Comanagement of small‐scale fisheries and ecosystem services

Abstract

Marine ecosystem services are in global decline, which requires new transformational changes in governance to cope with multiple anthropogenic stressors. We perform a systematic literature review of the biodiversity and ecosystem services outcomes of a governance transformation toward comanagement through the allocation of territorial user rights to artisanal fisher associations (TURFs) in Chile. We synthesize the implications of more than 25 years of establishing a TURF policy over ecosystem services. Results show TURFs sustain biodiversity and all typologies of ecosystem services when they are well enforced. Research on provisioning services is most prevalent, however cultural services have been gaining traction with studies assessing the role of leadership, sanctions, and social capital in determining TURF outcomes. The results suggest that TURFs can play an important role in creating social and ecological enabling conditions for local stewardship. While this is encouraging, there is a bias toward positive results and few studies address negative consequences of TURFs aimed at identifying constraints for further development. The review shows that there has been a continuous transition toward interdisciplinary social–ecological research. Research on TURFs faced with drivers of global change and uncertainty are urgently needed, in order to anticipate unintended outcomes and adapt accordingly.

Research Priorities for Achieving Healthy Marine Ecosystems and Human Communities in a Changing Climate

“…On an international level, this could lead to developing policy and support for diverse solutions. This research could also inform future scenarios used by groups such as IPCC (e.g., Rogelj et al, 2018) Various studies have examined the efficacy of fisheries management regimes, including impacts and outcomes of marine protected areas (MPAs), Territorial Use Rights Fisheries (TURFs), catch shares or catch limits, co-management, and gear restrictions (e.g., Halpern, 2003;Mascia et al, 2010;Cinner et al, 2012a;Edgar et al, 2014;d'Armengol et al, 2018;Gelcich et al, 2019). However, this research has rarely considered the question of how different governance structures respond and adapt to significant ecological change.…”

Drivers and trends in catch of benthic resources in Chilean TURFs and surrounding open access areas

“…Though increased CPUEs inside of TURFs compared to OAAs has been demonstrated in previous literature (Castilla and Fernández 1998, Gelcich et al 2012, Defeo et al 2016, most studies have focused on small-scale projects in specific regions of the country. The most spatially extensive study was based on a systematic literature review of the effects of TURFs on ecosystem services in Chile considering 268 study sites all along the Chilean coast (Gelcich et al 2019). It showed that TURFs sustain biodiversity and all typologies of ecosystem services (i.e., supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural services), but stressed a lack of studies addressing potential negative or unpredicted consequences of TURFs and a need to better understand changes over time (Gelcich et al 2019).…”

“…The most spatially extensive study was based on a systematic literature review of the effects of TURFs on ecosystem services in Chile considering 268 study sites all along the Chilean coast (Gelcich et al 2019). It showed that TURFs sustain biodiversity and all typologies of ecosystem services (i.e., supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural services), but stressed a lack of studies addressing potential negative or unpredicted consequences of TURFs and a need to better understand changes over time (Gelcich et al 2019). Our study expands the scale of previous analyses, focusing on the comparison between TURFs and OAAs, and shows that median catch rates (CPUAs and CPUEs) of benthic resources were at least 75% higher inside TURFs than in surrounding areas.…”

“…During the last decade, TURFs have been promoted as a general approach to tackling the negative impacts of open access fishing (Wilen et al 2012, Kratz and Block 2013, FAO 2014, Nguyen Thi Quinh et al 2017, particularly for unassessed fisheries in developing countries that often suffer from overexploitation (Costello et al 2012). However, the full impacts of TURFs on fisheries sustainability, including long-term trends in catch rates and impacts beyond TURFs boundaries, are not yet fully understood (Orensanz et al 2005, Aburto et al 2014, Gelcich et al 2019. As the implementation of individual quotas and marine protected areas has been found to have unintended impacts on unregulated subpopulations and habitats (referred to here as "management spillover"; Hilborn et al 2004, Murawski et al 2005, Asche et al 2007, Branch 2009, Abbott and Haynie 2012, similar effects might be expected from other area-or rights-based management and conservation instruments, including TURFs.…”

Generic and specific facets of vulnerability for analysing trade‐offs and synergies in natural resource management

“…Resources harvested from the TURFs are subject to total allowable catch defined by the government, and unions are accountable for the stock assessments. While TURFs can provide the conditions for long term sustainability in Chile (Castilla, ; Gelcich, Godoy, Prado, & Castilla, ; Gelcich, Martínez‐Harms, Tapia‐Lewin, Vasquez‐Lavin, & Ruano‐Chamorro, ), a number of challenges remain (Figure ).…”