Meta-analysis reveals that fisheries co-management alters socio-economic outcomes and resource well-being

Abstract

Over half a century of governing efforts have failed to prevent the depletion of fish stocks around the globe. Ineffective management of over-exploited resources has resulted in a lack of willingness to comply with regulatory systems, magnifying problems at a time when many of the world's fisheries face increasing pressure or crisis. Co-management, the sharing of management responsibilities between government, fishermen's organisations and other stakeholders, has been advocated as the solution to engaging stakeholders. However, an evidence base is required to assess whether co-management improves the sustainability of fisheries. Here, we used qualitative and, for the first time, quantitative meta-analyses to assess the outcomes of local fisheries co-management schemes around the globe, by asking: (1) does co-management improve the socioeconomic and biological factors underpinning fisheries? (2) how do the characteristics of the most successful co-management structures compare to less successful structures? Data from multiple studies was extracted and measured against performance criteria through meta-analysis, assessing process (compliance, control, conflict, influence and participation) and outcome indicators (household income, access to resource, fish yield and resource well-being). Co-management has an overall positive influence on all but one of the process indicators (conflict; no significant effect), but a negative influence on access to resource and resource well-being. Case studies that reported positive outcomes possessed attributes such as government support, funding and dedicated project staff, indicating certain prerequisites are required to establish a successful co-management scheme, though data limitations restrict our ability to draw more general conclusions.

The political economy of fisheries co-management: Challenging the potential for success on Lake Victoria

“…The involvement of resource users in fisheries management is, however, no guarantee that these aims will be achieved. From this recognition, research has been undertaken to identify factors, or conditions, that enhance the chances of success, with success generally being measured in terms of the sustainability of the fisheries, income for fishers and satisfaction and effectiveness of the process of co-management (Whitehouse and Fowler, 2018). Such studies have focused on identifying factors closely related to, or internal to, comanagement.…”

A new era for science-industry research collaboration – a view towards the future

“…Results indicate that an incentive to participate, consensus decisionmaking, and independent facilitation were key to ensuring effectiveness (Davis, 2008). These types of initiatives and this momentum towards enhanced and improved SIRC has the potential to have positive effects on resource use and sustainability, social benefits, and ecological outcomes (Sen and Nielsen, 1996;Whitehouse and Fowler, 2018).…”

Dissecting co‐management: Fisher participation across management components and implications for governance

“…Co‐management is now at the core of fishery governance discussions, as a growing number of governments recognize the importance of considering the voice of fishers, and in some cases, the voices of civil society—through increasing collaboration in fishery management (Campbell & Salagrama, 2001; Nielsen et al, 2004). Studies of co‐management have become ubiquitous as well, including analyses from various parts of the world (Evans et al, 2011; Léopold et al, 2019; Linke & Bruckmeier, 2015), studies of how co‐management affects human and ecological outcomes (Whitehouse & Fowler, 2018), those dealing with determinants of success in co‐management (d’Armengol et al, 2018; Sen & Nielsen, 1996) and broad‐based co‐management guidance documents (e.g. Charles, 2009; Graham et al, 2006; Pomeroy & Rivera‐Guieb, 2006).…”

“…Studies of co-management have become ubiquitous as well, including analyses from various parts of the world (Evans et al, 2011;Léopold et al, 2019;Linke & Bruckmeier, 2015), studies of how comanagement affects human and ecological outcomes (Whitehouse & Fowler, 2018), those dealing with determinants of success in comanagement (d 'Armengol et al, 2018;Sen & Nielsen, 1996) and broad-based co-management guidance documents (e.g. Charles, 2009;Graham et al, 2006;Pomeroy & Rivera-Guieb, 2006).…”