Fisheries management benefits from the contribution of several academic disciplines, each with their own perspectives, concerns and solutions. In this essay we argue that the contribution of biology, economics, sociology and other relevant disciplines to fisheries would be improved if they originated from broader, more integrated analytical perspectives that are attuned to the empirical realities of fisheries management. Today, disciplinary boundaries narrow the perspectives of fisheries management, creating tunnel vision and standardized technical fixes to complex and diverse management problems. Having worked separately and together for a number of years in fisheries research and consultancy in many parts of the world we, as a group of biologists, economists and sociologists, feel that the time to rid ourselves from disciplinary dogmatism is long overdue. We claim that improvements in fisheries management will be realized not through the promotion of technical fixes but instead by embracing and responding to the complexity of the management problem.2

During the last decade the co-management concept has gained increasing acceptance as a potential way forward to improve fisheries management performance. It has, however, at the same time become increasingly evident that the co-management concept is not clearly defined and means very different things to different people. In this article, we attempt to document experience available from a recent study on fisheries co-management that has researched case studies of various implementations of co-management arrangements in coastal and freshwater fisheries in South East Asia and Southern Africa, and to present a more comprehensive understanding of co-management and to summarise the experiences with both the positive outcomes and the problems in actual implementation.

No abstract

While international agreements and legislation call for incorporation of four pillars of sustainability, the social (including cultural), economic and institutional aspects (the ‘human dimension’) have been relatively neglected to date. Three key impediments have been identified: a relative lack of explicit social, economic and institutional objectives; a general lack of process (frameworks, governance) for routine integration of all four pillars of sustainability; and a bias towards biological considerations. Practical integration requires a ‘systems’ approach with explicit consideration of strategic and operational aspects of management; multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary evaluations; practical objectives for the four pillars of sustainability; appropriate participation; and a governance system that is able to integrate these diverse considerations in management. We challenge all involved in fisheries to immediately take five practical steps toward integrating ecological, economic, social and institutional aspects: (1) Adopt the perspective of the fishery as a ‘system’ with interacting natural, human and management elements; (2) Be aware of both strategic and operational aspects of fisheries assessment and management; (3) Articulate overarching objectives that incorporate all four pillars of sustainability; (4) Encourage appropriate (and diverse) disciplinary participation in all aspects of research, evaluation and management; and (5) Encourage development of (or emulate) participatory governance.

Degnbol, P., and McCay, B. J. 2006. Unintended and perverse consequences of ignoring linkages in fisheries systems. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 793–797. The development of fisheries management strategies within institutions such as national governments, the EU, and ICES includes explicit or implicit decisions on longer term management objectives and performance criteria, on the relevant knowledge base for tactical management decisions, on decision rules regarding fisheries in the current or forthcoming fishing season, and on the implementation framework. These decisions, moreover, must be relevant to the characteristics of the fisheries and the stocks being exploited. The development of management strategies must be based, therefore, on an understanding of the overall fisheries system and linkages among its components. Based on recent examples in Europe and North America, we discuss how a failure to understand the linkages in the fisheries system may lead to management strategies that fail to achieve their objectives, and how an understanding of these linkages can inform the development of strategies that are more likely to achieve policy objectives.