiveness in demonstrating improvements. Specifically, FIPs are more likely to have achieved improvements with increased cumulative project time, when regional‐level management arrangements are present and when the target species has a moderate inherent vulnerability to fishing. Interestingly, improvements were not correlated with a number of expected features, including a fishery's socio‐economic setting or baseline performance against the desired sustainability standard (e.g. the Marine Stewardship Council fisheries standard). This study improves our understanding of factors related to FIP effectiveness in improving fisheries practices and management and provides key insights for practitioners into important attributes to consider when implementing the FIP model to promote fisheries sustainability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Key attributes related to fishery improvement project (FIP) effectiveness in promoting improvements towards sustainability

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, FIPs operated by WWF and by SFP differed; WWF's philosophy was that all FIPs should have a target of entering MSC full assessment within 5 years (WWF, ), whereas SFP's approach was to identify critical issues and preferentially work on these, whether or not they delivered sufficient progress to be able to achieve MSC certification within a short period of time. Whilst later work showed that most FIPs of both types did make progress (Cannon et al , ), there was clearly a need for harmonisation of FIP approaches and performance measurement in exactly the same way that, 10 years earlier, there had been a need for standardisation of certification systems. This time that standardisation was supplied by the NGO sector, with the publication by the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions (CASS; http://www.solutionsforseafood.org) of a set of guidelines for FIP providers.…”

Section: The Proliferation Of Solutions and The Problem Of Benchmarkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who determines sustainability?

Agnew

2019

Journal of Fish Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past 20 years many different certification or rating schemes for sustainable fisheries have evolved, that attempt to influence consumer tastes and preferences and thereby incentivise better fisheries practices. This short review paper aims to document the history of such schemes, to consider their apparent differences and the basis upon which sustainability standards were developed. While there is some consistency between schemes in terms of the elements that should be considered as part of sustainability, and the general outcomes that sustainable fisheries should strive for, with the exception of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) there is less agreement on the specific details of how this should be measured or what reference points should be considered as sustainable. This arises from a lack of specific consideration or agreement on these issues in the international policy community.

show abstract

Social networks and seafood sustainability governance: Exploring the relationship between social capital and the performance of fishery improvement projects

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the early 2000s, the sustainable seafood movement put forward the concept of fishery improvement projects (FIP), a structured multi‐stakeholder approach to address environmental challenges in a fishery and aims to use the power of the market to incentivize change. The intent of the FIP model is to allow fisheries that currently do not meet the MSC standard to maintain market access while working on credible improvements. As such, FIPs have become a widely promoted approach to sustainable fisheries and have proliferated around the globe. Based on recent research assessing the impact of FIPs and testing various FIP attributes and their link to FIP performance, it seems that the FIP model may be delivering on its promise overall. However, the impact of FIP are at best based correlation rather than causation, with only few FIP attributes having been measured consistently over a significant period of time. In this theoretical contribution, we bring attention to one attribute of FIPs: the structure of their social network and its implication for social capital and successful collective action. We start by describing FIPs as projects located at the intersection of environmental governance networks and value chain network governance. Secondly, we demonstrate FIPs as complex social networks and the link between network attributes and FIP progress through the concept of social capital. Thirdly, we present the method of social network analysis and relevant network attributes to understand and characterize how FIPs work better. Finally, we suggest opportunities for further research and integration of this approach in planning and designing FIPs. Through this work, we wish to bring attention to one type of FIP attributes that is currently not explicitly being taken into account to current FIP practitioner and researchers. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

show abstract

Fishery improvement projects: Performance over the past decade

Cited by 31 publications

References 22 publications

Key attributes related to fishery improvement project (FIP) effectiveness in promoting improvements towards sustainability

Key attributes related to fishery improvement project (FIP) effectiveness in promoting improvements towards sustainability

Who determines sustainability?

Social networks and seafood sustainability governance: Exploring the relationship between social capital and the performance of fishery improvement projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About