Assessment of a fisheries legal framework for potential development of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in large rivers

Abstract

Most small‐scale fisheries of large floodplain rivers are still managed under conventional top‐down regulations that limit the application of an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) due to inappropriate legal frameworks. Using the Parana–Paraguay River fisheries (Argentina) as an example, this study examines the extent to which existing provincial legislations can be prepared for the adoption of an EAF. An Ecosystem Fishing Legal Approach (EFLA) framework is proposed based on different criteria across an environmental–ecological, fishing, social, economic and institutional template. Policy Component Scores (PCS) and an Integrated Policy Legal Index (IPLI) were applied to assess the degree of compliance by current provincial legislations to EAF implementation. Cluster analysis was used to recognise the potential for articulating a legal framework at a basin scale. The EFLA framework, which provided an accurate picture of how provinces were poorly prepared to adopt an EAF for the Paraguay–Parana fisheries, and represents a suitable tool that can be adapted and extended to other basins around the world.

Evaluating fisheries systems: A comprehensive analytical framework and its application to the EU's Common Fisheries Policy

“…The analytical framework is distinct from previous frameworks by taking a more comprehensive and transparent approach to evaluate fisheries systems. By incorporating criteria along five dimensions (ecological, economic, social, good governance, evidence), elements were combined which in previous frameworks were partially covered or which addressed specific fisheries concepts (see for instance Castillo et al., and Grafton et al., with a focus on the ecosystem approach or WBGU, with a focus on ocean governance). With respect to CFP specificities, this holistic approach synthesizes evaluations which are currently carried out at separate venues (e.g., DG MARE, 2017a and STECF, 2017a assessments).…”

“…To identify criteria for effective fisheries management, we conducted an extensive literature analysis of academic publications (e.g., Bromley, ; Castillo et al., ; Grafton et al., ; Griffin, ), publications of public institutions (e.g., EC, ; FAO, ; WBGU, ), and legal texts (e.g., European Parliament & European Council, ). The 17 criteria we derived were repeatedly stated in the resource policy and fisheries management literature and can therefore be considered key criteria for an effective fisheries policy.…”

“…Although our set of criteria together with the five dimensions is based on an extensive review of the relevant literature it remains by definition normative. Several sets of criteria for fisheries management systems exist, and there is no objective way of reconciling the differences between them (Bromley, ; Castillo et al., ; Grafton et al., ). The selection and prioritization of adequate criteria for fisheries management is ultimately a political task, not an academic one.…”

“…Further authors are not comprehensive in their analyses, that is they do not capture a fisheries governance system along the range of relevant dimensions but focus on selected aspects (e.g., Bromley, examining primarily economic aspects; FAO, focussing on recreational fisheries). Other suggested frameworks address aquatic resources but not marine fisheries specifically (Castillo, Baigún, & Minotti, on river systems). In order to evaluate the CFP and identify priorities for reform, we therefore first constructed an analytical framework synthesizing the existing contributions.…”

Ethnoichthyology of Fishing Communities in the Lower Valley of Ouémé in Benin, West Africa

“…In addition, conventional management approaches tend to undervalue fisher's knowledge in various ways (Castillo et al 2018). Research has been limited by a shortage of experts in the field, cultural barriers, and changing political and institutional scenarios (Baigún 2015;Castillo et al 2016). This poor level of understanding of biological folk knowledge is problematic, not least because such knowledge is under threat from the disappearance of Indigenous people and their customs, as well as from the influence of urbanization and the market economy on resource-use strategies (Johannes 1978;Posey 1983;Wester and Yongvanit 1995).…”