Fishery Improvement Projects as a governance tool for fisheries sustainability: A global comparative analysis

Abstract

Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs) are a form of private governance using seafood supply chains to reduce environmental impacts of fishing in some of the most challenged fisheries. Some FIPs are industry-led, others are championed by NGOs. They range across many different fishery types, in both high- and low-income settings. Their diversity is notable, and their proliferation remarkable. This rapid growth suggests FIPs are becoming a key feature of the fisheries governance landscape globally. Based on a global sample of 107 FIPs, we systematically examined their reported actions, the actors involved, and their achievements in terms of policy and practice outputs. The most common actions were dialogues with policy stakeholders, data collection, and educational efforts directed at fishers. Common policy outputs included development of management plans and/or a management body, and rules for limiting entry and increasing compliance. Practice related outputs were dominated by gear changes, and observer and traceability programs. Only crab and lobster FIPs engaged in sustained policy conversations as one of the most common actions. Shrimp and tuna fisheries report more engagement in testing and implementing changes to fishery practices. While supply chain actors are involved in all FIPs, retailers and 1st tier suppliers are relatively absent from FIP activities, and are primarily involved in rallying financial support or some policy engagement. Based on our analysis we discuss the opportunities and challenges FIPs will likely need to engage with to contribute to a global transition to more socially and environmentally sustainable fisheries. We outline key areas where further work is needed to understand how FIPs can improve their contribution to global fisheries governance in the future.

Rapidly increasing eco‐certification coverage transforming management of world’s tuna fisheries

“…While adhering to responsible fishing practices should be the industry's operational baseline, it should not be overlooked that companies also view FIPs and eco‐certifications as key elements of corporate social responsibility claims around sustainable sourcing (Bailey et al., 2018). In general, outcomes of FIPs are highly varied and their applicability for different fisheries and associated effectiveness is debated (Cannon et al., 2018; Crona et al., 2019; Travaille et al., 2019). Questions about the FIP process have already been raised, with some suggesting it is a means for unsustainable fisheries to obtain market access through stakeholder partners and promotion by MSC (Sampson et al., 2015).…”

Global fishing and seafood trade burdens places with ineffective fisheries management

“…Imposing trade restrictions (or modifying trade rules) on countries with poorly managed fisheries could incentivise those countries to improve local domestic fisheries management. Such changes to trade, however, should consider the socioeconomic implications on developing nations, similar to Fishery Improvement Projects, which engage ecological and social aspects of the fishery through supply chain incentives 51 . Similar trade restrictions have been imposed to improve the sustainability of other nation's domestic fisheries management, including the "shrimp-turtle" case and the "tuna-dolphin" case.…”

The Effects of Climate Change on Birds and Approaches to Response

“…As the awareness of climate change has sharply increased among the public and governments, corporates should cooperate with government regulations and the public expectation to modify their business behaviors. The common practices often include donations to non-government organizations (NGOs), which focus on environmental problems and compliance with environmental policies and regulations from governments [26]. The progressive approach with the environmental awareness could also emerge, in the form of private governance, in partnership with NGOs and local communities, creating new programs as a governance tool for environmental sustainability.…”