The human side of the ecosystem approach to fisheries management: preliminary results of an FAO Expert Consultation.

Abstract

The concept of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAF) is reaching a point of general acceptance by those involved in fisheries. There is also growing agreement that fisheries management must incorporate the complicated and often not-well-understood links between human activities and the environment. As a primary goal of an ecosystem approach is "to balance diverse societal objectives", social, economic, and institutional considerations are necessary components of any EAF-based policy making and, indeed, are the units of control available for EAF implementation. This paper presents the preliminary outcomes of the UN FAO Expert Consultation on the Economic, Social, and Institutional Considerations of Applying the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (June, 2006). This meeting was designed to provide an understanding of the roles played by these 'human side' perspectives within the EAF process; including 1) as driving forces for the EAF, 2) as a means for understanding the potential costs and benefits associated with EAF implementation, 3) as instruments in the application of EAF, and 4) as supporting or constraining roles in the EAF. This paper focuses on the process followed during the workshop as a great effort was made to incorporate principles of the ecosystem approach into the meeting itself.

No-trawl area impacts: perceptions, compliance and fish abundances

“…2003; De Young et al . 2008). Here, understanding of fishers’ perceptions and behaviour in response to the PTAs allows assessment of whether the PTAs are achieving their objectives and whether benefits accrue to fish, fisheries or individual fishers.…”

“…Ecological, social and economic data are needed to inform successful MPA development (WSSD 2002; Stead 2005; De Young et al . 2008). This study helps to address this gap in understanding, using a case study of two prohibited trawling areas (PTAs) in the North Sea.…”

Community knowledge as a cornerstone for fisheries management

“…In a number of the cases reviewed, community knowledge is considered a key source of data and information, which is why it is deemed in a large number of reports to be seen as particularly valuable in resourcepoor contexts, e.g., developing countries with limited scientific capacity (Drew 2005). Despite decades of acknowledgement that local and traditional ecological knowledge hold more value than simply data inputs (Ruddle 2000, Haggan and Neis 2007, Johannes and Neis 2007, De Young et al 2008, Berkes 2009, Berkes and Nayak 2018, this remains a primary reason, particularly for natural scientists, to work with fishing communities. However, deeming these data sources "low cost" (Mamun and Natcher 2023), presumably relative to costly technological equipment and professional scientific staffing, fails to acknowledge the social resources required to do proper relationship building and co-development work with communities, identified as enablers in the present study.…”

“…Although these changes can broadly be summarized as a move toward "co-management" as an umbrella term, defined as "the sharing of power and responsibility between government and resource users" (Berkes et al 1991:12), it has been argued that co-management varies along two axes: (1) the degree to which decision making is shared between the government and harvesters, and (2) if and how comanagement is implemented across the various functional components of the management process (Puley and Charles 2022). These different forms range from enhanced consultation, to knowledge co-production at the science-policy interface, to true decentralization and power-sharing via co-management, giving harvesters, processors, and communities a clear stake in the sustainability of the resource (Pinkerton 1989, Berkes et al 1991 Within the ongoing evolution of fisheries management practices toward various forms of co-management, knowledge inclusion from diverse stakeholders and rightsholders is a key means through which multiple sustainability goals (including those relating to ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions) and more effective governance may be achieved (De Young et al 2008, Garcia 2008, Stephenson et al 2017, Foley et al 2020. In industrialized countries, where fisheries management remains largely centralized, there are nonetheless small steps toward more holistic fisheries assessments and more extensive participation.…”

Towards vibrant fish populations and sustainable fisheries that benefit all: learning from the last 30 years to inform the next 30 years

“…Over the past 30 years, fisheries science has increasingly recognized the importance of understanding and incorporating the human dimensions into fisheries management and conservation measures, policy, and legal frameworks. An ecosystem approach to fisheries should not only be about ensuring the ecological integrity of fisheries, but also about creating an enabling regulatory framework and environment for fisheries sustainability by strengthening social, economic, and institutional aspects in fisheries (De Young et al 2018;FAO 2009). The human dimensions in fisheries management can be perceived through, for instance, integrated ecosystem assessments (e.g., environmental, socio-cultural impact assessments), participatory arrangements (e.g., co-management, communitybased management), through the specific lenses of certain groups such as women (Williams 2008;FAO 2009), and by following a human rights-based approach to small-scale fisheries management and governance (FAO 2015).…”