Evaluating and implementing social–ecological systems: A comprehensive approach to sustainable fisheries

Abstract

Fisheries sustainability is recognized to have four pillars: ecological, economic, social (including cultural) and institutional (or governance). Although international agreements, and legislation in many jurisdictions, call for implementation of all four pillars of sustainability, the social, economic and institutional aspects (i.e., the “human dimensions”) have not been comprehensively and collectively addressed to date. This study describes a framework for comprehensive fisheries evaluation developed by the Canadian Fisheries Research Network (CFRN) that articulates the full spectrum of ecological, economic, social and institutional objectives required under international agreements, together with candidate performance indicators for sustainable fisheries. The CFRN framework is aimed at practical fisheries evaluation and management and has a relatively balanced distribution of elements across the four pillars of sustainability relative to 10 alternative management decision support tools and indicator scorecards, which are heavily focused on ecological and economic aspects. The CFRN framework has five immediate uses: (a) It can serve as a logic frame for defining management objectives; (b) it can be used to define alternate management options to achieve given objectives; (c) it can serve as a tool for comparing management scenarios/options in decision support frameworks; (d) it can be employed to create a report card for comprehensive fisheries management evaluation; and (e) it is a tool for practical implementation of an integrated social–ecological system approach.

How do commercial fishing licences relate to access?

“…The first reason is that doing so demands openly acknowledging that some will benefit while others experience diminished or constrained opportunities, and that social and economic disparities may well exacerbate as the years go on (Carothers & Chambers, ; Hilborn et al, ). The second reason is that social indicators to monitor access and other human dimensions are often perceived to be challenging to develop and integrate (Stephenson, Paul, et al, ; Stephenson, Wiber, et al, ). This paper advances conceptual and practical approaches to both and helps to pave the path forward for fisheries research and evaluation.…”

“…In addition to conceptual advance, the distinction is also pragmatic in that it attests to the applicability of evaluation frameworks that incorporate access as a human dimension or social indicator (e.g. Breslow et al, ; Stephenson, Paul, et al, ; Stephenson, Wiber, et al, ). In the case of Stephenson, Paul, et al (), for example, the approach we have taken could be used to generate values for several candidate performance indicators including ‘per cent control of each stage of the value chain’, ‘distribution of access by fisheries participants’ and ‘well‐being and equity including in allocations and access’.…”

“…This distinction offers perspective on access as a pre‐condition for coastal community resilience and well‐being (Bennett et al, ). Moreover, and, as frameworks by Breslow et al () and Stephenson, Paul, et al ()), Stephenson, Wiber, et al ()) seek to capture, it connects access to a specific trade‐off introduced by limited entry: while vessel‐scale landings, revenue and predictability may stabilize for some, others will exit fishing altogether and a proportion of those who remain will experience altered and/or constrained opportunity.…”

“…This is an important question for fisheries research and evaluation because access is said to be a pre‐condition for coastal community resilience and well‐being (Bennett et al, ) and because access features as a human dimension or social indicator in a number of proposed evaluation frameworks (e.g. Breslow et al, ; Stephenson, Paul, et al, ; Stephenson, Wiber, et al, ). The literature review and our analysis support two broad conclusions.…”

Practical use of full-spectrum sustainability in the Bay of Fundy

“…Integrating the four pillars of sustainability into fisheries governance is a major challenge (e.g., Rindorf et al 2017b, Benson and Stephenson 2018. Current fisheries assessment and management plans focus almost exclusively on ecological performance and neglect the "human dimension" made up of social, economic, and governance aspects (Symes and Phillipson 2009, Coulthard et al 2011, Gutiérrez et al 2011.…”