A framework for allocating fishing rights in small-scale fisheries
Introduction
Small-scale fisheries have a significant impact on the livelihoods of people around the world. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), small-scale fisheries produce about half of global fish catches, much of which is consumed in the developing world, and employ more than 90 percent of the world's seafood harvesters and fish workers. Yet despite this importance, small-scale fishers and their communities are often poor, marginalized, and lack political power (FAO, 2015). The FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Alleviation emphasize the need for small-scale fisheries to have secure tenure rights of the fishery resources that sustain their social and cultural well-being, their livelihoods, and their sustainable development (FAO, 2015). Giving small-scale fishers rights over fishery resources can allow them to exclude other users from accessing these resources, conferring the benefits of the fishery exclusively to small-scale fishers and their communities (FAO, 2015). This security may be especially important for small-scale fisheries, which are frequently at risk of being displaced by industrial fishing operations, foreign fleets, aquaculture, or other marine and coastal industries, all of which tend to be more powerful in economic and political arenas (FAO, 2015; Béné et al., 2007). In addition, recognizing and securing fishing rights for these groups may be an important step to promoting the livelihoods and food security these fisheries provide, to providing political power to small-scale fishers, and to ensuring their resilience (Andrew et al., 2007) by changing the incentive structure of the fisheries, giving fishers greater incentives to invest in the fishery and to ensure its sustainability into the future. A number of authors have called for a Human Rights-Based Approach to small-scale fisheries (HRBA) (e.g., Allison et al., 2012), which seeks to ensure participation, address power asymmetries, and empower rights holders, especially vulnerable and marginalized groups (FAO, 2016). Secure fishing rights can be a powerful path to achieving these goals.
Paramount to a discussion of rights is the often-controversial issue of allocation, or determining who is allowed to exercise these rights, and when and how they can exercise them. Indeed, the topic of allocation is immense, relating to multiple dimensions of fishery management such as enforcement, sustainable catch limits, and multiple layers of social and economic considerations. When considering the allocation of rights to individuals or entities within a fishery, rights may be allocated individually or collectively, they may be allocated in the form of a limited entry system (such as fishing licenses), harvest quotas (including Individual Quotas (IQ), Individual Transferrable Quotas (ITQs), etc.), area access (including Territorial Use Rights for Fishing [TURFs]), or another means of granting access to fishery resources (Charles, 2001). However, because of the often complex nature of small-scale fisheries, including their social, economic, and cultural importance and their inherent linkages to larger social, ecological, and political systems (Andrew et al., 2007; McClanahan et al., 2009; Hauck and Gallardo-Fernandez, 2013), allocation of fishing rights is likely to be equally complicated in such a context. Indeed, Hanna and Smith (1993) note that allocation decisions are the “most conflict-producing type of management decision” that must be made during the course of fishery management design because they necessarily involve excluding participants from the portion of the resource allocated to another individual or group. There are few models in the literature for how to allocate fishing rights in small-scale fisheries, where such a process needs to address different concerns and will thus look very different than one for allocating fishing rights in an industrialized fishery. This paper addresses this gap by laying out a process for allocation of fishing rights among members of a small scale fishery or community and providing examples of relevant allocation mechanisms. Further, while we acknowledge the existence of allocation disputes between small-scale fisheries and larger scale, industrial fisheries that target the same species, here we refrain from attempting to resolve these issues, limiting our scope to the rarely addressed problem of how to allocate fishing rights within a small-scale fishery.
There are numerous challenges to be overcome in considering how to allocate rights in small-scale fisheries. First, decisions to be made regarding allocation – who should be allocated rights, and what kinds of right (e.g., how much fishing quota, how or whether to access a fishing area) – are often made based on previous history in the fishery. The literature provides a number of examples of processes for allocating fishing rights among participants in industrialized fisheries, where data on catch history of individual fishers are typically available, including data on who has fished for what and how long they have fished for it (e.g., Shotton, 2001; Hanna and Smith, 1993). Basing allocation decisions on catch history or other economic considerations is often done to preserve the status quo and acknowledge previous investment among fishers, sometimes granting the largest allocations to those fishers who have accumulated the most catch history or the most capital (Shotton, 2001).
When allocating fishing rights in small-scale, data-poor fisheries, extensive data on participation are likely not available. Moreover, the underlying rationale for using catch history – to preserve the status quo or reward capital investments – may not be applicable in these contexts. Where small-scale fishers are competing with industrial fishers for fishing rights, relying on catch history or other economic considerations to allocate rights or access can further disadvantage small-scale fishers because historical catch records may not exist for small-scale fisheries, and because they are likely to have smaller catches or be less efficient than their industrial counterparts. This may mean small-scale fishers are not granted sufficient rights in an allocation process to maintain their existing catch levels, or may be left out of the process altogether because of a lack of data upon which to base an allocation of fishing rights. Thus, the lack of information combined with the needs of small-scale fisheries will require other means of determining who should be allocated access to fishery resources.
Given the potential importance of allocating rights in small-scale fisheries, and the challenges inherent in doing so, allocation must be done thoughtfully and carefully. Unfortunately, the process of allocating fishing rights has rarely been explicitly considered in the literature, especially in regards to allocation of rights within small-scale fisheries. Thus there is a need to examine this phase of fisheries management design more carefully, and to explore how allocation decisions can be made through a more intentional and inclusive process that can avoid or address the challenges discussed above.
Here we describe a process for allocating fishing rights within a small-scale fishery in a way that does not rely upon fishery data, and that recognizes the unique social, cultural, and human well-being aspects associated with small-scale fisheries. The approach we describe is intended to address allocation issues within a single fishery, as opposed to allocating among or re-allocating rights between different fisheries (such as between a small-scale fishery and an industrial-scale fishery), although the principles outlined here would largely apply to such a process. We also present a number of allocation mechanisms drawn from both real-world and theoretical examples that may effectively address some of the values and needs of small-scale fisheries stakeholders. This approach is highly participatory in order to make possible the elicitation of stakeholder values and to incorporate and consider their diverse perspectives and needs, with the aim of increasing the legitimacy of the outcomes. While we don't presuppose that such processes necessarily lead to universally accepted outcomes, an approach that is responsive to the social needs of a fishery, and that uses a highly participatory process to achieve that end, will tend to have a high likelihood of achieving buy-in, and increase the chances of acceptance and success (Battista et al., 2016; Campbell et al., 2010; Cinner et al., 2012; Lebel et al., 2006; Olsson et al., 2004; Ostrom, 1990; Reed, 2008). This approach draws on human rights-based approaches, including incorporating the principles of “participation, accountability, non-discrimination, transparency, human dignity, empowerment, and the rule of law” (FAO, 2016), into an allocation process.
Section snippets
Setting the stage for allocation
The context in which small-scale fisheries operate and the societal goals that should be met through rights allocation are often vastly different than for industrialized fisheries. In many industrialized fisheries, rights allocation is driven largely by the desire to respond to the needs of existing fishery participants, and to do so in a way that is essentially a tradeoff between economic efficiency and equity (in other words, the “winners” will be the participants who have historically
A framework for developing an allocation process
In small-scale fisheries, where the ability to access fish resources is intricately linked with ensuring community well-being and the protection of human rights, and where trust is essential for upholding fishing rights, allocating fishing rights requires a careful planning process that engages all of the necessary stakeholders. An allocation process that is inclusionary and empowers fisheries stakeholders to develop an allocation scheme that addresses the unique and specific needs of a
Applying the allocation framework to a small-scale fishery
To better understand what types of allocation mechanisms might be applicable to the kinds of goals that might be important to small-scale fisheries in the developing world, we convened a workshop with fisheries management experts from around the world to identify some of the fisheries management goals that can be met through allocation, and to identify approaches to allocating fishing rights that could meet these goals. We employed a human-centered design process (IDEO, 2015) to identify and
Discussion and conclusions
Allocating fishing rights to small-scale fishers and other stakeholders can provide food and livelihood security, and help to protect and foster human rights, (FAO, 2015) by protecting access to fishery resources from industrialized fleets or other more powerful economic interests. However, allocation is contentious by nature and there are few examples from the literature of how to go about allocating these rights in such a context. The process of allocation must by necessity follow a different
Funding
This work was made possible with a generous grant from the Walton Family Foundation [grant number 2016-1723].
Declarations of interest
None.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the workshop participants, whose ideas helped to shape this paper, and the fishery experts we interviewed, as well as Kate Bonzon for her review. We also wish to thank the Walton Family Foundation for their financial support of this work.
References (54)
- et al.
Adaptive management for a turbulent future
J. Environ. Manag.
(2011) - et al.
The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale fisheries
Mar. Pol.
(2001) Understanding and managing compliance in the nature conservation context
J. Environ. Manag.
(2015)- et al.
Moving beyond catch in allocation approaches for internationally shared fish stocks
Mar. Pol.
(2013) - et al.
Comprehensive Assessment of Risk to Ecosystems (CARE): a cumulative ecosystem risk assessment tool
Fish. Res.
(2017) - et al.
Institutional designs of customary fisheries management arrangements in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Mexico
Mar. Pol.
(2012) - et al.
Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities
Agric. Syst.
(1997) - et al.
Objectives of fisheries management: case studies from the UK, France, Spain and Denmark
Mar. Pol.
(2002) - et al.
Social objectives of fisheries management: what are managers' priorities?
Ocean Coast. Manag.
(2014) - et al.
Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management
Mar. Pol.
(1997)
Review of the causes of the rise of the illegal South African abalone fishery and consequent closure of the rights-based fishery
Ocean Coast Manag.
Fishing for justice: human rights, development, and fisheries sector reform
Glob. Environ. Chang.
Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review
Biol. Conserv.
Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management
J. Environ. Manag.
Rights-based fisheries governance: from fishing rights to human rights: from fishing rights to human rights
Fish Fish.
Diagnosis and management of small-scale fisheries in developing countries
Fish Fish.
Increasing the Contribution of Small-Scale Fisheries to Poverty Alleviation and Food Security
Linkages and multilevel systems for matching governance and ecology: lessons from roving bandits
Bull. Mar. Sci.
Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience
Catch Share Design Manual, Volume 1: A Guide for Managers and Fishermen
TURFs and ITQs: coordinated vs. Decentralized decision making
Mar. Resour. Econ.
Use rights in fishery systems
Projecting global marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios
Fish Fish.
Navigating trade-offs: working for conservation and development outcomes
Ecol. Soc.
Capturing social impacts for decision-making: a Multicriteria Decision Analysis perspective
Divers. Distrib.
Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving
Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication
Cited by (15)
Household finances and trust are key determinants of benefits from small-scale fisheries co-management
2022, Marine PolicyCitation Excerpt :Where forms of human capital, for example where people have knowledge of local rules and support local management, and where social capital through self-determination and participation in decision-making is strong, community compliance with management rules is often durable [12–17]. In particular, the trust of people in their fellow community members and leaders has been shown to be critically important for management success and livelihood outcomes [18]. Recently a simplified 3-dimensional wellbeing framework composed of material resources, social relations, and subjective dimensions has been proposed [12].
Fisheries conflicts as drivers of social transformation
2021, Current Opinion in Environmental SustainabilityCitation Excerpt :The absence of regulations has been perceived to induce conflict, for example, as in the artisanal fisheries of Sipicate, Guatemala (CS22) and the definition and allocation of fishing rights is often seen as a precondition to protect fish stocks, reduce conflicts and prevent the race for fish [63,64]. Changes to clarify rights in management systems have also been used as a way to address existing conflict [50,65–67] and to safeguard fishers’ livelihoods [50,68,69]. However, by definition, the recognition of rights may also entail the exclusion of current or potential future participants.
Positive social transformations of coastal communities: what conditions enable the success of territorial use rights for fishing?
2021, Current Opinion in Environmental SustainabilityCitation Excerpt :Other actions include providing systematic guidance on how to implement TURF or other appropriate tenure and rights-based systems. Studies have found that there are many factors that need to be taken into consideration regarding the design of tenure and rights-based systems that complement the enabling conditions, including the geographic distribution of rights, transferability of rights, equity of distribution and support for alternative livelihoods [28,65,66]. FAO and others [40,68] are working on providing support to fishers, CSOs, NGOs and fisheries managers by developing guidance on how to implement or modify tenure rights systems to address essential issues and challenges and achieve positive transformation.