The ethical dimensions of fisheries

Lam, Mimi E.; Pitcher, Tony J.

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.06.008

Cited by 46 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that equitable recovery plans could have considerably lower profits for the same biomass target when compared to economically efficient recovery plans. Equitable outcomes from fisheries reform are desirable both ethically (Lam & Pitcher, ) and because equitable proposals for reform may be more likely to gain support from fishing industries (Loomis & Ditton, ). Thus, expectations that recovering fisheries can enhance profits (e.g.,Costello et al., ) should be evaluated against the ability of recovery plans to simultaneously achieve social objectives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stakeholders that perceive planning to be inequitable and unjust may become dissatisfied (Adams, ), potentially resulting in failure of recovery plans (Loomis & Ditton, ). Therefore, an increasingly important social objective for recovery plans is to achieve distributive justice (Lam & Pitcher, ; Loomis & Ditton, ) in particular a distribution of catch restrictions across participants in the fishery that is perceived as equitable. The distribution of catch restrictions may be considered as part of triple‐bottom‐line plans that seek social equity, in addition to achieving biological objectives and economic efficiency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trade‐offs in triple‐bottom‐line outcomes when recovering fisheries

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Almost all environmental management comes at an economic cost that may not be borne equitably by all stakeholders. Here, we investigate how heterogeneity in catch and profits among fishers influences the trade-off among the triple-bottom-line objectives of recovering a fish population, maximizing its economic value and distributing restrictions equitably across fishers. As a case-study, we examine management reform of an ecologically and economically important coral reef fishery operating within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Using a simulation model, we find that total profitability of the fishing industry is 40% lower if recovery plans are equitable when compared to the most economically efficient plan. However, efficient recovery plans were typically highly inequitable because they required some fishers to cease fishing. Equity was defined according to different norms, and the efficiency loss was greatest when catch losses were shared equally across fishers rather than in proportion to their historical catch. We then varied key social, economic and biological parameters to identify cases when equity and efficient recovery would trade-off most strongly. Recovery plans could be both efficient and equitable when heterogeneity in fisher's catches and individual catch efficiencies was lower. If fishers were homogenous then equitable plans could have maximal economic efficiency. These results emphasize the importance of considering heterogeneity in individual fishers when designing recovery plans. Recovery plans that are inequitable may often fail to gain stakeholder support, so in fisheries with high heterogeneity we should temper our expectations for marked increases in profits. K E Y W O R D Seconomic efficiency, Plectropomus, recovery planning, triple-bottom-line

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade‐offs in triple‐bottom‐line outcomes when recovering fisheries

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…New environmental ethics (Lam 2013;Pitcher 2012a, Lam andCalcari-Campbell 2012) are needed to help reverse fisheries declines from global export fish commodities worth over US$ 129 billion (FAO 2014). Policy interventions (e.g., Back-to-the-Future policy goal of restoring ecosystems; Pitcher et al 1998, Pitcher 2005) and decommoditization strategies (e.g., valuing cultural property and instituting social subsidies; Lam and Pitcher 2012b) that value ecosystem and human relationships supported by living fish populations, in addition to fish landed for food and livelihoods, may begin to protect aquatic ecosystems and coastal communities from the adverse impacts of rising global commoditization.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fish commoditization and the historical origins of catching fish for profit

Pitcher

Lam

2015

Maritime Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humanity's relationship with fish dates back to prehistory, when ancestral hominins evolved the capacity to exploit aquatic resources. The impacts of early fishing on aquatic ecosystems were likely minimal, as primitive technology was used to harvest fish primarily for food. As fishing technology became more sophisticated and human populations dispersed and expanded, local economies transitioned from hunter-gatherer subsistence to barter and complex trade. This set up a positive feedback ratcheting fishing technology, mercantilization, and the commoditization of fish. A historical narrative based on archaeology and documentary evidence follows the principal changes in fisheries through evolutionary, ancient, classical and medieval eras to modern times. Some local depletions are recorded from early fishing, but from the 1950s, massive impacts of serial depletions by size, species, area and depth are driven by commoditized fishery products. North Sea herring fisheries are described in detail. Today's severely depleted wild fish populations reflect social institutions built on global markets that value fish predominantly as a consumptive commodity, risking future ecological integrity and human food security. To sustain global fisheries, decommoditization strategies that sustain human and ecosystem relationships with fish beyond their commodity value are needed.

show abstract

“…Lam and Pitcher () provide a framework for addressing both social and ecological outcomes in fisheries, defining ‘ethical’ as fisheries as those that attend to both ecological justice and social justice. The former, ecological justice, involves whether ecosystems are sustained and managed in a precautionary way that attends to species' intrinsic value, whether social systems are adaptive and accommodating to natural fluctuations in abundance, and whether harvest practices are wasteful or destructive to ecosystems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The political ecology of gear bans in two fisheries: Florida's net ban and Alaska's Salmon wars

Loring

2016

Fish and Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parametric management in fisheries, which describes the management of how, where and when fishing occurs, is often essential for achieving sustainability. Changes to these parameters likely have impacts on stakeholders, however, for example through the costs and allocative consequences of spatial restrictions or gear changes. Here, I discuss two cases where gear bans have been implemented or proposed in response to conservation concerns: the commercial net ban enacted in Florida in 1995 and the failed ban on set gill‐nets in parts of Alaska. The two cases are remarkably similar, although the outcomes were quite different because of the social context of each fishery. Lessons from the Florida ban, which resulted in numerous negative social and ecological impacts, are informative regarding the impacts that likely would have accompanied the Alaska ban, had it proceeded. In both cases, the gear bans have had or were poised to have notable impacts on allocation, but scientific evidence for their necessity was limited. These cases show how ethical considerations can be inseparable from the ecological aspects of managing fisheries, and that when communities grapple with the sustainability of fisheries, they are simultaneously seeking to define the socially acceptable uses of those resources. I suggest a set of questions that can be asked when proposing parametric changes to fisheries, including how those changes will impact social well‐being and community resilience. These are questions that I argue must be addressed if both ethical and sustainable fisheries are the goal.

show abstract

The ethical dimensions of fisheries

Cited by 46 publications

References 50 publications

Trade‐offs in triple‐bottom‐line outcomes when recovering fisheries

Trade‐offs in triple‐bottom‐line outcomes when recovering fisheries

Fish commoditization and the historical origins of catching fish for profit

The political ecology of gear bans in two fisheries: Florida's net ban and Alaska's Salmon wars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About