Governance interactions in small‐scale fisheries market chains: Examples from the Asia‐Pacific

Abstract

Small‐scale fisheries are subject to various governing institutions operating at different levels with different objectives. At the same time, small‐scale fisheries increasingly form part of domestic and international market chains, with consequent effects for marine environments and livelihoods of the fishery‐dependent. Yet there remains a need to better understand how small‐scale fisheries market chains interact with the range of governance institutions that influence them. In this paper, we examine how multiple governance systems function along market chains, in order to identify opportunities for improved multiscale governance. We use three small‐scale fisheries with varying local to global market chains operating in the Asia‐Pacific region to develop a framework for analysis. Drawing from Interactive Governance theory we identify governing systems that have come to operate at particular sections in each market chain. We recognize four institutions that shape the governance over the length of the chain; namely those centred on (a) government, (b) private sector and pricing, (c) decentralized multistakeholder management and (d) culture and social relations. The framework shows how diverse arrangements of these governing institutions emerge and take effect along market chains. In doing so, we seek to move away from prescribed “ideals” of universal governing arrangements for fisheries and their market chains, and instead illuminate how governing systems function interactively across multiple scales.

Low fuel cost and rising fish price threaten coral reef wilderness

“…Within the context of increasing economic viability of exploiting wilderness resources, the potential of societal and governmental actors' interactions to protect and manage these economic sectors is essential to maintain both intact wilderness and sustainable usage of the environment. In Steenbergen et al (2019), an analytical framework whereby governing systems influence the system to be governed at various stages was proposed to recognize the diverse way institutions can both emerge and take effect. Here, we integrate this framework with a conceptualization by Daw et al (2016) of ecosystem service provision as a chain of elements (Figure 5).…”

“…Governing relationships between elements within this chain are processes, such as levels of human inputs, and valorization processes. These "multipliers" are where governance institutions may act to regulate exploitation, use and benefits gained from ecosystems, using a guiding set of "sustainability attributes" covering the social, economic, political, ecological, and technological realms (Steenbergen et al, 2019).…”

“…Additionally, economic and technological attributes influence input through dependence on the resource (2.1 in Figure 5). Harvest efficiency and yield can vary due to changes in fleet capacity, through changes in gear and techniques, for example, regulatory changes in gear use and catch share (Watson et al, 2018), adjusting fishing practices to fish for pelagic species during longer, oceanic trips, or the adoption of newer technologies (fish finders, access to predictive modeling of fish presence, e.g., here or in D'agata, . Governance institutions may also take affect through the "valorization" process, which sets the price of the good (in this case fish).…”

“…At the "access" stage, social and cultural affiliations toward the resource (e.g., determining "who" can fish), end enforcement by government F I G U R E 5 Conceptual diagram of governance interfaces with wilderness resource use. The description of attributes is drawn from Steenbergen et al 2019). Individual attributes of the governance system may control several multipliers within this framework, and feedback upon each other through access restrictions, such as quotas and licenses have been shown to both improve stocks and reduce effort (Watson et al, 2018), are potential levers through which the government and multistakeholder engagement systems can act.…”

“…The description of attributes is drawn from Steenbergen et al 2019). Individual attributes of the governance system may control several multipliers within this framework, and feedback upon each other through access restrictions, such as quotas and licenses have been shown to both improve stocks and reduce effort (Watson et al, 2018), are potential levers through which the government and multistakeholder engagement systems can act. In a wilderness context, the ability to exclude users from resources may necessitate trans-national co-operation (4.1 and 4.2).…”