Territorial user rights for artisanal fisheries in Chile – intended and unintended outcomes

Aburto, Jaime; Gallardo, Gloria; Stotz, Wolfgang; Cerda, Claudia; Mondaca-Schachermayer, Carolin I.; Vera, Karoll

doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.09.015

Cited by 54 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example in Japan, the institutional flexibility of the TURF system allowed for the bottom-up creation of new management associations for particular species when necessary (Wilen et al 2012). Regarding fisher mobility, TURFs inhibit movement because access rights are to specific fishing grounds (e.g., Aburto et al 2013). Their spatial nature causes TURFs to be potentially worse than ITQs, limited entry, or open access in terms of promoting fisher mobility, which could be quite problematic for resilience when fish stocks exhibit major shifts in distribution (SCR-5).…”

Section: Climate Resilience Of Fisheries Regulatory Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fisheries regulatory regimes and resilience to climate change

Ojea

Pearlman

Gaines

et al. 2016

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is already producing ecological, social, and economic impacts on fisheries, and these effects are expected to increase in frequency and magnitude in the future. Fisheries governance and regulations can alter socio-ecological resilience to climate change impacts via harvest control rules and incentives driving fisher behavior, yet there are no syntheses or conceptual frameworks for examining how institutions and their regulatory approaches can alter fisheries resilience to climate change. We identify nine key climate resilience criteria for fisheries socio-ecological systems (SES), defining resilience as the ability of the coupled system of interacting social and ecological components (i.e., the SES) to absorb change while avoiding transformation into a different undesirable state. We then evaluate the capacity of four fisheries regulatory systems that vary in their degree of property rights, including open access, limited entry, and two types of rights-based management, to increase or inhibit resilience. Our exploratory assessment of evidence in the literature suggests that these regulatory regimes vary widely in their ability to promote resilient fisheries, with rights-based approaches appearing to offer more resilience benefits in many cases, but detailed characteristics of the regulatory instruments are fundamental.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0850-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Climate Resilience Of Fisheries Regulatory Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fisheries regulatory regimes and resilience to climate change

Ojea

Pearlman

Gaines

et al. 2016

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They also suggest that best performing fisher organizations are those with higher levels of linking and bridging social capital (Marin et al., ) and that engaged leadership and agreement around sanctions best explains TURF outcomes (Crona et al., ). Even when many of these social factors are considered, some commercial species, such as razor clams, have not responded to TURFs management (Aburto et al., ), signaling to the fact that community‐based management is constantly conditioned by specific place‐based context (Berkes, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This network serves as a basis to integrate knowledge of TURF policy implementation over ecosystem services. Research on TURFs functioning and implementation has been ongoing for the past 25 years, based on case studies that suggest mixed and heterogeneous results (Aburto et al., ; Gelcich, Edwards‐Jones, Kaiser, & Castilla, ; Gelcich et al., ). Here, we attempt to provide broad insights beyond specific case studies, focused on one policy instrument, by performing a systematic literature review on the implication of TURFs implementation over biodiversity and ecosystem services in Chile.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comanagement of small‐scale fisheries and ecosystem services

Gelcich

Martínez‐Harms

Tapia‐Lewin

et al. 2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…() describe as ‘fixed solutions', i.e. a technical wholesale solution to specialized problems, which then is widely applied indiscriminately, without consideration of the wider cultural, social, economic, productive and organizational diversity that could exist (Aburto et al , ). However, these kinds of technical solutions tend to confront complex problems with one‐size‐fits all solutions, and to confront dynamic changing systems with slow response rates (Aburto et al , ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards local governance of marine resources and ecosystems on Easter Island

Aburto

Gaymer

Cundill

2016

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Social-ecological system sustainability depends in part upon the fit between ecosystems and institutions. 2. In 2014, the local community on Easter Island started a bottom-up process to improve marine resources conservation and management.3. Local stakeholders formed a working group that has regular meetings and goals, such as creating a sea council and some basic action plans, thus initiating a local governance transformation process. 4. A participatory process was conducted together with a local organization that led the marine conservation issues on the island to define the factors that could favour and/or undermine the formation of the sea council. Also, the stakeholders that must be present in such a sea council were identified.5. Twelve factors that could facilitate or hinder the implementation of a sea council were identified. The lack of representativeness of public institutions is a major challenge.6. Public institutions are designed to ensure compliance with central government strategies, but the decisions do not represent the worldview of islanders.7. The results showed the potential value of conducting a participatory process to identify the key issues that could hinder or favour a desired governance transformation process. The participatory process also highlighted governance mismatches that are important to consider in attempts to pursue more effective fishery governance on Easter Island, and other Island communities.8. Centralized governance systems do not respond rapidly to locally observed social and ecological dynamics. By contrast, a local decision-making system based on traditional laws and local governance can more rapidly respond to observed changes. 9. The participatory process presented here holds the potential to support local people in their planning and coordination for marine conservation and management in order to optimize bottom-up change processes involving multiple stakeholders with different interests, values and levels of power.

show abstract

Territorial user rights for artisanal fisheries in Chile – intended and unintended outcomes

Cited by 54 publications

References 38 publications

Fisheries regulatory regimes and resilience to climate change

Fisheries regulatory regimes and resilience to climate change

Comanagement of small‐scale fisheries and ecosystem services

Towards local governance of marine resources and ecosystems on Easter Island

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About