Experiences with Fisheries Co-Management in Europe

Regionalising the Common Fisheries Policy: context, content and controversy

“…At a more local level, devolved arrangements for inshore fisheries management existed in several EU member states, most notably in the UK, France and Spain (Symes et al, 2003).…”

Stakeholder participation and sustainable fisheries: an integrative framework for assessing adaptive comanagement processes

“…Europe has seen an increasing interest in comanagement arrangements in fisheries management, although much remains to be improved (Österblom et al 2011). However, published case studies of comanagement in European fisheries are rare because the European fisheries governance system is still, to a large extent, a command and control structure, and comanagement initiatives are limited to a few member states and/or a very local context (Symes et al 2003). The lack of documented cases is problematic because it hampers our ability to assess the effectiveness of cooperative governance arrangements through cumulative case study research.…”

Gambling debt: Iceland's rise and fall in the global economy

“…Accountability to their group provided scrutiny of their accounts and direct controls on landings, plus peer pressure from other quota holders. Often greater state regulation was accompanied by greater local involvement in implementation of the regulations (Symes et al 2003;van Hoof 2010).…”

“…In many fisheries small boats are more efficient than large ones and contribute more to social welfare because they employ more people per fish sold, supporting numerous small-scale livelihoods (Nikoloyuk and Adler 2013;Sabau 2013), and they have a more beneficial ratio of input to output than larger boats (Pinkerton 1987 Copes (1986) predicted, in fisheries where larger fish fetch higher prices, a fisherman with a fixed quota has incentives to discard smaller fish, thereby "high-grading" to get the greatest possible value out of the same number of fish taken. The Faroe Islands passed a ban on discarding fish in 1994, but the state could not prevent it under the ITQ system (Gezelius 2008 (Symes et al 2003;van Hoof 2010;Emery et al 2012). Many countries have learned that, instead of being a substitute for input controls such as gear, area, and time regulations, ITQs (output controls) require input controls to work, and many countries have had to add them over time.…”

“…Many countries have learned that, instead of being a substitute for input controls such as gear, area, and time regulations, ITQs (output controls) require input controls to work, and many countries have had to add them over time. The Netherlands adopted ITQs in 1976, but as they added more and more input controls over time, ITQs eventually became an obstacle rather than an asset (Symes et al 2003).…”