Participation, Power, and Equity: Examining Three Key Social Dimensions of Fisheries Comanagement

Abstract

Comanagement of natural resources is a well-established approach to the management of common-pool resources such as small-scale fisheries, operating in multiple contexts and settings for over two decades. These programs are expected to be adaptable and promote social and ecological benefits, such as sustainable livelihoods and biodiversity goals. As programs mature, it is important to consider how some core principles of comanagement have manifested in practice, as well as whether they deliver on these promised benefits. Drawing from the conservation, small-scale fisheries, and fisheries management literature, this paper examines three fundamental principles of fisheries comanagement: participation, equity, and power. The conceptualization, definitions, and measures of each theme are presented, with discussion of the current gaps in the literature. We also demonstrate the deep interrelationships between these key dimensions of comanagement, and the need for greater attention to their combined influence on comanagement outcomes and processes. While the literature offers foundational ideas for incorporating these themes into fisheries comanagement practice, tethering these concepts to clear, but context-specific goals and practices is essential for improving social outcomes. We find that key goals of fisheries comanagement could be impeded by the lack of depth in addressing these themes in practice, and suggest the need for greater critical attention to their expressions in comanagement processes.

Research Priorities for Achieving Healthy Marine Ecosystems and Human Communities in a Changing Climate

“…Among the largest limitation in this research to date is the scarcity of gender disaggregated data across countries and domains (Monfort, 2015). Studies on the relationships between women's access to marine resources, participation in marine resource governance, and ocean health are limited (Leisher et al, 2016;Kleiber et al, 2017;Gallardo-Fernández and Saunders, 2018;McLeod et al, 2018;Quimby and Levine, 2018); however, findings from these studies are emerging as critical issues in marine social-ecological systems especially in the context of climate change. Recent global analyses estimate that women comprise 47% of the workforce engaged in fishing and post-harvest operations, including in nearshore fisheries, gleaning, aquaculture, processing, trading, and The eight questions identified as particularly impactful and feasible are marked with an asterisk and detailed further in the section "Results and Discussion.…”

Are fishers poor? Getting to the bottom of marine fisheries income statistics

“…Fisheries sustainability has to address not only the health of fish stocks but also the socio‐economic needs of fishers. The latter is increasingly recognized as being equally important to ecological health and has fuelled interest in tackling economic equity and social justice issues in fisheries and ocean management (Carr, ; Quimby & Levine, ). Policy focus on fishers’ socio‐economic condition has tended to revolve around questions of the environmental consequences of being poor (Cinner, ; Silva, ) such as whether poverty drives the use of destructive fishing practices.…”

The Relation between Fisheries–Science Partnerships and Co-Management: A Case Study of EU Discards Survival Work

“…On this view, FSP and FCM are symbiotically linked, and wherever the one is found, the other will also be found. For Hipwell [1], the very definition of FCM incorporates FSP within it, while for Quimby and Levine [80], FCM often includes FSP. In our view, notwithstanding these links between them, FSP and FCM are distinct and different kinds of arrangement: FSP is about collaborative knowledge decisions, and FCM is about collaborative governmental decisions.…”