A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes fisheries: A cooperative regime in a multi-jurisdictional setting

Abstract

Two nations, eight states, the province of Ontario, two U.S. intertribal authorities, and the binational Great Lakes Fishery Commission all play a role in managing the Great Lakes fishery. No overarching institution has the authority to compel cross-border cooperation. Rather, the fishery agencies adhere to A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, a voluntary, multi-jurisdictional agreement signed in 1981. This article provides a brief overview of the roles and responsibilities of the management jurisdictions and describes how the Joint Strategic Plan helps agencies cooperate across jurisdictional boundaries. The plan relies on four strategies-consensus, accountability, information sharing, and ecosystem management-to foster cooperation, and to operationalize collective action on both lake and technical committees. The plan is a model for multi-jurisdictional cooperation in a politically fragmented region.

Information Flow within the Social Network Structure of a Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries

“…The need to control sea lampreys throughout the Great Lakes made the need to have a binational governance institution for collaborative governance evident. This need ultimately resulted in A Joint Strategic Plan and led to the establishment of a governance structure wherein fishery management decisions are made by consensus among all jurisdictions and are grounded in science (GLFC 2000b;Gaden 2007;Gaden et al 2008).…”

“…The commission is responsible for coordinating, conducting, and communicating fishery research to achieve the maximum sustainable productivity of fish stocks of common concern; controlling the invasive sea lamprey; and coordinating fishery management in the Great Lakes. To this end, the commission established agency-appointed lake committees for each of the Great Lakes (as well as the upper portion of the St. Lawrence River), which consist of representatives from each of the state, provincial, and tribal agencies with fishery management authority (Figure 2;GLFC 2000b;Gaden et al 2008).…”

“…The governance approach to transboundary fish stocks, however, has evolved along with the understanding that collaborative and coordinated management actions are needed for sustainably managing these stocks (Cole 2003;Kooiman et al 2005;. Even with this evolution in governance, it remains challenging to achieve and maintain sustainable transboundary fish stocks, given the competing demands of different jurisdictions on shared fish stocks and the uncertainty involved in fisheries science (ISAB 2005;Mangel and Levin 2005;Gaden et al 2008). Additionally, the effectiveness of governance institutions in the management of transboundary fish stocks varies, and this compounds the difficulty of achieving sustainable management of these stocks .…”

Fish movement and migration studies in the Laurentian Great Lakes: Research trends and knowledge gaps

“…The Great Lakes fisheries are shared by 34 million people in the United States and Canada (GLIN, 2010) with stakeholder groups representing government, industry, indigenous parties, and the general public. Management is conducted under the Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, a voluntary agreement established by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and signed in 1981 by most agencies in Canada and the United States (Gaden et al, 2008). The plan is grounded on the principles established by the Convention on the Great Lakes Fisheries, which strived for agency cooperation in managing fisheries for maximum sustainable yield and the creation of a Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) eradication and control program (Selak, 1956).…”

A Constant Comparison of the Environmental Assessment Legislation in Canada

“…As a result, the policies of different levels of government can have a major impact on the collective outcomes of decision-making. In the context of the environment, failures in government decision-making processes in Canada have been highlighted by numerous studies (Gaden et al, 2008;Kreutzwiser & Gabriel, 2000;Li & McAteer, 2000;Loucks, 2007;McKitrick, 2006;Rabe & Zimmerman, 1995). One reason for these failures is a poor strategic understanding of how the existing relationships between environment-related legislation in the different, often overlaying, jurisdictions of government are impeding or supporting the environment and sustainable development objectives.…”