IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v45y2014icp279-286.html

Fisheries co-management in a new era of marine policy in the UK: A preliminary assessment of stakeholder perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Rodwell, Lynda D.
  • Lowther, Jason
  • Hunter, Charlotte
  • Mangi, Stephen C.

Abstract

Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) were established in England after the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 became operational in April 2011. The IFCAs represent a co-management system which prioritises both conservation and fisheries objectives and broadens the interest groups involved in regulatory decision-making in inshore fisheries. The establishment of the IFCAs is intended to facilitate a true ecosystem approach to marine management, contribute to a more contemporary, open and inclusive governance model and move towards the ultimate goal of sustainable fisheries. The aim of this paper is to give a preliminary assessment of the perceptions of IFCA members of their role in relation to a number of IFCA criteria. Forty IFCA members responded to an online questionnaire. Four IFCA Chief Officers then commented on members' views in a second questionnaire. Findings suggest that despite the diversity of views of members the IFCA goals are commonly agreed. ‘Conservation of marine ecosystems for (direct) economic purposes’ and ‘Sustaining and improving fisheries productivity’ are given as the top two priorities receiving 77.5% and 67.5% of the possible vote respectively. ‘Ensuring effective fisheries enforcement’ and ‘conservation of marine ecosystems for non-economic purposes’ followed jointly receiving 47.5% of possible vote. There is a wide concern amongst members, however, that the resources of the IFCA are inadequate to meet all goals. Managing members' expectations will be essential in early years of the IFCAs in order that realistic management objectives can be met. Members identified a need for improved communication and education regarding both fisheries and environmental issues to ensure better informed decision making. IFCAs appear to have many of the attributes needed for successful co-management though continued monitoring of IFCA performance is required. The paper reflects on the wider global context, noting that improving fisheries sustainability to any significant degree requires concerted effort in regional policy making.

Suggested Citation

  • Rodwell, Lynda D. & Lowther, Jason & Hunter, Charlotte & Mangi, Stephen C., 2014. "Fisheries co-management in a new era of marine policy in the UK: A preliminary assessment of stakeholder perceptions," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 279-286.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:45:y:2014:i:c:p:279-286
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X13002054
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dell'Apa, Andrea & Schiavinato, Lisa & Rulifson, Roger A., 2012. "The Magnuson–Stevens act (1976) and its reauthorizations: Failure or success for the implementation of fishery sustainability and management in the US?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 673-680.
    2. Jones, P.J.S., 2009. "Equity, justice and power issues raised by no-take marine protected area proposals," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 759-765, September.
    3. Gilliland, Paul M. & Laffoley, Dan, 2008. "Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 787-796, September.
    4. Phillipson, Jeremy & Symes, David, 2010. "Recontextualising inshore fisheries: The changing face of British inshore fisheries management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 1207-1214, November.
    5. Maguire, Bernadine & Potts, Jonathan & Fletcher, Stephen, 2012. "The role of stakeholders in the marine planning process--Stakeholder analysis within the Solent, United Kingdom," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 246-257, January.
    6. Khalilian, Setareh & Froese, Rainer & Proelss, Alexander & Requate, Till, 2010. "Designed for failure: A critique of the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 1178-1182, November.
    7. Okey, Thomas A., 2003. "Membership of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils in the United States: are special interests over-represented?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 193-206, May.
    8. Tony Pitcher & Daniela Kalikoski & Ganapathiraju Pramod & Katherine Short, 2009. "Not honouring the code," Nature, Nature, vol. 457(7230), pages 658-659, February.
    9. Österblom, H. & Sissenwine, M. & Symes, D. & Kadin, M. & Daw, T. & Folke, C., 2011. "Incentives, social-ecological feedbacks and European fisheries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 568-574, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Singer, Rebecca & Jones, Peter JS Dr, 2018. "Lyme Bay marine protected area: a governance analysis," MarXiv nrk2d, Center for Open Science.
    2. Tim S. Gray & Thomas L. Catchpole, 2021. "The Relation between Fisheries–Science Partnerships and Co-Management: A Case Study of EU Discards Survival Work," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-19, March.
    3. repec:osf:marxiv:nrk2d_v1 is not listed on IDEAS

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fletcher, Stephen & Jefferson, Rebecca & Glegg, Gillian & Rodwell, Lynda & Dodds, Wendy, 2014. "England's evolving marine and coastal governance framework," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 261-268.
    2. Pastoors, M.A., 2014. "Exponential growth in the number of words used for the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP): Does better management require more text?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 101-104.
    3. Scarff, Gavin & Fitzsimmons, Clare & Gray, Tim, 2015. "The new mode of marine planning in the UK: Aspirations and challenges," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 96-102.
    4. Cheng-Chung Cho & Rui-Hsin Kao, 2022. "A Study on Developing Marine Space Planning as a Transboundary Marine Governance Mechanism—The Case of Illegal Sand Mining," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-26, April.
    5. Tweddle, Jacqueline F. & Marengo, iLaria & Gray, Lorraine & Kelly, Christina & Shucksmith, Rachel, 2014. "Developing regional locational guidance for wave and tidal energy in the Shetland Islands," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PA), pages 53-66.
    6. Tyler D Eddy & Jonathan P A Gardner & Alejandro Pérez-Matus, 2010. "Applying Fishers' Ecological Knowledge to Construct Past and Future Lobster Stocks in the Juan Fernández Archipelago, Chile," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-12, November.
    7. Campbell, Maria S. & Stehfest, Kilian M. & Votier, Stephen C. & Hall-Spencer, Jason M., 2014. "Mapping fisheries for marine spatial planning: Gear-specific vessel monitoring system (VMS), marine conservation and offshore renewable energy," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 293-300.
    8. Parés, Claudio & Dresdner, Jorge & Salgado, Hugo, 2015. "Who should set the total allowable catch? Social preferences and legitimacy in fisheries management institutions," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 36-43.
    9. Flannery, Wesley & O’Hagan, Anne Marie & O’Mahony, Cathal & Ritchie, Heather & Twomey, Sarah, 2015. "Evaluating conditions for transboundary Marine Spatial Planning: Challenges and opportunities on the island of Ireland," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 86-95.
    10. Cláudia Fernandes, Ana & Pérez, Nélida & Prista, Nuno & Santos, Juan & Azevedo, Manuela, 2015. "Discards composition from Iberian trawl fleets," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 33-44.
    11. Øistein Harsem & Alf Hoel, 2013. "Climate change and adaptive capacity in fisheries management: the case of Norway," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 49-63, March.
    12. Vega, Amaya & Corina Miller, Ana & O’Donoghue, Cathal, 2014. "Economic impacts of seafood production growth targets in Ireland," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 39-45.
    13. Mullon, C. & Steinmetz, F. & Merino, G. & Fernandes, J.A. & Cheung, W.W.L. & Butenschön, M. & Barange, M., 2016. "Quantitative pathways for Northeast Atlantic fisheries based on climate, ecological–economic and governance modelling scenarios," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 320(C), pages 273-291.
    14. Quero García, Pablo & Chica Ruiz, Juan Adolfo & García Sanabria, Javier, 2020. "Blue energy and marine spatial planning in Southern Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    15. Brennan, Jonathon & Fitzsimmons, Clare & Gray, Tim & Raggatt, Laura, 2014. "EU marine strategy framework directive (MSFD) and marine spatial planning (MSP): Which is the more dominant and practicable contributor to maritime policy in the UK?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 359-366.
    16. Burmester, Brent, 2016. "Upgrading or unhelpful? Defiant corporate support for a marine protected area," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 206-212.
    17. Raum, Susanne, 2018. "A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 170-184.
    18. repec:osf:marxiv:cs3fz_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Katarina Polajnar Horvat & Ales Smrekar, 2021. "The Wetland Contract as a Tool for Successful Wetland Governance: A Case Study of Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park, Slovenia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, January.
    20. Steve Herbert, 2014. "Fear and Loathing in the San Juan Islands: Endangered Orcas and the Legitimacy of Environmental Law," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(8), pages 1781-1796, August.
    21. Remy Jonkam Oben & Mehdi Seraj & Şerife Zihni Eyüpoğlu, 2025. "Determinants of blue economy Growth in EU fisheries waters: MMQR and quantile-on-quantile analyses," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 74(4), pages 1-41, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:45:y:2014:i:c:p:279-286. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.