Bridging Gaps, Reforming Fisheries

Abstract

Scientific debates often revolve around the issues of 'unbiased science' with the majority of scientists keeping themselves at arm's length from policy-making to ensure their credibility.Participatory research has been shifting these dynamics and has led to the emergence of research practices and advice frameworks that allow co-creation of common knowledge bases for management. This chapter, following the description of 14 cases of participatory research, places these cases alongside each other, compares and examines them as pieces in a larger puzzle to let us identify emergent patterns. In doing that, we draw on the analytical basis developed in Chapter 2. To understand what goes on in the transition zone between top-down management and participatory governance, we focus on i) participation, ii) knowledge inclusion and iii) institutional reform. What we are seeing is that the case studies, instead of becoming arenas for negotiating knowledge gaps and removing false preconceptions, worked much more pragmatically, allowing fishermen access to the resources of science. With the ongoing institutional reform, emphasizing stakeholder participation and the need for broader sharing of responsibility for management processes, fisheries governance is changing. We explore this change process through the concept of the "scientific fisherman" introduced in Chapter 2, a character who is actively involved in management decision making and a competent and acknowledged participant in the processes of mobilizing knowledge for management purposes.

The Relation between Fisheries–Science Partnerships and Co-Management: A Case Study of EU Discards Survival Work

“…It also afforded the fishing industry the opportunity to develop newfound skills in working with scientists and to become more familiar with scientific methods. All this is good preparation for potential participation of fishers in FCM in line with a finding by Holm et al [84] from similar case studies. However, on the question of whether this FSP case actually moved forward the prospect of establishing FCM, the answer is no.…”

“…Mackinson et al [83] (p. 1, 6, 7) say "the basic idea of collaboration in research and innovation is deeply connected with the principles of inclusive governance", referring to co-management as "an outcome of participatory research", and observing "how multi-actor collaboration in research and innovation can provide a vehicle for inclusive governance". Holm et al [84] (p. 22) describe the GAP project as "part of a more general movement towards more inclusive governance approaches". In a review of fishery-dependent information, Dörner et al [85] (p. 1133) say a "paradigm shift towards full engagement of key stakeholders started to take place" between 2010 and 2014.…”

“…But even within this restricted domain, the FSP in the case study projects did not constitute FCM because they were essentially research exercises, not management exercises, since they did not make management decisions but only offered recommendations to management. It is conceivable that the FSP provided fishers with political leverage in future fisheries management decision-making [84]. NSAC [102] saw the FSP activity within the case work as an opportunity for Advisory Councils to deepen the relationship between fishers and scientists from consultation to equal partnership.…”

Monitoring of individual indicators of safety and quality of water and fish of Khadzhibey estuary

“…На даний час зупинити процеси антропогенного навантаження на водні ресурси не є можливим через військовий стан на території країни (Fogarty & Collie, 2020;Kitowski et al, 2023). Моніторинг санітарногігієнічної оцінки якості гідроекологічного стану водойм допоможе у боротьбі із проблемою забруднення водойм, є актуальним та своєчасним (Holm et al, 2020;Mullasseri & Kurup, 2022).…”

A will-o’-the wisp? On the utility of voluntary contributions of data and knowledge from the fishing industry to marine science

“…The same thinking applies to the words 'scientists' and 'science' and the groups and phenomena they describe. Our focus on voluntary industry contributions is explicitly directed at regions with well-developed scientific advisory systems because this is where issues about the transition in governance and participatory approaches in fisheries are matters of debate rather than necessity (Stilgoe et al, 2013;Garcıá et al, 2016;Holm et al, 2020b;Linke et al, 2020;Macher et al, 2021).…”