Suchergebnisse

Public views of, and public participation in, the management of commons are increasingly being recommended and sought after in environmental management processes. Yet, given the limits of today's liberal democracy, what are the weaknesses? This article presents data from a citizens jury-inspired deliberative workshop held to tease out stakeholder views of management priorities for a section of the North Sea: the Dogger Bank. As this article reveals, the lessons learned from the Dogger Bank workshop advocate not simply what is required for managing one particular ocean commons, but also highlight some of the public participation research design failings, taking public participation in resource management further by adding to the literature and theoretical discussions on the public sphere (Habermas 1989). Analysis of the citizens jury-inspired deliberative workshop also highlights the critical issue of power inherent, yet often unacknowledged, in public participation in environmental management. Stakeholder opinions uncovered through workshop discussions also show how commons are viewed today – as an economic resource-- highlighting the trend of the mainstreaming of the commodification of the commons.

This report presents research undertaken with the belief that a need exists for better understanding of the social and cultural importance of the Greenland Halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) fishery to Greenlanders. It was decided the research would focus on one of three coastal Greenland Halibut fishery districts: Upernavik. Upernavik was chosen mgiven the critical importance of Greenland halibut for local fishers and area residents. The best method for presenting a combination of social and fishery data takes the form of a fishery profile. Additionally, given that the government of Greenland is currently in the midst of proposing changes to the Halibut management structure, the report focuses specifically on potential social impacts of the fishery management plan to coastal fishers. The degree and consequence of any impact is a function of the characteristics of the fishing community. The critical point is the vulnerability of the community to negative repercussions of the management action and the resilience the community has in being able to absorb these repercussions. Upernavik and Greenlandic fisheries communities are known to be remote and have limited economic opportunities for residents. Consequently, it is important to understand the adaptability and vulnerability of the community in order to successfully anticipate impacts. Greenland halibut is the most important commercial fish stock for Upernavik residents. In 2010 there were more than 385 fishermen with official licenses for Greenland halibut in Upernavik. There are up to an additional 75 who also fish, however, without paying the license fee. This means that almost half of working age men fish for halibut in the Upernavik district. Fishing is extremely important in Upernavik for its role in the local, mixed economy. Fishing often provides the cash needed for materials needed for work (hunting and fishing equipment such as bullets, nets, snowmobiles, etc.) and daily living (housing, transport, television, food, etc). Fishing also supports the important local cultural practice of meeting social obligations and reciprocity such as through kødgaver (gifting of meat), a practice which remains both culturally and economically important in the smaller settlements. Currently, the government of Greenland is proposing changes to the management of Greenland halibut for the coastal fishers, including the closing the fishery to new entrants in 2012. Additional changes include the introduction of ITQs for large boats. With little discussion of where locals will work and live if they can not earn an income from the fishery, or discussion of how the communities may be impacted by the potential consolidation of quota shares into fewer hands (as is seen in all ITQ fisheries), the report suggests that management follows accepted practices of good governance as it introduces its new Greenland halibut plan. Good governance is participatory and is based upon, among other points, social equity, responsiveness, and transparency. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society. Since the plan has not yet been implemented, however, there is still time to follow good governance practices for the sustainability of not only the Greenland halibut stock, but also for Greenlandic society.

One would hypothesize that the Common Fisheries Policy, as the umbrella framework for fisheries management in the EU would have the greatest impact on fishers' communities across Europe. There are, however, biological, economic, social, and political factors, which vary among fishing communities that can affect how these communities react to changes. This paper explores the links between institutional arrangements and ecological dynamics in two European inshore fisheries socio-ecological systems, using a resilience framework. The Mediterranean small-scale fishers do not seem to have been particularly affected by the Common Fisheries Policy regulations but appear affected by competition with the politically strong recreational fishers and the invasion of the rabbit fish population. The inshore fishers along the East coast of Scotland believe that their interests are not as sufficiently protected as the interests of their offshore counterpart. Decisions and initiatives at global, EU, and sometimes national level, tend to take into account those fisheries sectors which have a national economic importance. A socio-ecological analysis can shift the focus from biological and economic aspects to more sustainable long-term delivery of environmental benefits linked to human wellbeing.

The EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has adopted an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management (EBFM), to minimize the negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem. The approach entails a shift from single-species management to a holistic one that considers the interaction between ecosystem components and between the ecosystem and society, and strives for integrated and adaptive management, involving stakeholders. The implementation of EBFM is, however, challenging due to e.g. mismatch between governance and ecosystem boundaries, and the resulting poor understanding of the social-ecological systems (SES). This paper aims to explore what requirements EBFM poses for governance at different levels and to assess how reorganizing governance could, in turn, improve SES understanding. We apply the theoretical framework of governability (Kooiman et al.) to qualitative empirical material and literature concerning Baltic salmon and herring fisheries to 1) analyze the complexity, diversity and dynamics of the fisheries systems to be governed, 2) identify elements, modes and orders of governance needed for the EBFM of the SES, and 3) characterize patterns of interactions for the governing system to match the scale and scope of the system to be governed. Baltic salmon and herring have a predator-prey relationship, and a problem of high dioxin levels in common. However, the relationship of the fisheries with society differs in terms of socio-cultural values and use. Finally, we assess the governability of these fisheries in the framework of the EBFM, given the CFP aims of ensuring social-ecological wellbeing and food security and safety.

This article focuses on the dioxin problem of Baltic herring and salmon fisheries and its governance that is based on natural scientific knowledge. The dioxin problem weakens the perceived quality of Baltic salmon and herring as food and affects the way the catches can be used. This influences negatively the fishing livelihood, the coastal culture, and the availability of the fish for consumers. We explored how the governance of the dioxin problem could be improved, to better address its socio-economic and cultural implications. We identified four main actions: (1) adopt environmental, economic and social sustainability, and food security and safety as shared principles between the environmental, food safety/public health, and fisheries policies, (2) establish collaboration between the environmental, public health, and fisheries sectors at the regional level, (3) enhance interaction around the dioxin problem within the fisheries sector, and (4) support the participation of the Baltic fisheries stakeholders in the EU-level food safety governance. Viewing dioxins in fish not only as a natural scientific problem but as a multidimensional one would enable a wider toolbox of governing instruments to be developed to better address the different dimensions. This would support steps towards collaborative governance and a food system approach. ; Peer reviewed

We reflect on the innovation process that led to the development of the pulse trawl that was successfully trialed at a commercial scale, but eventually ended with the European Parliament passing legislation to ban its use. The ban was imposed despite published and emerging evidence that suggested that the environmental performance and catch efficiency of the pulse trawl was superior to the conventional beam trawl design. We used a stakeholder questionnaire to understand which factors undermined wider acceptance of the pulse trawl. The main factors where a lack of involvement of certain key stakeholders earlier in the process that would have ensured better co-development of innovation and a shared vision of the environmental or governance questions that needed to be addressed. Although the stakeholder process itself was seen to be positive, it was implemented too late in the innovation process, as was the implementation of an independent peer review process. We conclude by identifying a pathway for future fishing gear innovation processes that integrate the lessons learnt from the pulse trawl innovation process.

Coastal and marine cultural heritage (CMCH) is at risk due to its location and its often indefinable value. As these risks are likely to intensify in the future, there is an urgent need to build CMCH resilience. We argue that the current CMCH risk management paradigm narrowly focuses on the present and preservation. This tends to exclude debates about the contested nature of resilience and how it may be achieved beyond a strict preservationist approach. There is a need, therefore, to progress a broader and more dynamic framing of CMCH management that recognises the shift away from strict preservationist approaches and incorporates the complexity of heritage's socio-political contexts. Drawing on critical cultural heritage literature, we reconceptualise CMCH management by rethinking the temporality of cultural heritage. We argue that cultural heritage may exist in four socio-temporal manifestations (extant, lost, dormant, and potential) and that CMCH management consists of three broad socio-political steering processes (continuity, discontinuity, and transformation). Our reconceptualisation of CMCH management is a first step in countering the presentness trap in CMCH management. It provides a useful conceptual framing through which to understand processes beyond the preservationist approach and raises questions about the contingent and contested nature of CMCH, ethical questions around loss and transformation, and the democratisation of cultural heritage management.

Coastal and marine cultural heritage (CMCH) is at risk due to its location and its often indefinable value. As these risks are likely to intensify in the future, there is an urgent need to build CMCH resilience. We argue that the current CMCH risk management paradigm narrowly focuses on the present and preservation. This tends to exclude debates about the contested nature of resilience and how it may be achieved beyond a strict preservationist approach. There is a need, therefore, to progress a broader and more dynamic framing of CMCH management that recognises the shift away from strict preservationist approaches and incorporates the complexity of heritage's socio-political contexts. Drawing on critical cultural heritage literature, we reconceptualise CMCH management by rethinking the temporality of cultural heritage. We argue that cultural heritage may exist in four socio-temporal manifestations (extant, lost, dormant, and potential) and that CMCH management consists of three broad socio-political steering processes (continuity, discontinuity, and transformation). Our reconceptualisation of CMCH management is a first step in countering the presentness trap in CMCH management. It provides a useful conceptual framing through which to understand processes beyond the preservationist approach and raises questions about the contingent and contested nature of CMCH, ethical questions around loss and transformation, and the democratisation of cultural heritage management.