Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:24:27.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using stakeholder’s perspectives of ‘Managed Access’ to guide management efforts in small-scale fisheries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2021

Chad A Bowman Open the ORCID record for Chad A Bowman [Opens in a new window] ,
Stephen C Mangi  and
Hazel A Oxenford
Chad A Bowman*
Affiliation:
Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES), University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, BB11000, Barbados
Stephen C Mangi
Affiliation:
Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Unit 1, 1st Floor, Plymouth Fish Quay, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 0LH, UK MRAG Ltd, 18 Queen Street, London, W1J 5PN, UK
Hazel A Oxenford
Affiliation:
Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES), University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, BB11000, Barbados
*
Author for correspondence: Chad A Bowman, Email: bowmanchad10@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Controlling and monitoring fishing effort and understanding human perspectives on fisheries management strategies are paramount to the successful management and sustainability of fisheries. Open-access fishing, which is commonplace in the small-scale fisheries (SSFs) of developing countries, poses severe challenges to management, and to address many of these challenges, Belize implemented a country-wide rights-based fishery (RBF) management strategy known as Managed Access (MA). This study uses Q methodology to explore the perspectives of four key stakeholder groups on the early impacts of the strategy, revealing five distinct perspectives. Perspective 1 supported MA but believed some components needed revision. Perspective 2 had high confidence in MA and expected improvements with financial investments. Perspective 3 did not believe in the strategy and expressed frustration with it not protecting fishers’ rights. Perspective 4 captured the biological concerns not addressed by the strategy, while Perspective 5 focused on the strategy’s inability to make the fisheries more profitable thus far. The different perspectives indicate that MA will be unlikely to meet its objectives without more financial investment in enforcement and stakeholder engagement, research and the strengthening of institutional capacity. This study contributes to the scarce scientific information on the early stages of RBF systems implementation in SSFs.

Keywords

Caribbean SIDSfisheries managementrights-based fisheriessmall-scale fisheriesterritorial use rights for fisheries
Type
Research Paper
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 100 - 109
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aburto, J, Gallardo, G, Stotz, W, Cerda, C, Mondaca-Schachermayer, C, Vera, K (2013) Territorial user rights for artisanal fisheries in Chile-intended and unintended outcomes. Ocean & Coastal Management 71: 284–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A, Ostrom, E (2001) Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics & Society 29: 485–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, EH, Ratner, BD, Asgard, B, Willmann, R, Pomeroy, R, Kurien, J (2012) Rights-based fisheries governance: from fishing rights to human rights. Fish and Fisheries 13: 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barner, AK, Lubchenco, J, Costello, C, Gianes, SD, Leland, A, Jenks, G, Spring, M (2015) Solutions for recovering and sustaining the bounty of the ocean. Combining fisheries reforms, rights-based fisheries management, and marine reserves. Oceanography 28: 252–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, NJ (2016) Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 30: 582–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cancino, JP, Uchida, H, Wilen, JE (2007) TURFs and ITQs: collective vs. individual decision making. Marine Resource Economics 22: 391–406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castañeda, A, Maaz, J, Requeña, N, Chan, S (2012) Managed Access in Belize. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 64: 279–283.Google Scholar
Catzim, N, Walker, Z (2013) Assessment of the Effectiveness of Managed Access Implementation in Glover’s Reef Marine Reserve and the Port Honduras Marine Reserve. Toledo, Spain: Toledo Institute for Development and Environment, Wildlife Conservation Society, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Fisheries Department.Google Scholar
Chaigneau, T, Brown, K (2016) Challenging the win–win discourse on conservation and development: analysing support for marine protected areas. Ecology and Society 21: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (2019) Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries: Sharing Good Practices from around the World. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 644, eds L Westlund, J Zelasney [www document] URL http://www.fao.org/3/CA3041EN/ca3041en.pdf Google Scholar
Foley, J (2012) Managed Access: Moving Towards Collaborative Fisheries Sustainability in Belize. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium, Cairns, Australia [www document] URL http://www.icrs2012.com/proceedings/manuscripts/ICRS2012_18A_2.pdf Google Scholar
Fujita, R, Epstein, L, Battista, W, Karr, W, Higgins, P, Landman, J, Carcamo, R (2017) Scaling territorial use rights in fisheries (TURFs) in Belize. Bulletin of Marine Science 93: 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasalla, M, de Castro, F (2016) Enhancing stewardship in Latin America and Caribbean small-scale fisheries: challenges and opportunities. Maritime Studies 15: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelcich, S, Cinner, J, Donlan, CJ, Tapia-Lewin, S, Godoy, N, Castilla, JC (2017) Fishers’ perceptions on the Chilean coastal TURF system after two decades: problems, benefits, and emerging needs. Bulletin of Marine Science 93: 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, B (2017) The fundamentals of Q-methodology. Journal of Research Methodology 2: 57–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConney, P, Pereira Medeiros, R, Pascual-Fernández, JL, Pena, M (2019) Stewardship and sustainable practices in small-scale fisheries. In: Chuenpagdee, R, Jentoft, S (eds), Transdisciplinarity for Small-Scale Fisheries Governance (pp. 181–201). MARE Publication Series, Vol. 21. Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E (2008) The challenge of common-pool resources. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 50: 8–21.Google Scholar
Oxenford, HA, Monnereau, I (2018) Climate change impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptations: Western Central Atlantic marine fisheries. In: Barange, M, Bahri, T, Beveridge, M, Cochrane, K, Funge-Smith, S, Poulain, F (eds), Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture: Synthesis of Current Knowledge, Adaptation and Mitigation Options (pp. 185–206). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 627 [www document] URL http://www.fao.org/3/i9705en/i9705en.pdf Google Scholar
Oyanedel, R, Gelcich, S, Milner-Gulland, EJ (2020) Motivations for (non-) compliance with conservation rules by small-scale resource users. Conservation Letters 13: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quynh, NC, Schilizzi, S, Hailu, A, Iftekhar, S (2017) Territorial use rights for fisheries (TURFs): state of the art and the road ahead. Marine Policy 75: 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
San Martìn, G, Parma, AM, Orensanz, JL (2010) The Chilean experience with territorial use rights in fisheries. Handbook of Marine Fisheries Conservation and Management 24: 324–337.Google Scholar
Wade, E, Biedenweg, K (2019) Exploring the diversity of mental models associated with Belize’s Managed Access fisheries policy. Ocean and Coastal Management 178: 104868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, E, Spalding, AK, Biedenweg, K (2019) Integrating property rights into fisheries management: the case of Belize’s journey to managed access. Marine Policy 108: 103631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WECAFC (2019) State of Fisheries and Aquaculture in the WECAFC Area. 17th Session of the Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission, Miami, FL, USA, 15–18 July 2019, WECAFC/XVII/2019/02.Google Scholar
Zabala A (2014) Q method: a package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. The R Journal 6: 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zabala, A, Sandbrook, C, Mukherjee, N (2018) When and how to use Q-methodology to understand perspective in conservation research. Conservation Biology 32: 1185–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bowman et al. supplementary material

Appendix S2

Download Bowman et al. supplementary material(File)
File 21 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bowman et al. supplementary material

Appendix S1

Download Bowman et al. supplementary material(File)
File 20.2 KB