{"title":"Do participatory governance models in fisheries lead to ecosystem-based fisheries management?","authors":"Ana Harumi Hayashida-Carrillo","doi":"10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>International fisheries agreements, including the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995), have prompted co-management and Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) as pathways to achieving sustainable fishing practices. These agreements suggest that participatory governance models are more likely to implement comprehensive management strategies that address the multiple interactions occurring within a fishery's social-ecological system. In Mexico, fishing committees have been established to tackle the most pressing issues in fisheries through a participatory model. However, their effectiveness in adopting EBFM remains uncertain. This analysis assesses the implementation of an EBFM approach in two distinct regions with different fisheries but highly participatory fishing committees: the Yucatan Grouper Fishery Advisory Committee and the Technical Committee for the Study of Small Pelagic Fishery. The concepts of 'good governance' and the implementation of 'ecosystem-based fishery management' were examined through semi-structured interviews with committee members and a review of internal documents. While both committees received moderate to high ratings of good governance due to their strong inclusion and representativeness, their influence on fisheries management is limited, and the implementation of an EBFM approach is partial. This limitation is attributed to institutional design flaws, weak legal frameworks, a lack of administrative capabilities, and a lack of clearly defined EBFM-oriented objectives, indicators, and goals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48427,"journal":{"name":"Marine Policy","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 106594"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marine Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X25000090","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
International fisheries agreements, including the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995), have prompted co-management and Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) as pathways to achieving sustainable fishing practices. These agreements suggest that participatory governance models are more likely to implement comprehensive management strategies that address the multiple interactions occurring within a fishery's social-ecological system. In Mexico, fishing committees have been established to tackle the most pressing issues in fisheries through a participatory model. However, their effectiveness in adopting EBFM remains uncertain. This analysis assesses the implementation of an EBFM approach in two distinct regions with different fisheries but highly participatory fishing committees: the Yucatan Grouper Fishery Advisory Committee and the Technical Committee for the Study of Small Pelagic Fishery. The concepts of 'good governance' and the implementation of 'ecosystem-based fishery management' were examined through semi-structured interviews with committee members and a review of internal documents. While both committees received moderate to high ratings of good governance due to their strong inclusion and representativeness, their influence on fisheries management is limited, and the implementation of an EBFM approach is partial. This limitation is attributed to institutional design flaws, weak legal frameworks, a lack of administrative capabilities, and a lack of clearly defined EBFM-oriented objectives, indicators, and goals.
期刊介绍:
Marine Policy is the leading journal of ocean policy studies. It offers researchers, analysts and policy makers a unique combination of analyses in the principal social science disciplines relevant to the formulation of marine policy. Major articles are contributed by specialists in marine affairs, including marine economists and marine resource managers, political scientists, marine scientists, international lawyers, geographers and anthropologists. Drawing on their expertise and research, the journal covers: international, regional and national marine policies; institutional arrangements for the management and regulation of marine activities, including fisheries and shipping; conflict resolution; marine pollution and environment; conservation and use of marine resources. Regular features of Marine Policy include research reports, conference reports and reports on current developments to keep readers up-to-date with the latest developments and research in ocean affairs.