A socio‐psychological approach for understanding and managing bycatch in small‐scale fisheries

Abstract

Fisheries bycatch is the greatest threat to migratory, long‐lived marine animals. Addressing bycatch ultimately requires changing fisher behaviour, yet social and behavioural sciences are rarely applied to bycatch mitigation, with an absence of theory‐informed behaviour change interventions. Moreover, mitigating bycatch is particularly challenging in small‐scale mixed‐species fisheries (SSFs), where perceptions of target and non‐target vary widely, and all catches have economic or subsistence value. Such fisheries are ubiquitous throughout the world's oceans, and bycatch mitigation in these contexts necessitates a people‐centred approach. We seek to address this gap, drawing on well‐established theories from behavioural and social sciences. We first typify bycatch as a spectrum rather than a clearly delineated component of catch, where the position of a species on this spectrum depends on fishers' beliefs regarding the outcomes of bycatch‐relevant behaviour. We then outline an approach to ‘diagnose’ fishers' underlying beliefs about bycatch, using the theory of planned behaviour (TPB): a widely applied and empirically tested theory for predicting and changing behaviour. Finally, we illustrate the approach using an empirical case study, exploring fishers' beliefs regarding bycatch‐relevant behaviour for three endangered elasmobranch species in a small‐scale gill net fishery in Indonesia. Our findings show how the TPB can help to understand fishers' underlying beliefs regarding bycatch, and facilitators/inhibitors of bycatch mitigation, to inform behaviour change interventions. We emphasize the need to understand the human dimensions of bycatch, especially in SSFs, where technical fixes alone will be insufficient to change behaviour. Rather, interdisciplinary approaches are needed to align fishers' needs with conservation objectives. Our bycatch spectrum and the TPB could be widely applied for disentangling drivers of bycatch in other SSFs and designing interventions which support more effective and socially just marine conservation. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Untitled

“…The concept of nature positive has received some attention from academics and consultancy companies. On the academic side, Booth et al (2023), for example, recognised that nature positive was emerging as a rallying call for businesses, but argued that tinkering with businesses will not bring about transformative change in business's relationship with the environment, and that there was a lack of clarity in how to operate such transformative change. That said, Booth et al (2023) proposed a framework, to support companies to understand and develop transformative actions in the context of contributing towards a nature positive future, with case studies from food retailing and mining, which were grounded in robust social science theory and empirical evidence, and they offered some suggestions to promote integrity and innovation, whilst guarding against greenwashing.…”

Search for the vulnerable giants: the presence of giant guitarfish and wedgefish in the Karimunjawa National Park and adjacent waters

“…Indonesia is a global priority for conservation of giant guitarfish and wedgefish, because it is a hotspot of species diversity and also the world's largest shark and ray fishing nation (Dent and Clarke 2015). Giant guitarfish and wedgefish are extensively caught and utilised in many regions, including Aceh, West Kalimantan, East Lombok and the northern coast of Java (Faizah and Chodrijah 2020;Simeon et al 2020;Yuwandana et al 2020;Booth et al 2023a;Hermansyah et al 2022). This creates a challenge for successful implementation of CITES, which was ratified by the Government of Indonesia in 2022 under the Minitrial Decree of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Number 12 Year 2022 (recommends the catch quota and minimum catch size of 180 cm for giant guitarfish, Glaucostegus spp., and 170 cm for wedgefish, Rhynchobatus spp.)…”

The Nature Positive Journey for Business: A research agenda to enable private sector contributions to the global biodiversity framework.

“…However, as a new term, 'Nature Positive' is often poorly or inconsistently defined, posing a risk that the term could be applied to ineffective or suboptimal actions that do not lead to net positive outcomes for nature nor contribute towards wider societal goals for nature recovery (Milner-Gulland 2022, zu Ermgassen et al 2022. Thus, a clear, consistent definition and guiding principles are needed for what can be considered as Nature Positive (see Box 1 for the principles presented by Booth et al 2023a). So as not to dilute its meaning, Nature Positive is better viewed not as a target for individual businesses but a societal goal.…”

“…So as not to dilute its meaning, Nature Positive is better viewed not as a target for individual businesses but a societal goal. Companies can contribute meaningfully towards this goal by setting and meeting ambitious targets to address impacts, take positive actions and drive transformative change (Booth et al 2023a).…”

“…For example, case studies quantifying the biodiversity footprint of the University of Oxford, and outlining Nature Positive strategies for the food system of an individual Oxford college, both identified that rapid, ambitious, large-scale institutional change would be necessary to achieve Nature Positive aligned goals (Bull et al 2022b;Taylor et al 2022). For businesses, this poses the challenge of reducing impacts and increasing efficiencies without compromising business-critical activities, while also taking actions to deliver additional conservation gains and remove barriers to a nature positive future (Booth et al 2023a partners is needed to answer these questions and help to drive technological, economic and policy innovations for a nature positive future. However, there is currently no coordinated approach to identify priority research areas, and to funnel necessary funding.…”