The Relation between Fisheries–Science Partnerships and Co-Management: A Case Study of EU Discards Survival Work

Abstract

This paper is an analysis of the relationship between the concepts of fisheries–science partnership (FSP) and fisheries co-management (FCM), using a case study of recent EU work on discard survival. Are FSP and FCM entirely different forms of joint activity, or is FSP a form of FCM or a means of preparing the ground for FCM? And is the recent EU work on discard survival a form of FSP, or of FCM, or both? A questionnaire was sent out by email in 2015 to 13 people who were involved in the discard survival work, and eight responses were received that covered eight projects in seven countries (Belgium, England, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands). Our main findings are fourfold. First, while FSP and FCM are different forms of joint activity, they are both partnerships. Second, FSP may serve as a precursor or preparation for FCM. Third, the EU discard survival assessment work contains elements of both FSP and FCM, but is mainly a FSP exercise and falls far short of FCM. Nevertheless, fourth, this joint work alongside many other FSP initiatives undertaken under the auspices of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) (e.g., the GAP projects) has improved relations between fishers, scientists, and managers, and this may contribute to a modification of the CFP’s largely top-down decision-making system.

Leveraging collaborations to increase the impact of food sharing platforms

“…The final dimension is that of collaborations where the elements analysed are the actors involved, the aim of the partnership, the type of impact and the critical issues (Bryson et al. , 2006; Gray and Stites, 2013; Sonday and Wilson-Prangley, 2018; Shumate et al. , 2018).…”

“…In order to grasp the specificities of a digital platform network, we use the business system structure where two main specifications have been identified: platform players and business players (Parente et al, 2018). The final dimension is that of collaborations where the elements analysed are the actors involved, the aim of the partnership, the type of impact and the critical issues (Bryson et al, 2006;Gray and Stites, 2013;Sonday and Wilson-Prangley, 2018;Shumate et al, 2018).…”

Co-creating Knowledge with Fishers: Challenges and Lessons for Integrating Fishers' Knowledge Contributions into Marine Science in Well-Developed Scientific Advisory Systems

“…Cooperative research (CR) in fisheries and marine science refers to scientific research conducted in partnership with communities, fishers, or the fishing industry (NRC, National Research Council, 2004). In the latter instance, this integration of industry perspectives, equipment, and skills with scientific approaches, applications, and processes has proven effective for compiling fisheries data , addressing data gaps (Heimann et al, 2023), generating knowledge (Hartley and Robertson, 2008;, monitoring ecosystems (Olsen et al, 2023), engaging stakeholders , and informing management Gray and Catchpole, 2021;Mackinson et al, 2023). Science-industry collaboration in fisheries research is gaining further momentum and there is increased effort to provide policy recommendations toward facilitating industry contributions to science and management (Murphy et al, 2022;Baker et al, In Press;Steins et al, In Press).…”

Democracy and Human Rights in the Management of Small-Scale Fisheries in England

“…However, first, we must establish the link between co-management and democracy. In [3] Gray and Catchpole (2021), the concept of co-management is shown to have many different interpretations in the literature, including partnership, power-sharing, empowerment, user participation, decentralisation, accountability, legitimacy, transparency, and co-governance (see also [4] . These interpretations each exemplify aspects of democracy.…”