Content uploaded by Jose J. Pascual-Fernandez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jose J. Pascual-Fernandez on Nov 12, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A U P
ISBN 90 5356 694 5
www.aup.nl
Jan Kooiman (Eds.) Fish for Life
This collection of essays is about tourism and social, political, and economic relations in coastal
locations in various parts of the world. The starting point of each chapter is the ethnographic
study of one particular place. However, the authors are also concerned with wider regional,
national, and global forces which shape and influence the local economies and societies under
review. Although most of the essays focus on the European coastline, the book is intended to have
implications for other geographical areas.
In most parts of the world, coastal settlements and contexts are changing rapidly and markedly.
These contexts are routinely characterised by conflict between different interest groups contesting
the ownership and control of the foreshore and its resources. One of the threads running through
the volume is that coastal regions are often sites of fishing and related ‘traditional’ activities.
The chapters discuss the relationships between traditional stakeholders, such as fishermen and
local residents, and new stakeholders including new residents, second-home owners, tourists
and tourism property developers, and fish farm managers as they vie for status, influence, and
ultimately for space on the foreshore.
The underlying preoccupation of the volume as a whole is the extent of penetration and
transformation resulting from the onward march of capitalism and the market system in the coastal
locations studied.
Jeremy Boissevain is Emeritus Professor of Social Anthropology at the University of Amsterdam.
Tom Selwyn is Professor of Anthropology at London Metropolitan University.
Fish for Life
Interactive Governance for
Fisheries
Jeremy Boissevain is Emeritus
Professor of Social Anthropology
at the University of Amsterdam.
Tom Selwyn is Professor
of Anthropology at London
Metropolitan University.
MARE is an interdisciplinary
social science centre affiliated
with the University of Amsterdam
and Wageningen University in the
Netherlands. MAREs’ mandate is
to generate innovative, policy-
relevant, research on marine and
coastal issues that is applicable to
both North and South. Its numerous
activities include the bi-annual
People and the Sea conferences
and the maritime studies journal
MAST.
www.marecentre.nl
32
3
MARE PUBLICATION SERIES
A U P
Edited by
Jan Kooiman
Maarten Bavinck
Svein Jentoft
Roger Pullin
FISH FOR LIFE
MARE PUBLICATION SERIES
MARE is an interdisciplinary social-science institute studying the use and
management of marine resources. It was established in 2000 by the Uni-
versity of Amsterdam and Wageningen University in the Netherlands.
MARE’s mandate is to generate innovative, policy-relevant research on
marine and coastal issues that is applicable to both North and South. Its
programme is guided by four core themes: fisheries governance, maritime
work worlds, integrated coastal zone management (ICZM), and maritime
risk.
In addition to the publication series, MARE organises conferences and
workshops and publishes a social-science journal called Maritime Studies
(MAST). Visit the MARE website at http://www.marecentre.nl.
Series Editors
Svein Jentoft, University of Tromsø, Norway
Maarten Bavinck, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Previously Published
Leontine E. Visser (ed.), Challenging Coasts. Transdisciplinary Excursions into
Integrated Coastal Zone Development, 2004 (isbn 90 5356 682 1)
Jeremy Boissevain and Tom Selwyn (eds.), Contesting the Foreshore. Tourism,
Society, and Politics on the Coast, 2004 (isbn 90 5356 694 5)
Fish for Life
Interactive Governance for Fisheries
Edited by Jan Kooiman, Maarten Bavinck,
Svein Jentoft and Roger Pullin
MARE Publication Series No. 3
Amsterdam University Press
Cover illustration: Steef Meyknecht
Cover design: Sabine Mannel / nap, Amsterdam
Lay-out: japes, Amsterdam
isbn 90 5356 686 4
nur 741
© Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam 2005
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no
part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner
and the author of the book.
Contents
Preface 7
PART I
GOVERNANCE: A NEW PERSPECTIVE FOR FISHERIES
1 The Governance Perspective 11
Jan Kooiman and Maarten Bavinck
2 Challenges and Concerns in Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture 25
Ratana Chuenpagdee, Poul Degnbol, Maarten Bavinck, Svein
Jentoft, Derek Johnson, Roger Pullin, and Stella Williams
PART II
THE SYSTEM TO BE GOVERNED
Introduction 41
Andy Thorpe, Derek Johnson, and Maarten Bavinck
3 Aquatic Ecologies 45
Michel Kulbicki
4 Fish Capture 71
Derek Johnson, Maarten Bavinck, and Joeli Veitayaki
5 Aquaculture 93
Roger Pullin and U. Rashid Sumaila
6 The Post-Harvest Chain 109
Andy Thorpe, Stella Williams, and Jacques van Zyl
7 Links in the Fish Chain 133
Derek Johnson, Andy Thorpe, Maarten Bavinck, and Michel
Kulbicki
PART III
INSTITUTIONS FOR FISHERIES GOVERNANCE
Introduction 147
Svein Jentoft
5
8 Local Institutions 153
José J. Pascual-Fernández, Katia Frangoudes, and Stella Williams
9 National Institutions 173
Svein Jentoft, Jan Kooiman, and Ratana Chuenpagdee
10 International Institutions 197
Juan L. Suárez de Vivero, Juan C. Rodríguez Mateos, and
David Florido del Corral
11 Institutional Linkages 217
José J. Pascual-Fernández, Svein Jentoft, Jan Kooiman, and Abbie
Trinidad
PART IV
PRINCIPLES FOR FISHERIES GOVERNANCE
Introduction 241
Jan Kooiman
12 Current Principles 245
Maarten Bavinck and Ratana Chuenpagdee
13 Meta-Principles 265
Jan Kooiman, Svein Jentoft, Maarten Bavinck,
Ratana Chuenpagdee, and U. Rashid Sumaila
14 Hard Choices and Values 285
Jan Kooiman and Svein Jentoft
PART V
PROSPECTS FOR FISHERIES GOVERNANCE
15 Challenges and Concerns Revisited 303
Maarten Bavinck, Ratana Chuenpagdee, Poul Degnbol, and
José J. Pascual-Fernández
16 Governance and Governability 325
Jan Kooiman and Ratana Chuenpagdee
17 Governance in Action 351
Robin Mahon, Maarten Bavinck, and Rathindra Nath Roy
References 375
List of Contributors 419
Index 423
6 Contents
8
Local Institutions
José J. Pascual-Fernández, Katia Frangoudes, and Stella Williams
Fishers and Communities
There are many definitions of a community. Community studies have
played an important role in the social sciences, such as anthropology, since
the early twentieth century. In this sense, functionalist studies by Mali-
nowski and Radcliffe Brown served as models for studying communities
as a strategy for analysing culture as a whole. Even precursors like Tönnies
with his concept of Gemeinschaft and his positivist organicism can be
quoted. Culture was conceptualised as consisting of functionally interre-
lated parts, creating a model of analysis that was to pattern the standard in
social anthropology (Redfield 1971 [1955-6]). The studies depended on a
community concept characterised by isolation, homogeneity and shared va-
lues or culture. Redfield identified four essential characteristics in commu-
nities: a small or reduced social scale, homogeneity regarding their mem-
bers’activities and state of mind, a consciousness of distinctiveness and a
certain self-sufficiency over time (Redfield 1971; Rapport 1996).
In the 1950s, Hillery found 94 alternative definitions of this concept and
the features most commonly shared were ‘interaction’and ‘ties of interest’
followed by ‘geographical proximity’, with the only substantive overlap
being ‘all dealt with people’(Hillery 1955: 117). In the same decade, a gener-
ally critical tendency of the models in community studies led to the partial
demise of this concept in anthropology. It was replaced by alternative no-
tions (such as population) with fewer connotations. However, in recent
years the role of communities in conservation has been rediscovered as the
locus of conservationist thinking. After a long history of failed top-down
development programmes, international agencies from the World Bank or
USAID to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have
turned to programmes that implement or reinforce community-based con-
servation policies (Agrawal and Gibson 2001: 4). This process is linked to
the emphasis on the participation of local populations after the recognition
of state policy limitations in designing and enforcing adequate measures to
achieve the sustainable use of natural resources.
Communities are more diverse, heterogeneous and unstable than Red-
field and other authors assume. To summarise, we use a definition formu-
lated by Agrawal and Gibson (2001: 1): ‘Communities are complex entities
containing individuals differentiated by status, political and economic
power, religion and social prestige, and intentions. Although some may op-
153
erate harmoniously, others do not. Some see nature or the environment as
something to be protected; others care only for nature’s short-term use.
Some have effective traditional norms; others have few. Some community
members seek refuge from the government and market; others quickly em-
brace both. And sometimes communities come into existence only as a
result of their interactions with governments and markets’. The emphasis
here is on intra-community diversity related to power, wealth, status or cul-
ture. Consequently, the characteristics of community life or behaviour in
relation to resource management can be quite different in each concrete
case. However, in contrast with this position, three elements have been re-
levant in the analysis of communities in literature: the small spatial dimen-
sion, a social structure that is supposedly homogeneous and a global set of
shared norms (Agrawal and Gibson 2001: 2). We note that the social and
cultural systems of contemporary fishing peoples should always be ana-
lysed taking their linkages into account with regional, national and interna-
tional processes.
Small Spatial Units
The idea of communities as small spatial units is associated with isolation
and images contrasting with our globalised contemporary world. Since
Wilmsen’s (1989) analyses of the Kalahari Bushmen –considered the ar-
chetype of pristine hunter-gatherers ever since the 1960s –demonstrating
their close link to different populations through deep historical commercial
bonds and a rich history of associations, the myth of the isolated commu-
nity or isolated societies has been in question. As regards fishing popula-
tions, the geographical dimension of a community is also an issue that
poses problems. In Europe, Japan, and other areas, there are fishing com-
munities that occupy definite geographical boundaries. However, in other
cultural contexts such as the migrating fishers of West Africa, who move
from one place to another, even in neighbouring nation states, all the while
maintaining ties with their country and co-ethnics back home in the village,
geographical boundaries are practically non-existent (Ruffier 1999; Cor-
mier-Salem 2000; Jul-Larsen 2000).
The geographical limits of the communities and the resource manage-
ment they may accomplish in these areas are also relevant. Through their
institutions, communities manage a limited maritime territory. This terri-
tory may extend over the borders of a community or even a country. These
examples show that geographical limits are not the main basis of the defini-
tion of local coastal communities and the institutions devised to locally
manage the resources may not fit with local settlement boundaries and can
control a wider area.
154 Local Institutions
Homogeneous Composition
The concept of community is linked to a supposedly homogeneous compo-
sition. However, inequalities of wealth, gender, power or knowledge may
lead to very different positions in a community. Communities are usually
stratified and completely egalitarian societies are as yet unknown. Perhaps
the assumption of a single economic activity is one of the most pervasive
stereotypes conferred upon fishing communities, even though the combi-
nation of fishing, agriculture, commerce or even tourism and service-re-
lated activities is much more widespread. In many South Pacific or Greek
islands and the fishing-farming societies of Africa, local communities prac-
tice fishing and agriculture simultaneously and these activities are even
combined within the same household. Many authors describe how migrat-
ing fishers in West Africa engage in different activities at different times of
the year or of their lives, combining fishing with navigation in cargo boats,
trade or even agriculture (Bouju 1994; Chauveau et al. 2000).
Shared Norms
This is essentially the third dominant meaning of the concept of the com-
munity in literature: the community as common interests and shared
norms. To Agrawal and Gibson (2001: 10), all communities are imagined
communities that depend upon the perceptions of their members. The self-
ascription of individuals and their feelings of membership may be similar
to the criteria in the definitions of concepts such as the ethnic group. As
members of communities, individuals give up some of their selfish inter-
ests in favour of community or group interests. Some authors claim the
roots of local communities lie in a common culture, since fishers in a com-
munity generally share the same values and perception of nature. Fishers
and fishing practices are guided by the values, norms and knowledge
shared in each community (Jentoft 2000a: 54). This view depends of
course on a specific concept of culture.
Every culture is enmeshed in processes of change, and conflicts may
arise between alternative patterns of behaviour in certain areas. Encultura-
tion processes of different kinds and strengths are used to transfer values
and models of thinking or behaviour from the older to the younger genera-
tions and problems may arise in the course of the process. The values and
norms or patterns of prestige may vary quickly in areas undergoing rapid
development processes. For example, European or African fishers of a cer-
tain age may be unable to envision themselves in any other occupation than
the one they learned from their fathers. However, it is not rare nowadays
for young men born into fishing families to prefer alternative occupations
in societies where the alternatives exist. These are problems many fishing
communities in Europe are faced with today. In this sense, the transmis-
sion and inheritance of the fishing culture and the related specific knowl-
edge, techniques or abilities may be in danger in many areas, where it can
José J. Pascual-Fernández, Katia Frangoudes, and Stella Williams 155
be increasingly difficult to find young members for a fishing crew. For in-
stance, French fishing vessels, having difficulties in finding local fishers,
employed Spanish or Portuguese for years, but had to shift recently to Pol-
ish ones because they had trouble finding crew members. Greek, Italian or
Norwegian ships are having similar problems (Sagdahl 2000).
These and many other processes of change indicate that not all commu-
nities exhibit the same characteristics and not even the same community at
different historical moments. The ideal community with shared beliefs, a
homogeneous composition, stability, and clear ties is a myth. As Jentoft
indicates, communities are often characterised by social fissures, conflicts,
inequities and power differentials (Jentoft 2000a: 58), and by diversity,
fluidity, and change processes, as are cultures as a whole. In fact, in the
real world, communities usually consist of subgroups with different inter-
ests and variable access to capital, knowledge or power. Local politics in the
communities may be complex and changing, but always present.
Pluri-Activity and Migration Patterns
Theoretical approaches defining fishing communities as composed of peo-
ple who mainly live off fishing are no longer valid in many areas of the
globe where fishers, at the same or different moments, also engage in other
economic activities. On many South Pacific islands, people engage in fish-
ing as well as farming and are as much fishers as farmers (e.g., Bataille-
Benguigui 1999). The examples of fisher-farmers given by Cormier-Salem
(2000) show that people who do both also live in some parts of West Africa.
In the Casamance, the fishing territory may be a lagoon close to the coast
where fishers manage their piscatorial territories in much the same way as
they manage their agricultural fields. For years, fishing far off the coast was
practiced by ethnic groups specialised in it. But for historical reasons, fish-
ing is no longer an exclusive activity of these ethnic groups. The famine
that affected peasant populations in the 1970s in many parts of Africa drew
them to the coast to fish (Cormier-Salem 2000).
Diversified or pluri-activity strategies characterise the societies of fisher-
farmers and are also present among migrating fishers in West Africa. Most
of the migrating fishers there engage in various supplementary economic
activities and it is often doubtful whether fishing is their main productive
activity. To them, fishing is merely one of many means of livelihood and
people choose and often combine their productive activities with others not
always linked to a fishing-related identity (Chauveau and Jul-Larsen 2000;
Chauveau et al. 2000).
156 Local Institutions
Box 8.1 Peasants/farmers/fishers: early adaptations in Nordic
countries
For pre-industrial Sweden (1700-1900) Lögfren (1979) describes four different
adaptations (ecotypes) among the coastal and fishing populations:
1. Farmer-fishers who balanced various activities linked to land (agriculture, rais-
ing cattle) and sea exploitation (fishing, hunting, gathering) in their household
economy in a continuum from farming fishers to fishing farmers.
2. Mobile deep-sea fishers with an economy based on intensive fishing linked to
herring captures that mainly developed in specific areas of Sweden. The captures
were exchanged for cash or agricultural products. Few farming activities were
combined with fisheries.
3. Fisher-burghers who combined living in town with summer fishing in distant
archipelagos, enjoying exclusive rights granted by the king and combining fishing
with coastal trading. The catch was salted and sold in the cities at the end of the
summer.
4. Landless or crofter fishers who came from the poorest strata in the coastal
peasant communities, frequently because population growth outpaced the de-
mand for farm workers. They practiced subsistence fishing combined with small-
scale exploitation of marginal lands.
These four ecotypes depict an image clearly different from the stereotype of
fishers who only engage in extractive activities. In fact, most of them, especially
the fourth category, are the by-product of lengthy population growth from 1750 to
1850 that expelled landless peasants, transforming them into proletarians who
tried to exploit marginal land in coastal areas with permission from the land-
owners and combined farming and fishing activities. As Lögfren indicates, ‘before
the introduction of deep-sea fishing the demarcation between maritime and
agrarian adaptations was indistinct. Many coastal farmers carried out some sub-
sistence fishing while most peasant fishers supplemented their meagre marine
living by developing small-scale gardening and farming activities’(Lögfren 1979:
91). This pattern began to change in the twentieth century in Sweden due to in-
creasing labour specialisation and new market characteristics.
Source: Lögfren (1979)
As in many other areas of Europe, similar patterns were observed in north-
ern Europe centuries ago with different adaptations to specific constraints.
In the Canary Islands, mid-way between the North and South, fishing po-
pulations exhibited multi-activity patterns until the twentieth century. For
centuries, fishing around the coasts of the islands was of meagre impor-
tance. In many areas, fishers migrated from one side of the island to the
other, depending on the seasons and weather conditions (Pascual-Fernán-
dez 1991). Even nowadays there are many examples of shifting or com-
bined occupations, especially if we consider all the economic activities car-
ried out in the household. In the domestic units involved in artisanal
fishing in the Canary Islands, women and young people work in alternative
José J. Pascual-Fernández, Katia Frangoudes, and Stella Williams 157
jobs: hotels and restaurants, commerce and construction. This strategy of
combining economic activities is not new. Since the fifteenth century, littor-
al communities have survived via a complex matrix of interconnected la-
bour in different sectors. Until recently, transportation services, agriculture
and fishing in the fleet that worked the Saharan banks were the alternatives
frequently engaged in by the fishers themselves, shifting occupations in
some periods of their life or simply from season to season, especially in
winter, a pattern that continues today (Pascual-Fernández 2004).
Fishing, Communities and Institutional Arrangements
Communities can contribute to fisheries management in multifarious ways
or pose insurmountable obstacles. Institutional arrangements providing
sustainable use of marine resources have been developed in different ways,
shapes, and forms in many areas of the world. Because of the subtractive
character of the resources related to fishing or gathering, management in
this area requires a collective dimension: the use by one individual may
affect the actual or future use by other individuals of the same or different
resources. This is more evident in fisheries than in many agricultural adap-
tations, except in the use of water resources, which usually also presents
subtractive patterns. For this reason, institutional arrangements to manage
sea resources are nothing new. Examples of historical overfishing are in-
creasingly evident (Pauly et al. 2002) and in this sense, human societies
and local communities have had to find solutions to these problems,
although institutional arrangements are not always successful.
In some areas, high levels of organising the local use of these resources
have emerged and in other places, processes of institutional innovation
have either failed or are non-existent. The design of these institutional ar-
rangements is faced with several limitations. Firstly, there is the internal
diversity of communities that may present important problems for collec-
tive action in the event of organised groups with opposing interests. Sec-
ondly, there is the complexity of the relations between individuals and
groups inside the community and in a wider context that may influence
their institutional viability. Thirdly, there are the dynamics, a factor that is
now crucial in many local scenarios where changes induced by the market,
demographic transformations, tourism, and so forth may alter the precon-
ditions for local institutions. Lastly, the possibility of controlling fishing ac-
tivities in a territory depends to some extent on spatial or even temporal
scales that may affect the feasibility of local institutional arrangements.
158 Local Institutions
Box 8.2 Preconditions of collective action
A particularly interesting area of inquiry are the preconditions of collective action.
In other words, what factors explain the differences between dissimilar commu-
nities in their capacities to design, implement, and enforce successful autono-
mous institutions for resource management. A general rule used by economists
and political scientists is the net benefit of these institutional arrangements. All
innovation processes in these areas imply organisational costs, and large
amounts of time invested in making the necessary arrangements, attending meet-
ings, convincing other users, and supporting the institutional arrangements once
in force. The perceived benefits of these institutions may or may not compensate
for all these costs, and the perception that users have of the balance between both
elements in the equation may affect their decision to support or not those institu-
tional buildings or maintenance processes (Wade 1987; Gibson et al. 2000). This
perception may be influenced by many factors, and past experiences of local man-
agement of resources can help decisively in the process.
The development of local or folk management is neither automatic nor inevita-
ble, and any assumption in this sense is unrealistic. Pinkerton (1994: 318) sug-
gests that a long period of stable population size, location, and resource use is
required for local populations to experiment, learn and adapt to local environ-
ments, in a process of trial and error. Sometimes it may be very difficult to devel-
op folk management practices in situations of industrial development, multiple
use conflicts, migratory patterns, and so forth. The existence of different groups
inside a community may lead to all these issues, as groups and individuals negoti-
ate the use, management and conservation of resources. At the local level they
attempt to implement the negotiated rules and try to solve the disputes that arise
in the whole process (Agrawal and Gibson 2001: 13). The power structure at the
local level or the benefits to gain by different subgroups or individuals may also
influence this process. Several authors have tried to systematise the precondi-
tions of collective action in this area (Wade 1987; Pinkerton 1989b, 1994; Mitchell
1999; Gibson et al. 2000).
Source: Authors of this chapter
Many variables may affect the behaviour and strategies of resource users,
facilitating or hindering the building or maintenance of local institutions in
charge of resource conservation. These processes are linked to more gener-
al patterns at the societal level. Some authors cite the relevance of a well-
functioning civil society as a prerequisite for co-management since in
many areas, residents are poorly organised beyond the household and their
experience of working institutions within the communities may be limited
(Sandersen 1999; Jentoft 2000a). From among a multiplicity of contradic-
tory conceptions of civil society (Rodríguez Guerra 2000), we take this con-
cept as referring to an entity basically complementing the state, a social
sphere between the economy and the area of political power (identified
with the state). It is on the periphery of political power in modern states
José J. Pascual-Fernández, Katia Frangoudes, and Stella Williams 159
and comprised of a multiplicity of private entities (organisations, associa-
tions, interest groups and so forth) that make up the associative scheme of
the public sphere. In local communities, these entities may be varied and
powerful. The causes of the differences may be in different areas of social
reality, such as political history, migration patterns, dictatorships, heavily
centralised states and so on, but can obviously affect the possibilities of co-
management and self-organisation in local scenarios.
Fishing communities depend on certain resources and areas of maritime
space, developing management strategies throughout history to secure
these resources. It is necessary to manage the activity of their members to
avoid conflicts among them and avoid resource exhaustion, and frequently
to exclude foreign fishers from their territory. Local management of the
fishing activities in a territory hopes to guarantee peaceful co-existence
among the members of the community and a fair sharing, if possible, of
the resources by its members. This heavy responsibility may rest on an
organisation (cofradia, prud’homie) or an individual (water master). For ex-
ample, the aim of French prud’homies (fishing organisations in the French
Mediterranean) is to ensure a decent income for all their members. The
members of the prud’homie are elected by the whole community and the
first prud’homme is an experienced fisher. The members of the organisa-
tion follow its rules, which are designed to avoid conflicts between different
fishing fleets or gear. If the rules are not respected, the first prud’homme
can judge and inflict penalties. In the event of recidivism, fishers can be
excluded from the prud’homie and in a sense from the community (Tem-
pier 1986; Féral 1990; Frangoudes 1997). The membership in prud’homies
results in shared values and norms and similar attitudes to resources. They
respect the rules set by the institutions that generally regroup fishers of
various neighbouring ports, although each may also have separate specific
rules. The institutions are able to regulate the fishing activity under their
jurisdiction, and their strength derives from the large number of members
and from being long-standing institutions.
In southern Europe, there are the cofradias, which have channelled fish-
ers’participation in marine resource management in Spain for centuries.
In some regions of the country, they can be traced back to the Middle Ages
(Erkoreka Gervasio 1991; Alegret 1999) but in other parts, and the Canaries
are a good example, they have a more recent history along with reduced
institutionalisation (Pascual-Fernández 1999). These non-profit organisa-
tions have a special legal status as corporations with public rights, similar
in some aspects to local councils. The cofradias depended on the central
government until the creation of autonomous communities in Spain.
From then on, several communities began to receive specific competences
in these areas and to issue specific legislation about cofradias. In the
Canary Islands, Decreto 109 of 26 June 1997 regulates fishers’cofradias.
This is why there are now some relevant differences in how these institu-
tions are organised in different areas of Spain. They represent the interests
of the fishing sector as a whole and serve as consultative and cooperative
bodies for the administration in multiple duties related to promoting the
160 Local Institutions
sector. Moreover, they perform economic, administrative and commercial
management tasks. They frequently also cooperate in regulating access to
the resources and informing about infractions in their territory. To sum-
marise, they try to manage the activities and in some senses the resources,
together with the state, and reduce conflicts in the fishing sector between
different fleets, fishing techniques and so on.
Box 8.3 General features of cofradias
The aim of the cofradias is to integrate everyone in the sector –fishers, ship-own-
ers and even shellfish gatherers –in their area of influence (one or more har-
bours). Sometimes different interest groups or associations co-exist in the cofra-
dias. In the case of shellfish gathering, there are special associations within the
cofradia in Galicia that are in charge of organising this activity, usually carried out
by women. Ship-owners and crew members have equal representation in the gov-
erning bodies of the cofradias, except for the role of Patrón Mayor (president of
the organisation), which is in the hands of one individual. In fact, in some cofra-
dias, the position of Patrón Mayor has considerable influence and great authority.
The person in this position, elected by the members, is in charge of management
and also obeys the rules issued by the cofradia and enforces its agreements. Two
additional governing bodies of the cofradia are the General Committee (Junta
General), and the Cabildo (12 to 48 elected members) as an administrative and
management body.
In many areas of the mainland, the cofradias manage the first sell of the pro-
duce (Pascual-Fernández 1999) and are beginning to organise more complex
commercialisation schemes, even using the Internet as the main commercialisa-
tion channel (see www.lonxanet.com). Like the prud’homies they issue rules that
their members have to respect, such as timetables for departing or returning to
the port in Catalonia, or propose changes in the techniques to be used in their
area of influence, changes the government usually accepts, as in the Canary Is-
lands (Pascual-Fernández 1999). They do not have the same prerogatives as the
prud’homies to judge, but they may impose sanctions in some senses if users do
not respect the rules. They also perform other tasks such as the management of
first-sell auctions, the accounting of ships or their bureaucratic management and
so forth. These functions are what has enabled the cofradias to survive, as op-
posed to the prud’homies, whose role has weakened (Franquesa 1993; Alegret
1995, 1996; Pascual-Fernández 1999). That does not mean these institutions
have not had problems in recent years. Ship-owners’associations, fish mer-
chants’associations or producer organisations have begun, e.g., in Catalonia, to
reclaim some of their traditional political and bargaining space and this ‘is pro-
voking a significant loss of bargaining power, an increase in transaction costs and
institutional change in all the fishery sector of Catalonia, with unforeseen conse-
quences for the future of the management system currently in place’, since until
now the cofradias have been the main link between the fishing sector and the
state (Alegret 2000: 183).
Source: José J. Pascual-Fernández
José J. Pascual-Fernández, Katia Frangoudes, and Stella Williams 161
Local Institutions and Conflicts with the State
These models of traditional institutional arrangements within commu-
nities sharing the same culture and values are not always accepted by the
administration. In some cases, the administration considers these organi-
sations archaic or obsolete and replaceable by new ones that appear to be
modern or more egalitarian. The public powers frequently do not hesitate
to destroy them even if the fishers are overtly opposed. In France the estab-
lishment of local fisheries committees (comités locaux de pêches) since
1945 has weakened the role of the prud’homies. Some fishers consider the
prud’homies useless now that the local committees decree rules concern-
ing resource management. Nowadays, producers’organisations (POs) re-
cognised by the EC have the capacity to establish fisheries plans for differ-
ent species. The aim is to regulate fish markets, thus avoiding price
decreases. But the majority of French fishers are not members of these
organisations. The power of the POs to manage the resource is directly
granted by the EU and is added to the two already-existing fishers’organisa-
tions.
In West Africa the water master used to play an important role in the
management of local fishing resources. The oldest in the local group, he
had the responsibility of issuing rules such as geographical or seasonal pro-
hibitions and had to be the first to start each fishing campaign, after which
the other fishers could follow suit (Kassibo 2000: 203). The colonial ad-
ministration considered these local institutions too archaic for the manage-
ment of the fishing territory. After gaining independence, the national ad-
ministrations adopted the same position. For them as well, water masters
and their rules were considered feudal. However, in the past the rules en-
acted by water masters and their decisions were respected by all (Fay 2000).
To the Mali administration, traditional law represents feudalism because it
overlooks equity, since foreign fishers are excluded from local fishing
grounds. In this case, state management erodes traditional strategies and
institutions that local communities have developed to cope with and benefit
from fluctuating resource availability (Sarch and Allison 2000).
In the course of modernisation in Mali, state regulations abolished the
role of the water master in fisheries, promising that the new Fisheries Law
would take into account the traditional rules exercised by the water master.
This attention devoted by legislators to traditional rules can be interpreted
as meaning they were aware that modern law could not destroy the tradi-
tional customary law still practiced in the communities. In Chad as well,
public authorities had to allow the water master to regain some of his
powers in the context of local fishing communities. In other words, in
some places in Africa the official disappearance of the water masters has
not meant their informal fading, since they still retain ample power in the
local communities and all migrant fishers have to be presented to these
water masters. They have to learn the local rules and practices and their
behaviour at sea has to comply with them (Jul-Larsen 2000).
162 Local Institutions
Even if the authorities want some of these institutions to disappear with-
out a trace in the name of modernity, traditional rules do not vanish over-
night. Not violating the customary rules is a well-established custom
among community fishers in many areas of the world and strangers who
want to fish in their territories have to comply with these rules if they want
to remain undisturbed. The administration can set up new rules, but they
do not have the same social acceptance –they are not the product of the
community but imposed from outside –and no one respects them.
Platteau (1993) explains that the economic growth of traditional fishing in
Kayar (Senegal) is linked to the fact that the economic organisations have
not been modernised. They remain traditional, which is precisely why they
are efficient. Traditional institutional models are efficient because they re-
main integrated into a traditional institutional environment and are rooted
in the local identity and strict moral patterns. However, in a context of fra-
gile states that compromise their implementation, many of the new regula-
tions issued to manage the fisheries in a modern way barely get any sup-
port from the local populations.
In many countries where the state is weak, fishers’compliance with rules
mainly depends on the social control exercised by individuals on their
neighbours who do not comply. The community’s punishment can be
stronger than the authorities’. It can even mean the exclusion of fishers
from the community. Social ostracism in a context of mutual dependence
and cooperation for many daily tasks can be a strong argument against free-
rider behaviour.
Regulating conflicts in a local fishing community does not necessarily
require an organisation, as is clear from a case in the north of Greece. At
the end of the 1970s, a trawler fleet destroyed numerous nets that belonged
to inshore fishers in the area, causing a serious conflict. The inshore fish-
ers asked the authorities to forbid trawling in the Bay of Thessaloniki. De-
spite the opposition, an agreement was reached with the trawlers and the
gear was banned in the area. The explanation given by local fishers was as
follows: ‘We could not walk freely in the village!’It was necessary to find a
solution because the trawler crewmembers and the inshore fishers were
members of the same community and sometimes of the same family. The
social peace of the community was at risk and this could not be accepted
(Frangoudes 1997).
Threats to local institutions do not solely come from state intervention.
Industrial fishing frequently causes difficulties for fishers’organisations,
jeopardising the cohesion of the community. Basque ship-owners in Spain
may leave the traditional organisations and create their own. However,
French industrial fishers may participate in the same organisations as
small-scale boats, although effectively they are more powerful and in some
cases promote their own interests to the detriment of the smaller boats.
According to the preconditions of collective action, these differences add
complexity to the institutions of local management. Even in potentially ad-
verse conditions though, as the French case shows, they may survive.
José J. Pascual-Fernández, Katia Frangoudes, and Stella Williams 163
As a general rule that is frequently emphasised in the literature about
local institutions focused on resource management, wherever possible, the
state should support the pre-existing institutional framework instead of im-
posing a new one imported from another country or institutional context.
Compliance with externally-imposed norms is usually more costly to en-
force and more subject to questioning than if users in a sense self-impose
the rules, even if they are exactly the same. As is suggested above, the devel-
opment of these institutions is not feasible in every situation, but wherever
possible it may be wise to support their development and stability. How-
ever, local institutions are not always able to adapt to new and changing
situations. Inertia and resistance to change are observed in national bu-
reaucracies as well as in local scenarios. For instance, the problems women
have entering many local institutions with equal rights may demonstrate
the shortcomings of these institutional arrangements and the necessity to
adapt them and the local culture to new situations.
Even in the numerous cases where the state or supranational bodies have
destroyed these local institutions or replaced them with centralised man-
agement schemes, returning the responsibilities to the local populations
and reconstructing local institutions capable of assuming these tasks is be-
coming a political priority: the devolution of responsibilities. The reversal
of control and accountability is an essential element of devolvement, the
process of giving back management responsibilities to local populations or
communities (see chaps. 9 and 11). In this area, co-management (Jentoft
1989) is a strategy characterised by involving stakeholders in policy formu-
lation through consultation and delegating management responsibilities
for implementation processes to these stakeholders to provide legitimacy
and consensus in the eyes of user groups (Symes 1998).
This practice implies decentralising and creating institutions that as-
sume the tasks, breaking down the centralised structures of management,
coping with the inertia and resistance of bureaucracies and locating deci-
sion-making processes closer to the reality to be managed. In this process,
sharing responsibilities with users is a key factor and their participation in
the management process a precondition. Building these special relation-
ships requires time to reach reciprocal commitment and trust between the
government and the user groups and compliance with the ethical princi-
ples that evolve as this relationship develops (Symes 1998: 70). These pro-
cesses also mean regionalising management and broadly defining stake-
holder groups in the current situation of multiple use conflicts in many
coastal areas. These scenarios are linked to the recognition that where there
is a certain degree of parity in the relationships and interactions between
the participating entities, co-governance is better adapted to complex, di-
verse, and dynamic situations than top-down models.
164 Local Institutions
Gender, Fisheries, and Institutions
The term gender refers to the socially defined roles, resources and responsi-
bilities of men and women as they relate to one another (Davis and Nadel-
Klein 1992). These roles are not given. Rather, they are socially constructed
and vary across different times and places according to changing values,
practices and technologies (Oyewumi 1997; Williams et al. 2002). It is
these socially constructed roles and responsibilities that are responsible for
the structure employed to organise women’s and men’s differential rela-
tionships with their environments, their resource utilisation patterns and
strategies, their experiences with environmental degradation and their per-
ceptions of the environment.
Images of fishing tend to be male in many cultures, especially Western
ones. The men are in charge of building and managing boats and coping
with the perils and risks of navigating and fishing, and they get all the pres-
tige associated with the activity. The literature has minimised or overlooked
the role of women in this area, as in many others, for years and even gives
them a negative role as carriers of bad luck at sea (Nadel-Klein and Davis
1988b). For decades in many areas of social sciences a male bias, remark-
ing the relevance of activities developed by men and disregarding those
developed by women has been too common.
In economy, for instance, the neo-classic paradigm verges towards the
concept of economic man (Cohen 1989), using a methodology that usually
discards women’s activities, excluding a large percentage of their work
from the calculus of Gross National Product and all their domestic labour.
In anthropology during the 1960s, seminal works such as Man the Hunter
(Lee and DeVore 1969) concentrated on men’s activities, in this case hunt-
ing, although women were not completely omitted. However, at the end of
the decade this bias was increasingly contested, and some years later an-
other seminal work in the field (Woman the Gatherer) remarked precisely
what the latter had omitted: the activities developed by women in foraging
societies, especially gathering, assuming new theories, developed during
the 1970s, about the evolution of mankind that highlighted the women’s
role in this process (Dahlberg 1981).
This new perspective was related to the emergence of feminism in social
sciences, forcing a reconsideration of what had been anthropological
‘truths’with a male bias. For instance, key concepts such as the household
or domestic group and the different economic roles and status positions
inside it now receive detailed attention (Narotzky 1988). In sum, the gender
perspective, as a necessary instrument and a central problem in all the re-
search areas, was consolidated in the 1980s and 1990s (Narotzky 1995),
around the analysis of the social construction of the differences. This issue
can be associated with the concept of work, which frequently is related to an
androcentric and capitalist perspective that restricts this concept to paid
work, dismissing many of the complex and essential tasks developed by
women all around the world. The division of work in a society is the pro-
duct of social and power relations between its members. Each society cre-
José J. Pascual-Fernández, Katia Frangoudes, and Stella Williams 165
ates a specific representation of sex differences, and because of these as-
sumptions about abilities and skills, the activities are distributed with a
gender bias (Yanagisako and Collier 1987). The socialisation and education
processes reinforce these patterns of social division of work and roles and
drive people to accept what the society devises for them. In this sense, each
society may associate certain tasks with specific gender roles in a specific
moment of its history, changing the linkages in a historical process. These
patterns may be completely different between diverse societies, and even in
the same society in different historical periods (Comas d’Argemir 1995).
In the fisheries arena, since the 1980s, a similar re-analysis has been
developed, starting with the seminal compilation of Nadel-Klein and Davis
(1988a), which emphasises some specific biases. For instance, the previous
invisibility of women’s activities within the communities, on board, in com-
mercialisation, in the reproduction of groups and their culture, or even in
local or supra-local management organisations, is now receiving detailed
attention. In this sense, the relevance of their roles in many of these areas
has been remarked, without completely separating this perspective from
the study of men’s activities or other social problems, stressing the dy-
namic interplay of gender roles with gender identity (Nadel-Klein and Davis
1988b).
The historical focus of fisheries research on fishing vessels and gear has
probably contributed to the invisibility of women in fishing economies.
However, since the 1980s, an increasing number of studies note the rele-
vance of women in the economic realms of fishing populations, e.g., by
demystifying their absence on board and acknowledging how, in many
cases, they join the crews (as in some areas of Portugal). In addition, many
fishing societies acknowledge that the purpose of their activity is to earn a
living and not per se to fish, and in this realm the social analysis of the
division of labour needs a broader perspective going further than the activ-
ities on board. The diversity of women’s subsistence and work roles is more
complex than is usually assumed, ranging from collaborating spouses in
France to ship-owners in Spain, crewmembers in Portugal (Cole 1991),
scuba-fishing divers in Galicia or Japan, fish plant labourers, fish proces-
sors, fish sellers, financial managers, or political agents like the patronas
mayores in Galician cofradias. These patterns of work distribution are flex-
ible, dependent on circumstances, and less rigid and stereotyped than is
usually presumed.
Of course the economic roles are related to variable status positions that
are rapidly changing in many areas of the world. In fishing communities,
men usually predominate in the public spheres, although the role of wo-
men is far from marginal. Besides, women of the North and South also
rarely play a role in local fishing institutions. However, even in long-stand-
ing institutions like the Galician cofradias in Spain, their status and power
have increased enormously in recent years as a result of their professionali-
sation as shellfish gatherers (mariscadoras), and they now have the same
rights as men and control political positions in some of these organisations.
In France, women’s fisheries organisations have also gained social rele-
166 Local Institutions
vance. All these processes are changing the prestige rankings of men and
women in public spaces and their role in household economies as a result
of social and economic transformations in the North and South alike. In
short, like men, women play a number of specialised roles in fishing-re-
lated populations all across the globe and an active role in household adap-
tive strategies, and their contribution should not be underestimated.
In development arenas, as Boserup analysed decades ago (1970), these
patterns of social division of work and roles should be carefully taken into
account in designing proper development programmes, although it may
require more research on the causes and effects of gender roles in specific
fishing adaptations (Williams 2002). However, gender as an important con-
cept is usually left out as a variable strategy when planning development
programmes, especially those on resource management (Mehra and Esim
1998). Most of the literature in community resource management (CRM)
implies or cites the community as the primary participants, movers, and
beneficiaries of resource management activities. A critical examination re-
veals, however, that in reality, these resource management programmes
and initiatives often target the male members of the community –the fish-
ermen –assumed and identified as the direct capturers of the fisheries
resources (Horemans and Jallow 1997). Women, on the other hand, are
assumed to be secondary to men, in terms of development interventions,
and generally receive low priority (FAO 2001b). More recently, women’s
roles in fisheries are gaining recognition, and women are given the atten-
tion they deserve. Yet, the genuine involvement of women in resource man-
agement activities, as well as their access to benefits derived from CRM
programmes, has yet to be clearly defined and accepted.
The roles played by women in the North and South alike frequently have
the same objective –the economic survival of the family –even if it may
play out in different ways. Without the support of their wives, the house-
holds of French fishers cannot go on, because during the fishing trips the
women are in charge of the family and many fishing-related tasks on land.
Their households are ‘between the sea and the land’(the name of one Bre-
ton fisher-women’s association) and women are responsible for multifar-
ious tasks related to the fishing business; accounting, sales, and adminis-
trative work. This work carried out by women in the EU member states is
rarely recognised and never remunerated. If European fisher-women play
an increasingly important role within fishing enterprises, it is because their
households need their contribution to save money and assure their repro-
duction and autonomy. However, according to the statistics of the European
fisheries production only 3.2% of the women are apparently involved
(MacAlister 2002), and in the aquaculture sector they only constitute 3% of
the total workforce. In some countries, like Spain, we have detected that the
numbers are higher than those detailed in MacAlister’s report, which con-
firms the invisibility of women’s work in fisheries.
It is possible, though, to understand this reduced participation by taking
into account how difficult it is to combine household tasks and other activ-
ities. Since the men are away from home, the women bear the sole respon-
José J. Pascual-Fernández, Katia Frangoudes, and Stella Williams 167
sibility for bringing up the children. Added to old taboos, this explains why
only a few women in Europe work on board. Fisheries do not have office
hours and the kindergartens and schools are closed when the boats leave or
come back to harbour. Women have to use different social networks to take
care of their children. Relatives and neighbours may often help out and
even replace the schools in some situations. Their contribution is one way
to save household income. If women do as much as they can on their own,
the family does not need to pay for these services.
However, especially in southern countries, several studies point to in-
creasing instances of women participating in actual fish capture, predomi-
nantly in riverine and lagoon aquatic ecosystems. Women in the South
Pacific islands contribute directly to production and are not prohibited or
kept in any way from using the same fishing gear as men. According to
Kronen (2002), the women of Tonga fish to satisfy family consumption
needs and fishing is abandoned once the needs are filled. The only major
difference between fishermen and fisher-women is the number of landings
and the species captured. This difference can be explained by the fact that
women do not use boats and thus fish in different areas than men. Bataille-
Benguigui (1999) explains that in Tonga ‘collecting is a female activity’and
this may be why fisher-women do not use boats. This author notes that
women and children only exploit the shore (sand reef) where they gather.
High-sea fishing is reserved for men. In other Pacific islands, women use
boats and are involved in fisheries extractive activities. Further, women are
involved in pre-fishing activities such as preparing and mending nets as
well as preparing baits, and post-fishing activities including processing, dis-
tributing and marketing of the fish. Women’s involvement in fisheries gen-
erally results in lower operational costs and overhead expenses of the
household (Grzetic et al. 1996).
In some West African countries, women’s role in fisheries is more struc-
tured and seems to have a heavy impact on the local communities and their
social structure. In Ghana or Togo, women are the main fish merchants. In
Ghana, where pirogue fisheries constitute an exclusively male task, women
are in charge of selling and processing fish and have a sizeable amount of
capital, which is used for credit. It was the women who believed in using
outboard engines for catching the pirogues and provided the fishers with
credit to install them (Overaa 2000). The fishers increased their production
and the women who loaned them the capital for the engines got preferen-
tial access to the captures. This is why some of the women have consider-
able wealth and social prestige. This ethnic group is matrilineal and women
see to the children and household responsibilities alone. This could be one
factor encouraging women to be efficient fish merchants. Their capacity to
manage and control their money allows them to join the world of men
(Overaa 2000). In Togo, a group of women call nana Benz also controls
fish commercialisation and provides credit for the fishers. Their name
comes from the French word nana (girls) and Benz because they drive
Mercedes-Benz cars (Weigel 1987). Nana Benz women are the main actors
168 Local Institutions
of the fisheries sector in Togo because they control the fish commercialisa-
tion as well as the credit.
In Abidjan (Ivory Coast), Ghanaian women control the fish smoking in-
dustry. ‘We don’t become fumeuses (smoking workers) by choice, we are
born fumeuses’. All of them learn their job from their mothers when they
are only children. When they reach the marriageable age, they marry fish-
ers and continue to practice the same job. The labour force that does the
smoking consists of young girls from Ghana, who work for four or five
years without a salary but with free accommodations and clothes. After five
years, their boss (also a woman) takes them back to Ghana and gives them
money to pay for their wedding. The female fish smokers need initial start-
up capital to build an oven and buy the fish. The way they get access to the
raw material (fish) is interesting. Not all women have access to fish even if
they have the necessary money. Fish supplying is based on the solidarity of
individuals of the same ethnic group. Fanti fishers sell their fish to Fanti
women and Awlan fishers to Awlan women. A Fanti fisherman would
never sell his fish to an Awlan woman and vice versa (Ruffier 1999).
Since the end of colonial rule, national and local governments in devel-
oping countries have been responsible for the establishment of associa-
tions/organisations. Because more men hold government positions, their
representation in these organisations is higher. Not surprisingly, the major-
ity of members of fish workers’associations are men. The disadvantage to
women is that they are left out of the information loop about fisheries inter-
ventions, marketing, and bank loans. Furthermore, despite the stark reali-
ties of women’s involvement and their contributions to the fishing econo-
my, most of the organising activities by national government agencies, non-
governmental organisations, churches, and academic institutions are of the
strong view that fishery first and foremost implies catching and capturing.
This assumption narrowed down the principal targets of organising efforts
to include only male members in the community, thus paving the way for
the formation of organisations that are exclusively male. Even in the North,
although French women have their own organisations, until now they have
not been given the chance to be elected to positions in the general fisheries
organisations. Women participated for the first time in the elections for the
local fisheries committees in January 2003, but via the trade unions the
fishers tried to restrict the women’s participation. This was done in several
ways. The women were not informed until the last moment about whether
they could participate or not and the administration did not issue its inter-
pretation of the law until after the deadline for submitting the electoral list.
In fact, the fishers’trade unions did not want women in their organisations
because ‘women have bad habits’,‘they want to know everything’and this
‘disturbs the tranquillity’of the trade unions (Frangoudes 2002). From a
governance perspective, women’s rights, voice, and equal treatment in the
fishing-related organisations are a must.
José J. Pascual-Fernández, Katia Frangoudes, and Stella Williams 169
Box 8.4 Successful collective action of Mariscadoras: a long and
winding path
In Galicia, Spain, the regrouping of mariscadoras, women who earn a living collect-
ing shellfish along the shore, was the culmination of a defeat. In the 1990s, shell-
fish beds declined along the shoreline and income levels fell. To salvage a future
that had been compromised by the decline in shellfish stocks, biologists worked
alongside the mariscadoras. As a result, the women gained an overall perspective
of production and marketing. Every October, they plan together how to work the
beaches the following year. From collective awareness to the control of their sec-
tor, women have gone through various stages in the process of obtaining autono-
my:
First step, collective action: The mariscadoras realised they had problems in com-
mon and shared the same objectives. These shallow-water fisherwomen got to-
gether to found professional associations. Their goals were to gain entry to men's
organisations, participate in stock management and be represented before the
administration.
Second step, make capturing professional: Training was the best way to gain re-
cognition. The women collaborated with the authorities to monitor the natural
beaches and prevent poaching.
Third step, gaining financial independence: The women got funding and subsidies
to launch clam production operations and planned their savings to purchase
spats.
Fourth step, mastering marine farming: They mastered all the production pro-
cesses to breed their own spats so they would be less dependent on private hatch-
eries.
Fifth step, promotion and development: They promoted their products regionally
using a Protected Geographical Indication. They gathered the producers’stock at
the same site to set prices at a similar level. They safeguarded their concessions,
saw to stock regeneration and did unpaid work for the improvement and upkeep
of the beaches.
Solid results: The results match the scale of the efforts. The standard of living
has increased even though the business activity is seasonal. Sales prices are also
rising. The percentage of workers making social security contributions has gone
from 10% to almost 100%. This increase shows that these women have become
true professionals.
And now what? There are twenty-four associations in Galicia in 2004, almost
half of whom are grouped under the name AREAL (Confederation of Galician
Mariscadora Associations). They are very active and play a significant role in the
independence of these women.
Source: Aktea no. 2 (2003)
At the same time, women are the ones responsible for transmitting the
culture to their children. The culture and values of fishing communities
170 Local Institutions
are passed on through the mothers, especially in industrial fisheries where
the absence of fathers for lengthy periods justifies this argument; women
are the pillars of the culture and see to the continuity of the fisheries. In
Europe, if a mother does not want her son to work in the fisheries sector,
she can always encourage him to go to school and find a job outside fish-
ing.
It is clear from these examples that the role of women in fisheries is
extremely diverse around the world. There is probably barely a job in fish-
eries that is not done by women somewhere, although taboos and preju-
dices may keep them from joining a fishing crew in many countries. How-
ever, cultural and economic changes are modifying traditions. Perhaps the
main challenge in this area is women’s admission to fishing-related institu-
tions with the same rights and duties as men.
Conclusion
Throughout history, fishing populations world-wide have developed diverse
institutional arrangements to avoid conflicts and manage resources. More
than in agricultural adaptations, in fisheries the subtractive nature of the
resources generates a need to devise institutions for minimising competi-
tive conflicts or managing resource exploitation. These institutional ar-
rangements generate various measures to control the behaviour at sea, the
gear allowed, closed seasons and so forth, and in many cases regulate the
phases of product commercialisation.
These arrangements have neither been infallible nor free of difficulties,
and technological development and the advance of capitalism in the past
few centuries have often endangered their survival. With various obstacles
or even interruptions, some arrangements have lasted for centuries in the
North and South alike. However, these institutions were not created every-
where, since in situations where there is not much conflict for the re-
sources, the costs of building and maintaining specific institutional ar-
rangements to limit this kind of conflict would surpass the benefits. There
are also cases where local management has been inefficient or non-exis-
tent, as is witnessed by the global rise in overfishing (Pauly et al. 2002).
To manage marine resources, local institutions usually depend on tradi-
tional knowledge, shared and accumulated through the generations using
trial and error strategies. This knowledge, especially in the twentieth cen-
tury, started to compete with various areas of scientific research. Marine
biology or economic discourses began to propose new perspectives for fish-
eries management that first affected the management patterns of industrial
fisheries and later transformed all the fisheries, including artisanal or
small-scale ones. These scientific models were supported by Western states
that frequently created specific institutions to assess fisheries management
or take direct control of these processes in top-down schemes. Specific
images were developed to support these new institutions that denied the
possibility of governance models in local scenarios.
José J. Pascual-Fernández, Katia Frangoudes, and Stella Williams 171
Evidently, this plan often deliberately marginalised the local institutions
and even made them disappear as outmoded solutions to a problem with a
scientific answer. However, the scientific models could not provide solu-
tions to every problem, nor could their recommendations always gain poli-
tical support. In a sense the dramatic failures of some of the new top-down
systems have changed the perspective in the analysis of local institutions.
In some areas of inquiry, the costs of top-down management schemes and
the misfit with local circumstances, enforcement, compliance and so forth
have led to models that emphasise the participation of local populations
and the co-management or local management of resources. However, after
the destruction of many long-standing institutions, it is extremely difficult
to go back and rebuild them.
In this context, the support for existing local institutions, the possibility
of creating or recreating others and the devolution towards local control of
resources managed in top-down schemes now constitute especially inter-
esting areas of research. Many top-down schemes of management were de-
signed to manage fish, not people, although it is essentially the fishers who
are managed and rarely the fish stocks. This is why the institutional ar-
rangements devised to improve the situation should be primarily designed
to manage people and to manage the fish stocks through them. There are
circumstances that favour building or maintaining local institutions linked
to communal resource management, but if one crucial aspect is to be high-
lighted, perhaps it is the decisive role of the state in supporting, or at least
not weakening, the long-standing local fisheries institutions all across the
globe.
In the context of gender analysis in fisheries, governance issues are re-
lated to equitable access to resources and banking institutions, which
should be linked with gender empowerment through training and projects
on alternative sustainable livelihood and income-generating activities. In
the same way, it is necessary to strengthen women’s bargaining and nego-
tiating positions, not only in the decision-making of the day-to-day opera-
tions but also on issues that concern personal choices on sexuality, fertility
and contraception. This is related to encouraging changes in gender stereo-
typing within coastal communities and directly addresses issues concern-
ing population, gender violence, and body politics. In sum, development
agendas must include programmes to promote women’s productive poten-
tials with appropriate support systems.
172 Local Institutions
11
Institutional Linkages
José J. Pascual-Fernández, Svein Jentoft, Jan Kooiman, and Abbie
Trinidad
Introduction
In this chapter we address a variety of issues related to vertical and horizon-
tal relationships and conflicts within the chain of fisheries governance re-
lated to fish distribution, fisheries policymaking and resource manage-
ment. Diversity constitutes a central issue in this scenario, due to the
multiple activities and uses developed in many coastal areas like tourism,
artisanal or industrial fishing, aquaculture, or even housing. However, a
typical consequence of this multiplicity of activities is a reduction in the
diversity of affected ecosystems (see chap. 4). Furthermore, the relation-
ships between these activities have originated, in the last decades, a system
of increasing complexity, as pressures on the shoreline and the marine eco-
systems intensify and intermix in a changing situation. In this sense, the
dynamics of these processes may be completely different in Northern or
Southern countries, or in areas where tourism, aquaculture, or industrial
fishing have developed rapidly. The dependency on natural resources that
are affected by global processes, such as climate change, only increases this
dynamic, further augmented as a consequence of trade liberalisation and
globalisation. All these specifics need to be taken into account in the design
of institutions and governance policies.
What follows is a presentation of some of the key ideas and challenges
concerning institutional linkages. Interdependence in dynamic and com-
plex situations causes vulnerabilities that the actors involved need to some-
how address. The institutional and organisational options available must,
however, be fine-tuned to the particularities of the diverse circumstances in
fisheries. There are hardly any standard institutional responses to the
needs of co-ordination that exist in fisheries regardless of the context. With
that in mind, we shall start by attempting to conceptualise these linkages,
and how they tend to be addressed institutionally in fisheries.
217
Conceptualising Institutional Linkages
Industrial Organisation and Institutional Linkages
As described in Part II, the ‘chain’of distribution from capture to consump-
tion is a highly institutionalised interactive system, where relations are
structured and governed according to various modes and principles, with
markets and hierarchies as the two extremes of the continuum. Sometimes
we are dealing with independent, self-employed, small-scale entrepreneurs
who specialise in one activity such as fishing or fish processing and buy
and sell their produce in the open market. In other instances, the actors
are (multinational) corporations that comprise the entire chain and that in-
ternally run their operations almost like a Soviet planning economy
(Galbraith 1973). In between we find a diversity of organisational forms,
such as networks, coalitions, cooperatives, joint ventures, federations, and
the like. In other words, various forms of integration and cooperation are
sometimes preferred to free and autonomous exchange.
What makes vertical integration (hierarchy) in some situations preferable
to markets has been subject to scholarly theorising since Coase raised this
thought-provoking question in his seminal article on the ‘The Nature of the
Firm’(1937): Why do we have firms when we have markets? Both institu-
tions are about co-ordination of interdependent activities and resource allo-
cations. But whereas the market outside the firm employs the price-me-
chanism, the firm employs leadership and command-and-control as co-
ordination devices when resources are put to alternative uses. There may
be different explanations for why hierarchy is sometimes preferred –such
as the power that comes with monopoly/monopsony positions or econom-
ics of scale. Coase, however, argued that hierarchies might be more effi-
cient relative to markets if one considers the cost of transactions –some-
thing he criticises neo-classical economics for ignoring. Obviously, he
insists, there are the costs of negotiating and securing contracts, of stabilis-
ing business relations. Firms (hierarchies) typically internalise these costs
by bringing them under direct control and supervision by management.
Dependency makes market actors vulnerable, whereas hierarchy brings loy-
alty and mutual commitment, hence security and reduced transaction
costs. Williamson (1975) refined Coase’s theory by specifying some further
conditions that influence the choice of institutional alternatives. For in-
stance, he pointed to the prevalence of limited rationality and opportunism
among market actors as incentives for choosing hierarchy instead of the
market mode. Also, he noted the degree of uncertainty and complexity in-
volved in the transaction and the number of alternative transaction partners
available. If stuck with only one alternative, with a complex product that
binds you for a long period of time, you are obviously in greater danger
than if the product is simple, the contract is short lasting, and the alterna-
tives substitutes are many.
218 Institutional Linkages
Nested Institutions
Institutions sometimes operate at multiple levels of jurisdiction linked to-
gether across scales (Jentoft 2004a; Scott 1995). For instance, as institu-
tions firms are also embedded within markets that exert a considerable in-
fluence upon the firms’operations. Markets, in turn, are part of a larger
regional, national, and global society represented and governed by state in-
stitutions such as a fisheries ministry or international bodies such as the
World Trade Organization. These higher-level institutions impose rules
and regulations, which actors at lower levels have to abide by. In many in-
stances, institutions are designed to operate like Chinese boxes; institu-
tions within institutions –with international, national, regional and local
branches forming a joint organisation. States operate at different societal
levels with management ties in between. Non-governmental Organisations
(NGOs) often form a similar federative pattern. Private fisheries enter-
prises in the market sector are often structured in a ‘parent-daughter’con-
figuration, head-offices in central locations with national, regional and local
subsidiaries.
Thus, institutions are linked to each other and form networks that are
themselves institutions. Their functioning is then dependent on how these
networks are structured and what flows within them. March and Olsen ob-
serve this:
Institutional survival is also often related to their ability to match ‘institu-
tionalised’norms and beliefs of how institutions should be organised and
run. Those norms are particularly compelling in highly developed social sys-
tems where an institution depends on a network of relations with other in-
stitutions that simultaneously depend on it…An institution survives be-
cause its structures, processes, and ideologies match what society finds
appropriate, natural, rational, democratic or modern (March and Olsen
1995: 41-42).
Thus, institutions should be analysed as semi-open systems by emphasis-
ing intra- as well as inter-relational processes across scales. Institutions are
not fully self-controlled because they never exist in a cultural and social
vacuum. What flows within and between institutional entities, such as im-
pacts, resources, information, norms, etc., is of particular interest to the
researcher and governor alike. The dynamics surrounding the conflicts be-
tween internal sovereignty and external control are an issue of research as
well as of governance. Notably, only in rare situations have the institutional
networks been constructed as a ‘grand scheme’. Rather, they have devel-
oped incrementally over time, often as local adaptations to environmental
change, sometimes resulting from conflicts and unco-ordinated initiatives,
therefore in many instances leaving inconsistencies and ‘missing links’in
the system as a whole. It is a governance question how these links could be
improved, which suggests that governance is about coupling and co-ordina-
tion of linkages within institutional frameworks.
José J. Pascual-Fernández, c.s. 219
Interdependence and Inter-Penetration
Governance interactions and institutions not only fluctuate continuously in
their diversity, dynamics, and complexity, they also continuously influence
each other. These mutual influences can be called interdependence and
inter-penetration. Interdependence can be conceptually located at the actor-
level of governing interactions and inter-penetration at their structural le-
vel. These two forces, or movements, also influence each other: interdepen-
dency relations between governing actors or entities may evolve into inter-
penetration at the structural level; or interdependence may be a conse-
quence of inter-penetration.
In the literature, interaction –as distinct from other types of relations –
is connected with concepts such as renewal, evolution, and growth.
Luhmann (1982) and Münch (1988) distinguish interaction from other ex-
change relations. Mutuality is a central aspect of interactions. Entities con-
tribute to each other’s development: this applies to all parties involved in an
interaction. The interaction of two entities implies that each has its own
centre of autonomy, which serves as the point from which interrelations
with others emanate. Entities interacting means that boundaries of one en-
tity are accepted in the other’s area or sphere of activity, and vice versa.
Interdependence in interaction, therefore, is more than just exchange; it is
deeper. It must also be distinguished from input and output relations. It
refers to the constitution and reconstitution of actors or entities. Inter-pene-
tration refers to tendencies in which the overlap or even disappearance of
boundaries between interacting entities or institutions gets a semi-perma-
nent character. New institutions are sometimes created on the basis of such
processes.
The relation between the intentional and structural level of governing
interactions is conceptualised in terms of enabling and controlling. The
two levels are also seen as being mutually compliant, in the sense that at
the intentional level the structural level is less influenced in the short term,
while in the long term, structural aspects of those interactions will be
changeable depending on efforts on the intentional level. What we might
infer is that the two processes, distinguished as the enabling one and the
controlling one, can also be seen as processes with ‘cybernetic’qualities:
the enabling process with positive feedback loops, reinforcing existing ten-
dencies, while the controlling process is characterised by negative feedback
loops, dampening such tendencies. Supposing a starting situation of recog-
nised interdependence, the governing reaction might be a propensity to co-
operate, which in time, would mean more inter-penetration. Though using
other terms, Münch (1988) explains societal differentiation and integration
in this perspective.
220 Institutional Linkages
Mixes of Modes
In terms of second-order governance, this means that an important govern-
ance task is to organise or institutionalise mixes of three modes of govern-
ance: self-governing, co-governing and interventionist governing. Each so-
ciety has enormous reservoirs of self-governing capacity, which, in its
governance, should protect and reinforce where necessary. It is particularly
from civil society or the non-profit sector that such initiatives can be ob-
served in many parts of the world. Where this is the case, governments can
restrict their activities in this direction and take care that necessary institu-
tionalisation of such private initiatives takes place. It should not be forgot-
ten that self-governing forces may often implicate some degree of de-stabi-
lisation when things are stuck in a rut, or, to the contrary, self-organising
capacity may have stabilising power in situations of rapid change. This re-
quires a rather subtle balancing of societal needs and capacities. At the
other end of the spectrum of governing modes interventions remain impor-
tant as a corollary to self- and co-governing. Experience has shown that
‘self-’and ‘co-modes’of governance often need something of a ‘stick’in the
background, if not for other reasons than the well-known ‘free-rider’who
may threaten cooperative efforts in interventionist governance measures.
Therefore, it maybe necessary to define the realm and the scope for self-
and co-governing.
Our plea is definitely not for withdrawal or non-interventionism of pub-
lic authorities in the governance of present-day societies; it advocates well-
designed mixes of the three modes. Again, a balance needs to be struck for
the scale and time conditions for such mixes. In practice, sectors of societal
governing may be the best scale for the institutionalisation of certain mixes
between the three modes in which the capacities of state, civil society, and
market actors and institutions are balanced. Rules of thumb are hard to
give; what is more important is a realisation that these mixes take time to
become effective, but should not outlive their need.
Developments in Institutional Linkages in Fisheries
Governance
Chains: Towards More Differentiation or Integration?
Fisheries fulfil some, but not all, of Williamson’s conditions described in
the previous section, although situations differ from fishery to fishery and
from capture fisheries to aquaculture. Thus, as one would expect, there is a
wide range of institutional forms linking one activity to another. The tech-
nology and production processes of small-scale coastal fisheries do not have
the same complex and uncertain transactions, and hence vulnerability, as
industrial large fisheries. Besides, social relations in community based,
small-scale fisheries do not usually resemble those of the free market. In-
José J. Pascual-Fernández, c.s. 221
stead, exchange relations have a history, people often know each other inti-
mately and feel mutually committed to the well-being of the community
and its work force. Thus, Williamson’s idea of opportunism that is charac-
teristic of markets is replaced by trust. Clearly, Granovetter’s point is of
relevance to fisheries: Other things being equal, we should expect pres-
sures toward vertical integration in a market where transaction firms lack a
network of personal relations that connect them or where such a network
eventuates in conflict, disorder, opportunism and malfeasance. On the
other hand, where a stable network of relations mediates complex transac-
tions and generates standards of behaviour between firms, such pressures
should be absent (Granovetter 1985: 503).
If Granovetter is correct, formal and informal co-operation embedded in
social relations that acquire network and partnership features of familiarity
and trust (Thomson et al. 1991), should function well in fisheries –at least
in the small-scale sector. In large scale, industrial (‘Fordist’) fisheries (Apos-
tle et al. 1998), these qualities are rare and, hence, hierarchy is more com-
mon. But there are limits to hierarchy in large-scale fisheries as well. The
flip side of centralised ‘command-and-control’–the pivotal governance
mode of hierarchy, inevitably, is less decision-making autonomy for its con-
stituent units.
These are features that provide flexibility, responsiveness, and learning
in an organisation, which in a complex and dynamic industry like fisheries
are essential capabilities. Also, Richardson (1972) points to the fact that in
some industrial chains more is required than just securing the right vo-
lume of produce to make supply meet demand; rather there is a need for
the fine-tuning of resource flows, which calls for a detailed ‘matching’of
activities. Fishing, fish processing, and marketing are typically interdepen-
dent activities, which in a large-scale, technologically sophisticated opera-
tion need synchronisation, as timing is key, and quality is as important as
quantity. Contrary to small-scale fisheries they cannot live with boom and
bust, but need steadiness, predictability, and control. Yet, catching, proces-
sing, and marketing activities require totally different, specialised kinds of
know-how. One kind of expertise is not easily converted into another.
Therefore, one’s skills as a fisher would be rather inadequate in processing
and marketing –and vice versa. Thus, Richardson argues, when interde-
pendent activities require different competencies, there is less to be gained
from vertical integration. This, we believe, is one reason why both ‘up-
stream’and ‘downstream’vertical integration in fisheries have proved to be
less than successful and why producer co-operatives in fisheries have met
with mixed results (Jentoft 1985,1986). While solving some problems, co-
operatives have also created new ones that they are not well-suited to han-
dle. Fishing activities are rarely well-managed from the shore, while fish
processing run as an extension of the fishing enterprise often fails.
222 Institutional Linkages
State, Market, and Civil Society: Towards Interdependence and Inter-
Penetration?
Interdependencies and inter-penetration between the main societal institu-
tions may be defined in terms of handling the growing diversity, dynamics,
and complexity of societal issues. In line with some other recent thinking,
it may be observed that each of these institutions contributes to societal
issues particularly in what it is ‘good’at: civil society is well-placed to handle
issues of diversity; the market handles the dynamic aspects, while the pub-
lic sector (the state) confronts particular issues of complexity in modern
societies. Different societal issues demand different combinations of inter-
dependencies or inter-penetrations in terms of overlapping contributions of
societal actors from these three institutions. A basic (second order) govern-
ance task, then, is to look critically at such ‘overlaps’in terms of institu-
tional requirements. As the authors of chapter 8 to 10 point out, fisheries
institutions present a confused and complex panorama. Enormous assort-
ments of organisations are engaged in fisheries management, at all levels
and locations, and the number of rules, norms, and instruments applied to
the field are overwhelming. Between institutions there are many variations
in range and effectiveness, as well as in measures of agreement and co-
operation –or disagreement and opposition.
Globalisation has made fisheries systems more open and permeable, less
self-sufficient, and more incorporated. This poses new problems and op-
portunities for fisheries governance. It demands governors to adopt a
broader focus as the number of variables and relationships multiply. In
other words, globalisation brings new dynamics and additional complexity
into the governance equation. When crises occur in the age of globalisa-
tion, one cannot always assume that they result from aggregation, i.e., of
simultaneous but unrelated occurrences. The tragedy of the commons, as
portrayed by Hardin and others, is one of overpopulation, overexploitation,
and/or overcapitalisation. It is the total effect of too many resource users
trying to do too much –as in the well-known phrase, ‘too many fishers
chasing too few fish’. The ‘post-modern’crises are not so much an outcome
of aggregation as of interdependencies; of events and forces that are inter-
related, growing, and spreading. With globalisation, fisheries governance
must emphasise the interaction, linkages, and relationships that extend be-
yond the local and national levels. It must address the cross-linkages that
exist between the fishing industry and other industries and sectors of so-
ciety. It must be equally as concerned with civil society as with state and
markets and, most importantly, the interactions and interdependencies,
and the potentials of mutual support that exist between the three. This
means governance that goes both deeper and broader than current ap-
proaches, which have eyes for the fisheries industry and the state-market
axis in particular (Jentoft and McCay 2003). The institutional implication
of a governance procedure that goes both broader (involves other societal
sectors) and deeper (involves civil society) is the theme of this chapter.
José J. Pascual-Fernández, c.s. 223
The new ocean regime established by the 1977 United Nations Conven-
tion on the Law of the Sea no doubt raised the ambitions and the expecta-
tions of the nation-state in fisheries management. As a result of assuming
new responsibilities, however, the relationship between state, market and
civil society took a new form. While the state and the market gained promi-
nence, civil society lost –with the consequence that functional responsibil-
ities in fisheries governance were largely ‘lifted out’of communities and
into distant government and private (multinational corporations) bureau-
cracies. Thus, fisheries provide a good example of what Giddens (1990)
describes as the ‘dis-embedding’consequence of globalisation. It can be
argued that this has developed too far and that we are now at a point where
the governance of fisheries also needs ‘re-embedding (Apostle et al. 1998).
In the 1990s, we saw a new turn in the state-market-civil society relation-
ship as state governments, inspired by neo-liberal ideologies and concepts
such as New Public Management (cf. Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000); a leaner
state, combined with the mobilisation of market mechanisms as govern-
ance tools, became popular, in fisheries most prominently demonstrated
by Individual Transferable Quotes (ITQ’s).
‘Global governance’is in demand, in fisheries as in other social and eco-
nomic spheres. Existing institutions at this level have had mixed success
and their performance is highly contested (cf. for instance Keohane 2002;
Drainville 2004; Wilkinson 2004). Fisheries are of course no exception.
The issue is perhaps even more urgent than in most other industries, as
fish is an important international commodity and countries often share
marine resources. However, it is equally essential that governance is sensi-
tive and appreciative to the concerns, interests, and roles of fishing peoples
and their local communities where the impacts of governance failures are
felt. Thus, a governance approach to fisheries must target and achieve
many things at the same time, as there is no simple technical fix that fits
all situations, problems, and demands (cf. chap. 2). For governance to deal
with diversity, complexity, and dynamics it must, as Kooiman (2003) ar-
gues, be inherently complex, diverse, and dynamic. Such a governance
model cannot only be layered at community, state, and global levels, as the
three chapters of this section also suggest. It must cut across levels, estab-
lishing governance mechanisms that run vertically, but also diagonally as in
the case of coastal zone management becoming involved in watershed
management. It is a lesson from fisheries and societal sectors that modes
of governance cannot be structured from the top-down or alternatively from
the bottom-up, but that they are best handled through a combination of
both. There are things that can only be done from a central position, but
there are also things that are better handled at a lower level. Civil society
can do things that the state and markets cannot do –and vice versa. This
insight is captured in the well-known ‘subsidiarity principle’, now adopted
by the European Union as a general governing principle for structuring the
relations with the member states. Also, this is basically what the mode of
‘co-governance’intends to implement, as it institutes broad participation of
user-groups and stakeholders representing governments, the market, and
224 Institutional Linkages
civil society in decision-making processes that are based on a mutually
binding partnership.
Vertical Linkages: Moving Towards Nested Arrangements?
The previous chapters dealt with institutions that operate at three societal
levels: the local, the national, and the global. Together they revealed what
seems to be an important ‘mega-trend’. Institutions at the level of the fish-
ing community have deep historical roots, are often informal in their struc-
ture and operation, and are not always specialised in dealing solely and
directly with fisheries issues. They not only ensure a safe supply of food,
but also keep order and integration among users and stakeholders. Still,
there is a growing awareness within the research community and within
international organisations of the potential they hold in assuming a greater
role in fisheries management. Community-based management is now on
the agenda of many governments and development agencies. From 1970
onwards, we have seen the increasing involvement of state institutions in
fisheries governance.
Fishing is an activity heavily dependent on renewable resources, which
may be overfished. Some prerequisites for this to happen are availability of
technology, a market or consumption patterns that absorb all the produce,
and, of course, the absence of adequate management. Over the past few
years, we have had increasing evidence of historical overfishing (Pauly et
al. 2002), yet, at the same time, we have found a great deal of evidence of
populations that have made sustainable use of the resources for centuries
(Ruddle and Johannes 1985; Ruddle 1988). In the literature about fisheries
we find an enormous variety of management measures, and some of the
modern instruments developed to organise the use of resources have paral-
lels in the past. Perhaps the main difference is the strong position of the
marine sciences (marine biology in particular) in recent models. During
the 20th century, large research institutions responsible for assessing or
determining how to use fish resources appeared in many Western coun-
tries. Their scientific language and models increasingly substituted tradi-
tional institutions and knowledge in many areas; these models were im-
posed as the state became increasingly involved in the daily management
of fish resources.
Modern international fisheries management discourse originated in the
early 20th century in the process of building up international institutions
that would enable national states to develop their fishing industries and
achieve ‘rational fishing’(Graham 1948) of shared stocks. It was deeply
rooted in the modern rationality of industrialised societies that it is not
only desirable but also possible to manage the interaction between society
and nature in a rational way, to achieve certain objectives. These objectives
were, until the late 1980s, largely focused on variants of optimisation but
have later had an increasing emphasis on variants of risk avoidance. The
confidence in modern science and its ability to control and predict natural
José J. Pascual-Fernández, c.s. 225
processes has spread to all areas of interaction between human populations
and the environment, fisheries being only one instance of this general atti-
tude.
The institutional set-up of modern fisheries management emerged in an
interaction between national governments and science institutions. The
main focus has been on objectives relating to the natural resource base for
fisheries –whether it has been optimal capture or ecological sustainability.
This has led to a perpetuation of natural science as the main contributor of
knowledge as the basis for decision-making, produced in specialised re-
search organisations at the national level and communicated through na-
tional and international organisations and regional fisheries commissions.
The combination of an international emphasis, objectives primarily relat-
ing to fisheries resources and dependence on formal science has developed
within and reinforced an institutional framework of centralised decision-
making and top-down control. One of the best examples of those processes
is the ITQ paradigm, linked to the management of single-species fisheries
primarily in industrialised countries but also extended to many other areas
in the world. In this case, the role of scientific institutions in charge of
evaluating the allowable catch on the stocks, and the models designed by
economists to minimise capital expenditures allocating transferable prop-
erty rights, have changed the lifestyles of fishing populations in many areas
of the world.
It is well-known that in many situations there is a conflict between indi-
vidual and collective interests. What is rational from the view of the indivi-
dual may well be irrational for the group. This is basically the dilemma
portrayed by Hardin in his Tragedy of the Commons parable. It is also the
case with the provision of collective goods in general, as explained by Olson
(1977). The market does not by itself solve this problem. Such situations
call for governance at the collective level, either from an external authority
like the state, or through some form of binding cooperation (informal or
formal) among the actors themselves (self- and co-modes of governance,
see above). Thus, it is the linkages that structure the relationships between
fisheries actors that need surveillance and mediation. If these mechanisms
are not present, natural resources, communities, and markets run the real
risk of overexploitation, inaction, and overload.
In ideal situations, as when systems for resource distribution and man-
agement are constructed from scratch, one would expect relationships be-
tween constituent parts to be streamlined and systematised. Institutions at
different levels would acquire a ‘nested’form –like in federative systems –
with clarified divisions of labour, standardised procedures for decision-
making, and with identical principles of organisational design at the root.
In some countries, management systems come close to such a set-up. In
other countries, the system is more arbitrary, segmented, and anarchic. In
real life, governors seldom start with a clean slate, free to reorganise with-
out institutional restraints. Instead they are bounded by institutional his-
tories and cultures. As Holm (1995: 400) notes, ‘…new institutions are
built upon older institutions and must replace or push back existing institu-
226 Institutional Linkages
tional forms’. Thus, one can argue that institutional change is always a
combination of processes of de-institutionalisation and re-institutionalisa-
tion (Djelic and Quack 2003:8)
This is why institutional change can be such a slow process and why it is
more easily accomplished in some situations than in others. It may also
explain why institutional set-ups vary from country to country and from
fishery to fishery even if the problems they are facing are identical. Gover-
nors may never acquire the ideal, their degrees of freedom are restricted,
and their hands are tied –at least loosely so. Nevertheless, even though
conditions for institutional design may vary from one situation to the next,
good governors would (as they should) look for opportunities of smoothing
out the linkages between existing institutional connections. In interdepen-
dent functional systems, such as fisheries, much would be gained if institu-
tions could acquire federative forms. It is hardly likely, for instance, that
community-based management would work without cooperative linkages
to other communities sharing the same resource base. Linkages among
different sectors, for instance between fisheries, aquaculture, and coastal
tourism, would be transformed from competitive and frequently destruc-
tive relationships into cooperative and symbiotic ones. Today, in many
countries, coastal zone management is hampered by fragmented and unco-
ordinated institutional structures (Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1998). Devolu-
tion of responsibilities for fisheries management functions, or ‘co-manage-
ment’(Wilson et al. 2003), requires that both vertical and horizontal
linkages are clarified and institutionalised. For co-management arrange-
ments to work at the local level, they must be nested within the community
and its public and civic institutions; they must also be nested in co-manage-
ment institutions at regional and national levels, as with the Spanish cofra-
dias or the producer cooperatives found in the Japanese fisheries sector
(Jentoft 1989).
Horizontal Linkages in Multiple Uses: Is Integrated Coastal
Management a Solution?
Linkages between fishing activities, management institutions, and different
economic sectors like tourism are much more pervasive than is usually
recognised. In development agendas, different sectors are usually treated
independently, but they share many elements: coastal areas, natural re-
sources, and even people. In the literature about fishing activities, we find
few references about the relationships it has with aquaculture, tourism,
agriculture, or industry. Many of these links are also of a conflicting nature,
and this makes the lack of analysis even stranger. Perhaps we can find
some explanation for this scarcity in the specialisation of scientific commu-
nities in concrete topics, making it more difficult to analyse the crosscut-
ting issues. This narrow focus makes it enormously difficult to cope with
real situations, where not only interdisciplinary work is necessary (Ponte-
corvo 2003), but also inter-sector analysis. The integrated coastal zone man-
José J. Pascual-Fernández, c.s. 227
agement strategy was created to cope with these tasks, with its focus pre-
cisely on an integrated and interdisciplinary research and implementation
strategy that has received relevant support from government institutions,
such as the European Union. In this field, one frequent issue is the man-
agement of coastal impacts, produced by the tourism industry, that usually
affect fishing populations in particular.
Fishing and Tourism: Impacts and Prospects for Development
The impacts of tourism may be divided into three fields: socio-economic,
physical (environment, landscape) and socio-cultural (Santana Talavera
1997, 2003). All three continuously interact with one another, and are inex-
tricably linked in real-world situations. The socio-economic impact of tour-
ism development constitutes perhaps the most studied field. Until the
1970s, tourism was valued as a decisive contribution to economic develop-
ment, not taking into account the implicit costs, frequently valuing only the
economic benefits. One of the impacts is the diversion of resources (capital,
spaces, people) from agriculture or fisheries to tourism. As a diversifying
strategy, even small-scale fishing families may be interested in investing
their surpluses into a non-fishing activity, obtaining complementary in-
comes, and thus reducing their need to exploit sea resources at the same
level.
Also, many changes in work patterns arise with tourism development.
The majority of the workforce needed for tourism is from the local area,
but sometimes, especially for higher level positions, also from abroad. Lo-
cal people frequently enter this activity as unskilled workers in infrastruc-
ture and hotel building, as maintenance personnel, waiters, or cooks. Wo-
men, especially, take up the roles of hotel maids and cleaning personnel,
but they also work as shop assistants or in different service-related jobs.
Their access to the higher level and better-paid jobs is limited as they usual-
ly lack the necessary qualifications. An inflationary tendency also accompa-
nies this process, and the rise in property values constitutes one of the
main economic indicators. If tourist development is fast and property is
concentrated, local populations are frequently expelled from the best zones.
Immigration processes, and a change in demography caused by new job
opportunities accompanying this phenomenon result in increasing de-
mands for land, water, and energy.
The physical impacts are no less relevant. Tourism usually requires ma-
jor infrastructure. Hotels, apartments, resorts, roads, harbours, airports, ar-
tificial beaches, golf courses, and swimming pools –all of these contribute
to the radical transformation of landscapes. In this process, local popula-
tions are often alienated from many of their traditional spaces, devoted
now to new uses. For instance, in the Canary Islands many of the beaches
where fishers used to land their beach-seines and repair their nets are now
devoted exclusively to tourist uses. Also, many fishing harbours are over-
crowded with leisure craft, obstructing landing or berth operations, and
228 Institutional Linkages
even impeding the access of fishing boats. With tourism development, in-
frastructure planning mainly takes the needs of the visitors into account,
and even the fishing harbours may be constructed with the hidden agenda
of future tourism uses. The overcrowding of space, in littoral but also mar-
itime areas, is also a consequence. Maritime excursions on leisure and
sport-fishing boats may transform the uses and perception of maritime
spaces, even changing fishing habits of professional fishers due to conges-
tion conflicts.
Socio-cultural impacts are caused by the effects of tourism-related eco-
nomic transformations, but are also linked to contacts with foreign people
with different behaviour patterns and values, which are no less important.
The prestige associated with being a good fisher, the intergenerational pro-
cesses of the transmission of knowledge and abilities, and the gender roles
in economic and day-to-day activities, are all altered with the advent of tour-
ism. New values associated with economic success deny the relevance of
hard-acquired traditional environmental knowledge, and impede the pro-
cess of transmitting this knowledge or fishing skills to the young, who are
now more interested in entering the land-based job market. The best fish-
ers in the community may no longer be considered as the reference models
in these circumstances, being replaced instead by wealthy land-based entre-
preneurs. Enculturation processes are similarly difficult for young women,
who abandon traditional jobs related to fish processing or commercialisa-
tion.
Throughout this process it is very difficult to differentiate the impact of
tourist development from general patterns of change in Western societies.
The cultural impact of the media frequently pushes in the same direction
as tourism-induced transformations, which may mean that giving each fac-
tor a specific causal weight may become impossible. Similar reasoning may
be used in relation to economic or physical impacts, but evidently in all
three cases, tourism may act as a catalyst in speeding up transformations.
Tourism cannot be demonised so easily either, because living standards
generally rise wherever it appears. Tourism and fishing activities may
merge in some sense, improving the living standard of littoral populations
and giving a new value to their knowledge and cultural heritage.
Fisheries and Aquaculture Development
Fisheries and aquaculture constitute two different sectors, even when they
may capture or raise the same species and work in contiguous maritime
spaces with similar target markets. Interactions between the sectors may
differ greatly depending on several factors. Also, in some cases we can find
linkages between the two activities that may even become complementary.
For instance, in some areas of the developed world like Norway (Aarset and
Foss 1996), cod captured by small-scale fishers may be fattened in cages
until they reach optimum size and price, as dictated by market conditions,
making the adaptation to fluctuations in demand and capture easier. Cap-
José J. Pascual-Fernández, c.s. 229
ture may be limited by climate conditions, closed seasons, etc., and in this
case, aquaculture may increase the flexibility of productive units, fully
using the workforce by avoiding the fluctuations typical of fishing cycles. It
may also be a source of complementary income.
Models of aquaculture present huge differences (see chap. 5). The prere-
quisites of capital, knowledge, and expertise, the workforce needed, and the
spatial competition with fishing activities differ considerably for cages in
littoral areas, freshwater extensive installations, or intensive exploitations
inland. Not taking into account the problems of targeting the same markets
with similar products, one of the main sources of conflict in many areas is
the competition for space. For instance, the cages used in the Canary Is-
lands for rearing dorada compete in some areas with fishing activities, but
mainly with tourist resorts.
In general, aquaculture facilities should be seen not strictly as a conces-
sion that vetoes any other use of marine space. The possibility of transform-
ing the cages into tourist attractions may be considered; by integrating
them into the tourist landscape they offer new experiences to the visitors.
The possibility of seeing great quantities of fish in captivity, feeding them
or receiving information on the breeding process could become a comple-
mentary source of revenues for the aquaculture companies and a way of
inserting the activity into a wider social context. For instance, in the oyster
camps in the area around Arcachon (France), visitor numbers have risen
steadily in recent years, complementing the incomes of local producers.
Integrated Coastal Management
The relationship between fisheries and aquaculture, as we have seen, can
be conflicting. They may compete for the same spaces, but this can also
happen with other activities, like tourism. Conflicts between fisheries, tour-
ism, aquaculture, infrastructure construction, housing, and many other ac-
tivities developed along the coasts are spreading throughout the world. This
is related to population growth, but also to tendencies common to recent
human history. Cities have been located near the coast because of the food,
transport, and ecological benefits. The evolution of world markets is related
to maritime commerce, and cities located in coastal areas had many advan-
tages in the flow of people, goods, knowledge, and money. Eight of the top
ten largest cities are located along the coast, and in 2001 nearly half of the
world’s population lived within 200 km of a coastline. Pressure on space
and resources, on land and sea, consequently increases with population
growth. Problems concerning waste and sewage disposal also increase ac-
cordingly. Space that was previously used solely by fishers is now often
overcrowded with people, harbours, tourists, and buildings.
230 Institutional Linkages
Box 11. 1 Multiple-use conflicts in the Philippines
The Philippines is an archipelago consisting of 7,100 islands and 18,000 km of
shoreline and its coastal resources provide food, livelihood, and development po-
tential for a population rapidly reaching 80 million. Other important facts about
Philippines coastal resources are:
–832 municipalities out of 1,541, or 54%, are coastal;
–Almost all major cities are coastal;
–62% of the population lives in the coastal zone;
–There are about 27,000 km
2
of coral reef but less than 5% is in excellent condi-
tion;
–The 120,000 hectares of mangrove are only about 25% of the area they covered in
1920;
–More than 50% of the animal protein intake is derived from marine fisheries.
As such, a host of economic activities occur in the coastal area. These range from
resource extractive activities such as fishing, forestry, and mining, to non-extrac-
tive activities, such as agriculture, housing, and industrial development. Amongst
all these many uses of coastal resources, there are intra- and intersectoral con-
flicts. In the fisheries sector alone, there are currently several intrasectoral con-
flicts that deal with spatial and proprietary use rights. For example, there is now a
heated dispute between local and commercial fishers on the use of municipal
waters. Meanwhile, other sectors such as agriculture and forestry cause decreas-
ing productivity of mangroves, sea grass, and coral reefs through sedimentation.
Likewise, specific activities such as aquaculture, human settlements, and the de-
velopment of port facilities necessitate the clearing of mangroves and sometimes
the dredging of coral reefs.
Author: Annabelle Cruz-Trinidad
Traditional sector-wise approaches to the management of those areas with
conflicting activities are useless, because the real issue is the determination
of priorities among all those conflicting interests. Integrated coastal man-
agement and its variants developed because of the need for a holistic and
integrated approach to managing coastal resources. The challenge of ad-
dressing the myriad problems in the coastal area has been taken up by var-
ious types of strategies and approaches known collectively as coastal re-
source management. These approaches differ in many aspects, such as
how they address participation, the scope of their activities, or the sharing
of responsibilities. This perspective of analysis and management has grown
in both developed and developing countries, with nearly all coastal states
taking initiatives in this area (Belfiore, 2003). But this is not an easy ques-
tion, and as usually happens in the management of human activities, defin-
ing priorities and designing indicators in order to analyse the success of
these programmes may constitute an overwhelming task.
José J. Pascual-Fernández, c.s. 231
Modes of Governance: Towards Mixes?
A change of focus has begun to emerge mainly because of the critics of
these traditional measures and the appearance of new models that explain
the relationships between users and resources in alternative ways to the
‘tragedy of the commons’paradigm. In addition, the ability of modern
science to really model and control nature has been called into question. In
this sense, the focus on the natural resource base has changed from opti-
misation (maximisation of biological or economic yield, as in the case of
ITQs) to a requirement that addresses the increasingly complex issues re-
lated to risk aversion. The introduction of the precautionary approach
through, inter alia, the UN Agreement on Highly Migratory and Straddling
Stocks (UN 1995), was the first major step in this direction. The require-
ment that fisheries management integrates the Convention on Biodiversity
is a further step, and the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD) requirement that fisheries management implements an ecosystem
approach to fisheries by 2010 is so far-reaching that it is difficult to imagine
how the practical implementation will take place.
This change and expansion of scope has occurred in a situation where
fishing fleets world-wide have outgrown the resource base to support them
on a grand scale. This combination has put fisheries management institu-
tions under heavy pressure –more and more complex issues need to be
addressed while the political and economic pressures on the entire fish-
eries system are increasing.
The reaction to this pressure has generally been internalisation –trying
to solve the problem through more of the same, by adding more technical
adjustment buttons to the existing machinery. More detailed regulations
are developed to address the widening scope of complexities, with the con-
sequences that the requirements for similarly detailed science inputs to
policy decisions are growing and that top-down control must be reinforced
and expanded. However, the internalisation of expanding scopes and pres-
sures is reaching its limits. It is becoming increasingly difficult to produce
the research base needed to address complex issues through more detailed
regulations, and the implementation through top-down control is similarly
challenged.
The management set-up is also challenged on a more fundamental level.
The consequences of development have also been that modern fisheries
management has alienated the users from management, whether they are
fishers or other citizens with an interest in fisheries or in the marine envir-
onment. The objectives are primarily related to nature and are defined on
the basis of international agendas rather than on local needs, the knowl-
edge base for decisions does not include users’knowledge, and users are
only involved in implementation to a limited degree (Degnbol 2003). The
requirements for increased user participation in the identification of objec-
tives, in identifying relevant knowledge, and in implementation, have been
articulated with increasing strength. Modern fisheries management is thus
under triple pressure –a widening scope to address increasingly complex
232 Institutional Linkages
issues, a build-up of overcapacity in fishing fleets, and a requirement for
management to be legitimate on the basis of user participation.
The responses to these pressures have been very different in different
regions. In North America, one of the responses has been to develop fish-
eries councils with user participation both in knowledge production and
management decisions. The European Commission (EC) has, in the latest
reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, abstained from addressing the ca-
pacity problem but has started a process of more involvement of users by
establishing advisory bodies on the regional level. Other countries have
turned to market-based instruments with the understanding that such in-
struments will both solve the overcapacity problem and replace the need for
complex control as discussed below. Each of these approaches has its own
problems as indicated by the litigation in the US, the need for the EC to
continue with ever more detailed regulations and the distribution problems
associated with market-based approaches.
A different approach puts more emphasis on the notion of the commu-
nity as the agent for fisheries management. This is based on the notion that
the existence of local management systems in fisheries seems to have been
the historical norm rather than the exception and that the community, be-
cause of its proximity to and dependence on the resource, will be in the best
position to address management issues. This approach has been especially
promoted in developing countries. Communities may, however, not always
be in a position to handle conflicts of interest or have the authority to con-
trol access to resources. This is a problem in cases where the scale of the
resource system is larger than the authority of the community.
Co-management has been suggested as a solution to these problems
(Jentoft 1989; Pinkerton 1989a,b). Government can bridge scales by coop-
erating with users on the scale of the resource system and by giving author-
ity to a management body. Extensive experiments with shared responsibil-
ities between users and government have been implemented world-wide.
The results indicate that for such arrangements to be effective, responsibil-
ities must be shared in relation to objective identification, knowledge bases,
and implementation (Raakjær Nielsen et al. 2002).
One sector of fisheries management where we find examples of top-
down management vs. bottom-up strategies is in the marine protected
areas. In some cases, these fulfil the prerequisites of taking into account
local populations and knowledge in their design, implementation process,
and management strategy. However, frequently they share the same top-
down management schemes used in more traditional approaches, like
ITQs.
José J. Pascual-Fernández, c.s. 233
Institutional Continuation and Change in Fisheries
Governance
Global Development Agendas in Fisheries
National and international government and non-government development
agencies have an important impact on fisheries governance in many devel-
oping countries. It is not unusual that a fisheries department may receive
more funding through such agencies than it receives from local sources.
Furthermore, it is commonplace that development agencies will tie quite
restrictive policies to their co-operation. The net result is that fisheries gov-
ernance in many developing countries comes under considerable pressure
to conform to international development agendas presented by develop-
ment agencies.
The international agenda of fisheries development agencies changed dra-
matically during the second half of the twentieth century. Some changes re-
flect general changes in development policies, and others are specific to the
sector. In accordance with the general pattern for development assistance,
the approach in the 1950s attempted to reproduce the development which
had taken place in industrialised countries earlier, with emphasis on re-
source extraction and technological development. Small-scale fisheries
came into focus later and were further emphasised when integrated commu-
nity development became a mainstream approach to rural development. The
expansive approach with strong technological components survived into in-
tegrated community development, although it was modified to address the
needs of small-scale fisheries as perceived by development agencies.
Increasing awareness about the limitations of resources climaxed with
the introduction of the ‘sustainable development’concept in the late 1980s
(see chap. 13). In fisheries, this resulted in a reorientation of existing pro-
grammes and in the formulation of new strategies. As a result, fisheries
development co-operation became reoriented towards management from a
sustainability perspective. One conclusion was that local capacity should
receive much more attention as a precondition for longer-term sustainabil-
ity. Fisheries management and institutional capacity building became the
focus.
Development efforts in the last decade have focused on fisheries man-
agement and capacity building. However, some new trends have emerged.
These trends relate to changing global agendas (see chap. 10) as well as to
the globalisation of markets for fish products. The globalisation of markets
has led to an increasing awareness of the need for, and the dilemmas in-
volved in, both supporting development to meet immediate local needs for
food supply and economic opportunities, and addressing the need to devel-
op commercially viable and ecologically sustainable fisheries, which can be
a net asset for national economies. The dilemmas involved relate, for in-
stance, to the need to assist developing countries in utilising the commer-
cial opportunities of increasingly globalised markets for fish products,
234 Institutional Linkages
which in the short term may be in conflict with local needs for supplies to
local markets and economic opportunities in small-scale fisheries. Another
aspect of this dilemma relates to the use of direct and indirect subsidies in
subsistence-oriented small-scale fisheries and in the export-oriented part of
the sector.
Globalisation and Institutional Challenges
The recent emphasis on globalisation has modified the tendency to dismiss
the linkages between global and local realities, complementing micro and
macro levels of analysis. The exchanges of people, goods, behaviour, and
knowledge throughout the last five centuries have become increasingly im-
portant, modifying societies and cultures on a truly global scale. Such ex-
changes have led to the transformation of concepts, symbols, lifestyles, and
signs of identity. Besides these exchanges, the different institutions that
made the appropriation of resources, territories, or people possible consti-
tute an essential element of these transformations. The concept of globali-
sation emphasises an increase in these interconnections (Hannerz 1996)
resulting in qualitative transformations. The closely linked processes of
economy, technology, culture, and even ethical or judicial models have
been the subject of many analyses developed from this perspective. Never-
theless, interaction and the diffusion of ideas, objects, or behaviour have
been a constant in the history of humanity. Many authors point out that
globalisation has been a central aspect of capitalism from its origins
(Martínez 1998: 607) and as such has been analysed from different theore-
tical perspectives in recent decades (Kearney 1995: 550). From this position,
our situation today is simply seen as an intensification of such processes,
modified and impelled by new technologies, but also by transcendental in-
stitutional transformations such as the liberalisation of capital markets or
the power of supra-national institutions in the economy, and, with regards
to fisheries, in the diverse regional or world agreements established after
the 1970s (Thorpe and Bennett 2001). In the analysis of the relationships
between the state and globalisation processes, we find two contradictory
positions, one of these signalling a retreat of the state (Strange 1996) as
market forces obtain new prerogatives, the other position (Weiss 1997;
Phillips 1998; Pilger 2003) claiming that the nation-state is in a process of
adaptation (Thorpe and Bennett 2001).
The impact of these processes on fisheries and agriculture is enormous.
Centuries ago, some wide markets existed for certain foods, such as the
salted fish of Newfoundland that reached large areas of America and
Europe. However, with transport and conservation facilities so common
nowadays, these markets have expanded, and perishable foods are shipped
to the other side of the planet within a few hours. It is often difficult to
obtain information about the origin of the foods we buy in supermarkets,
and in the case of seafood, this is especially difficult. There are several spe-
cial characteristics that distinguish the globalisation phenomenon in fish-
José J. Pascual-Fernández, c.s. 235
eries. Fish stocks constitute a wild resource, impossible to fence into terri-
torial waters or exclusive economic zones, with ecosystems shared between
different countries and international waters –where surveillance and enfor-
cement of protective measures are extremely difficult. These factors make
fish stocks especially vulnerable to globalisation forces. Market pressures
and the inabilities of states or communities to design, regulate, and enforce
sustainable measures make fishing resources easily susceptible to overex-
ploitation and depletion (Thorpe and Bennett 2001). The picture in the in-
ternational context is not very promising either.
The need to institutionalise linkages in fisheries governance at more
than one level and in more than one aspect in a globalised world –recognis-
ing that its underlying processes will remain active in the foreseeable fu-
ture –is imperative. Recent theory (Djelic and Quack 2003) suggests that
those who believe the institutionalising of those processes has to take place
either in a transnational context or at the national (state) level have extreme
positions and are thinking in rather static terms. Global trends are com-
plex, vary greatly, and are in constant flux. Changes taking place are the
result of what we call trickle-up and trickle-down trajectories, where na-
tional actors and factors influence the adaptation or creation of transna-
tional institutions (trickle-up), which change those at national levels
(trickle-down). Views like these offer opportunities for fisheries govern-
ance: reforming, adapting, or creating ‘inter’-governance institutions in
their vertical and horizontal dimensions. Nesting, mixes of modes, ICMs,
institutionalising interdependent interrelations between the state, market,
and civil society, are examples. For a diverse, dynamic, and complex system
such as fisheries, two major strategies are available: learning and innova-
tion. Learning as an appropriate strategy where experiences exist; innova-
tion where new institutional avenues have to be opened.
Towards Institutionalising Fisheries Governance Education
The diversity, complexity, and dynamics of governance institutions in fish-
eries –be they of the market, state, or civil society variety –create huge
demands for the co-ordination of their interactions. These demands are no
less when institutions are of the hybrid or the ‘mixed’modes, as they rede-
fine the nature of their interdependencies through a restructuring of their
respective agendas, responsibilities, cultures, and working principles. Fish-
eries governance institutions that draw on the combined competencies and
capacities of the state, market, and civil society have to go through a trial-
and-error learning process. Unfortunately history is not generous in offer-
ing experiences in mixed forms of governance in fisheries, even though
there are examples that may provide some important lessons.
We believe, for instance, that the Spanish cofradias, the French prud’ho-
mies, and other traditional management institutions that we today would
label ‘co-management’, provide some important clues despite their deep
history within a particular socio-cultural setting. Co-management and the
236 Institutional Linkages
devolution of management authority to institutions at regional and local
levels involving user-groups and NGOs, is now on the political agenda of
fisheries authorities in the North as well as the South, but no blueprint
model can be applied regardless of context. Therefore, mixed governance
models must be tuned to specific contexts and this tuning process will re-
quire some experimentation. In other words, institutional learning is
needed. Mixed governance modes must not only allow for pooling of spe-
cialised competencies, but also for mutual, interactive learning and innova-
tion. This should occur in all governing activities from innovative, practical
problem-solving to the creation of effective and legitimate institutions, as
well as in learning how to apply adequate meta-governing principles. Draw-
ing on Bateson (1972), interactive institutional learning would also involve
‘deutero-learning’, or learning about learning.
Interactive learning is a process in which participants learn from each
other, and from each other’s learning. Interactive learning requires sys-
tematic recording and reflection on experiences made throughout an insti-
tution’s developmental history. How governing institutions structure these
exercises will determine the capacity of members to learn and to share what
they learn. It is not only a question of how individual actors learn. The
more challenging issue is how learning at the individual level penetrates
the institution so that it is preserved over time despite personnel turnover.
We can raise similar issues for fisheries as an entire industry. The problem
of qualifying whole industries is structurally very similar to the common
pool natural resources, such as fish. Sharing the natural common resource
and sharing knowledge may be in the collective but not necessarily the in-
dividual interest. Knowledge enhances one’s competitive position, and
although the knowledge itself may gain from being shared, those indivi-
duals that hold it may suffer. If shared, knowledge may lose some of its
value as a strategic resource for the stakeholder. How to overcome this pro-
blem by turning learning into a positive-sum game, in which people learn
from each other, is therefore an important governance issue.
An understanding of learning opportunities within fisheries must start
from the analysis of fisheries as a system of chains, within which social
interaction occurs and relationships of exchange exist and are built. Gover-
nors need to remember that fisheries have a variety of subsystems, each
with distinct features and dynamics. They must also search for those initia-
tives that may enhance or inhibit interactive learning at the individual, the
organisational, and the chain level.
Conclusion
It is clear from the issues raised in this chapter that many, if not all, aspects
of linkages between institutions in the governance of fisheries have an
open-ended character. Not only do we raise more questions than we an-
swer, but the subjects of our questions are conceptually not yet fully devel-
oped. Although there is a difference of opinion on what we mean by insti-
José J. Pascual-Fernández, c.s. 237
tutions, as shown in the introduction of this book, institutional linkages as
a subject for scholarly work has not yet reached the debate stage. Thinking
in terms of interactive governance as we do in this book, we see that lin-
kages should become a major area of attention. This is because, concep-
tually, linkages can be seen as a structural expression of governing interac-
tions, and because, empirically, the broad governance perspective we apply
almost naturally looks at the involvement of multiple governing institutions
and thus to the way these institutions are linked. This chapter should be
seen as a contribution to the development of both these aspects, as well as
to the mapping of what institutional linkages mean for fisheries govern-
ance.
At least three major areas of governance can be identified from what we
have presented in this chapter. In the first place, the whole idea of institu-
tional linkages as such. A central assumption of the approach underlying
this book is that the world we live in is diverse, complex, and dynamic.
Institutional linkages also have these features. This means that our theore-
tical approaches to such linkages should, in principle, reflect these charac-
teristics; in practical terms it means that we probably need several theories
(reflecting diversity), that they should be non-reductionist (reflecting com-
plexity), and that they should be change-oriented (reflecting dynamics). Sec-
ondly, and more directed at fisheries themselves, the relation between in-
teractions, linkages, and their institutions or institutionalising processes
demands governance attention. The chain is a good start for thinking about
these relations. Within fishing, aquaculture, fish processing, marine tour-
ism, and marketing chains, we find all kinds of ‘internal’linkages. How are
these phases of chains linked? What roles do the market, the state and civil
society play? What kinds of governance modes do we find for such lin-
kages? Other major questions are: If such linkages are of an interactive
nature, how are they institutionalised? Are they mainly conflict-oriented or
aimed at consensus building? What are their governing capacities? Thirdly,
the chapter has pointed to major empirical research areas and themes.
Rough ideas concerning concepts such as nested institutions, mixes of
modes of governance, and vertical and horizontal linkages, are not only
starting points of further conceptual work, they also form the basis for col-
lecting systematic empirical data and testing conceptual ideas.
238 Institutional Linkages
15
Challenges and Concerns Revisited
Maarten Bavinck, Ratana Chuenpagdee, Poul Degnbol, and
José J. Pascual-Fernández
Introduction
In chapter 2, the challenges facing fisheries and aquaculture were briefly
described. The crucial issue pointed out is that the drivers for increasing
fish production are ubiquitous, multifarious, and strong and that they sur-
pass the capacity of available management systems. The result is a consis-
tent over-demand on natural and social systems and a crisis in fisheries as
well as in fisheries governance.
We connected the drivers in fisheries to the globalisation that has been
accelerating since 1950. With the sharp rise in the international demand for
fish products and the growing connection between local producers and glo-
bal markets, the pressure to increase production has also grown and new
market players have emerged in response. This has resulted in investments
and industrialisation in capture fisheries in the North and South alike, and
in the growth of aquaculture.
We then identified four concerns that have emerged from the societal
debate on fisheries across the globe. Concerns differ from principles in
that they do not materialise from systematic top-to-bottom analyses but
from political discussions from the bottom up –they constitute fields of
attention as well as measuring devices for the results of governance effort.
The concerns we presented are 1) ecosystem health, 2) social justice, 3) live-
lihood and employment, and 4) food security and safety. Each is important
to large categories of people now and in the future. Significantly, most of
the people affected by the failure to address these concerns live in the
South. It is important to note that concerns are related to different popula-
tion categories in time as well as in space. Ecosystem health is of special
importance to future generations, but livelihood and employment and food
security are relevant to present ones. Livelihood and employment pertain to
people who work in and obtain their income from the fish chain, and food
security and safety to the much broader category of the rural and urban
poor. Social justice has implications for people at all scale levels, both pre-
sent and future alike.
We have examined fisheries governance in this volume from many per-
spectives, dividing the analysis into three parts. The first addresses the con-
stitution and workings of the fish chain, the second the regulatory institu-
tions at various levels from local to international, and the third the
303
principles that actually and those that should underlie fisheries governance.
Now we shall link and explicitly explore the relation between the three parts
and the concerns voiced earlier. Our key questions are:
–What consequences emerge from our study of the fish chain for under-
standing the concerns (chapters 3-7)?
–How do our principles and ethics affect our judgement of the concerns
(chapters 12-14)?
–What consequences does our analysis of institutions have for handling
the concerns (chapters 8-11)?
Note the italicised objective in each question. The first question inquires
into a state of knowledge and insight, the second focuses on valuation, and
the third on action and control. The sequence of questions differs slightly
from the ordering of the parts, with the inquiry into principles preceding
the study of institutions. Because of our interest in their potential for ad-
dressing the challenges facing fisheries in light of the key principles, we
focus on institutional issues last. Sections 2 and 3 discuss our understand-
ing and judgement of the concerns. Section 4 focuses on institutions and
consists of three parts. The first considers our understanding of the role of
institutions in fisheries, the second the strengths and weaknesses of some
of the institutional solutions to fisheries problems currently in vogue, and
the third the gaps between disciplinary approaches to fisheries and the pos-
sibilities of bridging them.
Understanding the Concerns
Developments in the Fish Chain
Our point of departure is not the present state of knowledge but quite the
opposite, the severe lack of information and insight characterising our un-
derstanding of the fish chain. What we do not know is sometimes more
striking than what we do, and this basic deficiency in our understanding of
the system to be governed figures strikingly in chapters 3 to 7. It starts with
basic facts. Kulbicki (see chap. 3) notes that there are serious gaps in our
knowledge of fish species and their distribution and position in the marine
ecosystem, particularly in tropical waters. The dearth of reliable informa-
tion continues up the chain, also affecting the catch and effort statistics.
Figures on catch and effort may be either non-existent or very basic and
even if they do exist, they are frequently unreliable. The unreliability of the
data is demonstrated by the recent upheaval with regard to Chinese catch
statistics (cf. Watson and Pauly 2001).
The lack of reliable data on production is replicated in the figures on
employment and income, particularly with regard to the labour-intensive
fisheries of the South. Despite the tables that suggest the contrary, the
numbers of people working directly in capture fisheries and aquaculture
304 Challenges and Concerns Revisited
often prove very difficult to estimate. In addition, some of them are indir-
ectly employed, e.g., in the post-harvest system. The very first serious as-
sessment of employment in fish processing and trade was only conducted
in 1999 by the International Labour Organization (ILO), and the authors
admit the figures are tentative indeed (Tomoda 1999).
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is aware that the lack of
reliable statistics is a serious problem for fisheries management. The mat-
ter is all the more urgent because ‘as capture fisheries approach maximum
yields, scientists require more, and more accurate, data on which to base
their analyses’(FAO 2002a: 61). As a consequence of this deficiency and
the effects of environmental variability and long-term changes, the organi-
sation concludes that ‘there is thus far more uncertainty and risk in fish-
eries management than there is in the management of almost any other
food sector or industry’in the world (ibid.: 59).
Information deficiency carries forward into the understanding of pro-
cesses and relationships. Kulbicki points out the complexity of aquatic eco-
systems and our summary understanding of their workings. Similarly,
Johnson et al. (see chap. 4), Pullin and Sumaila (see chap. 5), and Thorpe et
al. (see chap. 6) emphasise the complexity and diversity of capturing and
post-harvesting systems. The embeddedness of fisheries in a wider eco-
nomic, social, political, and physical setting and the relations across sector
boundaries contribute to the difficulties of knowledge formation.
We have made some inroads in the context of general knowledge defi-
ciency. The key assumption in Part II of this book is that there is something
like a fish chain, a linkage between segments of the fisheries sector, with
each part adapted to and influencing the others and being influenced in
turn. This chain is conceived in a vertical sense, connecting aquatic ecosys-
tems to capture fisheries and aquaculture and subsequently, through a se-
quence of processors and market intermediaries, to the consumer. The unit
moving through the chain from bottom to top is a certain species or cate-
gory of fish. The unit moving the other way around, from top to bottom, is
generally money. Chains have strong geographical connotations, with fish
originating in specific aquatic ecosystems in defined parts of the world and
proceeding to equally specific processing outfits or fishmeal factories, retail
markets, and homes. Likewise, chains are closely connected to people as
agents and as part of social structures: fishers and aquaculture workers,
men and women, traders and processors, and many others. Many of these
people participate in more than one fish chain, shifting back and forth with
the flow of events. In many cases, they also take part in economic sectors
other than fisheries. The conclusion is that although the fish chain is a con-
cept developed for the purpose of analysis, it has a firm basis in reality.
It is clear that at each level in the fish chain –the ecosystem (pre-har-
vest), the capture or capturing system, and the post-harvesting system –
people and organisms, activities, and events are also interconnected. Eco-
systems are assumed to be functional wholes whose workings can be ana-
lysed and compared in a horizontal fashion. Capturing systems and post-
harvest systems can also be studied from this angle. Diversity, complexity,
Maarten Bavinck, c.s. 305
and dynamics characterise fish chains as well as their constituent elements.
Scale is an important dimension, manifesting itself in time, space, and
technology.
In our analysis of aquatic ecosystems, we highlight the role of diversity
(see chap. 3). There is a strong positive correlation between species diver-
sity and density or biomass in each biotope. As this is the stock or resource
potential that fishing is based on, high species diversity raises capturing
potential and indirectly contributes to livelihood, employment, and food
security. Moreover, species diversity is a major factor in ecosystem health
and may serve as an indicator of the condition of a particular ecosystem.
Fishing is defined as a major disturbance affecting aquatic ecosystems.
Although there is still a great deal that scientists do not know, no matter
how fishing is done it has been demonstrated to have direct and indirect
effects on fish as well as on the benthic environment. At a global level, fish-
ing reduces species diversity, sometimes inducing irreversible phase
changes. Evidence of stock collapse and fishing down the food web has
caused widespread alarm and triggered new projects, such as this book.
However, not all ecosystems are equally disturbed, not all disturbance is
bad, and some fishing methods, gear, or activities have more negative con-
sequences than others. One important lesson is to allow for variation ac-
cording to geographical locale and ecosystem and adjust the governance
approach accordingly. Our lack of knowledge on basic ecological processes
and the lack of consensus on what actually constitutes ecosystem health are
other conditioning factors for governance.
Johnson et al. (see chap. 4) note that diversity is a characteristic of cap-
ture fishing systems and a residue of varying historical trajectories and
adaptations to the conditions of particular locales. Globalisation has preci-
pitated a reduction in the variety of fishing gear and methods used and a
dramatic increase in the fishing effort. Here again, there are differences
from one place to another. A core feature of fisheries development since
the 1950s is industrialisation, which pertains to the rise of capital-intensive
fishing fleets in the North, and, on a different scale, in the South as well. It
also pertains to the gradual modernisation of small-scale fishing through
new factory-produced fishing gear and methods of propulsion. Both these
manifestations of industrialisation have contributed to the overall increase
in the fishing effort.
In combination with market globalisation, industrialisation has had im-
portant social consequences. In many countries in the North, the fishing
sector has shrunk dramatically in terms of employment. In the South, how-
ever, small-scale fishing is still pervasive, with major confrontations be-
tween industrial and small-scale fishers. Below the surface, the small-scale
sector is also changing and new arrangements and divisions are replacing
old ones. The primary bone of contention in all the changes is the alloca-
tion of benefits. Fishers who have no choice but to use simple technology
dispute the rights of more fortunate fishers to what they view as a dispro-
portionate part of the catch. Conflicts of this kind frequently have an inter-
generational dimension, with some fishers having larger stakes in the long-
306 Challenges and Concerns Revisited
term continuity of fishing activities than others. Livelihood, employment,
and social justice are crucial concerns here.
The form and structure of capture fishing have changed substantially
since the 1950s. The most striking development of the past decade and a
half, however, is the leap made by aquaculture (see chap. 5). Its expansion
has been so vast that people now often assume aquaculture will play a key
role in meeting the market’s ever-increasing demand. In terms of food se-
curity, however, this assumption is conditional on the development of aqua-
culture that does not rely on feed from sources that could otherwise have
been used for human food. Aquaculture based on fish including fishmeal
as feed thus represents a net loss of protein and calories and the market
outlets for capture fisheries provided by aquaculture that relies on fish for
feed will contribute to increased pressure on marine resources rather than
the other way around.
Production in aquaculture continues to mount year by year, with areas of
aquatic farming growing and the number of people directly or indirectly
involved also increasing. It is important to note that aquaculture generally
attracts a different segment of the population than capture fisheries and the
benefits go to different categories. Like any other economic activity, aqua-
culture creates winners and losers at various scale levels.
Aquaculture has any number of implications for the health of inland,
coastal, and marine ecosystems. In the course of its short history, it has
had negative impacts through pollution, the introduction of alien species,
the cutting of mangroves, and the demand for feed from capture fisheries.
There are also various kinds of interaction at different scale levels with
other economic sectors such as agriculture and tourism, and societal objec-
tives such as conservation. In some developing countries, aquaculture is
now bifurcating into two sub-sectors –one producing food for the house-
hold or serving local markets and the second targeting the upmarket and
taking increasing advantage of global market opportunities. This is to some
extent also a division between freshwater and marine aquaculture, although
there are exceptions each way. The dynamics, the benefits to society, and
the governance challenges of the two sub-sectors are very different. As the
fish production in the upmarket sub-sector largely relies on carnivores, its
development is presently dependent on feed extraction by capture fisheries.
Post-harvest systems link capture fishing and aquaculture to the market
in many intricate ways. For Thorpe et al. (see chap. 6) the key variable is
scale, with different chains serving markets at different scale levels. For
countries in the South, the distinction between domestic and international
markets is currently the most important one, as it has created different
patterns of demand. In combination with a priority for food safety, the in-
ternational demand for luxury fish products appears to exert a decisive in-
fluence down the food chain, influencing the activities of individual fishers
and fisheries sectors as a whole. The dynamics of the international fish
market have implications for the food security of the domestic poor. The
drive for efficiency and food quality also causes capital concentration in
Maarten Bavinck, c.s. 307
fish capture and production, as well as in the post-harvest chain. This pro-
cess may have consequences for employment and social justice.
The Fish Chain and the Four Concerns
Having sketched the total picture, what are the trends in our four concerns?
The first concern, ecosystem health, is the key issue in all capture fisheries.
Attention is now focused on halting the decline of target species, as well as
on marine ecosystems as a whole. Fishing is considered a major factor in
their downfall. The growing global fishing effort follows from an absolute
increase in the number of fishers as well as the use of more efficient gear.
Behind these developments in the capture system loom increased demands
for fish products in a globalising market and an inflow of workers to fish-
eries due to the shortage of alternative job opportunities. Changes in cap-
ture and market structures can thus be related to ecosystem health. There
are, however, other factors such as pollution, habitat destruction, and cli-
mate change that influence aquatic ecosystem health. As is noted in this
book, their origin and their solution lie outside the fisheries sector. Ecosys-
tem health is an important concern in aquaculture as well. The externalities
caused by aquaculture operations and development are the main issue
here. In addition, there is the connection between capture fisheries and
aquaculture, mainly through the feed industry.
Social justice, our second concern, comes up repeatedly in any consid-
eration of the capture and post-harvest system or the relation between fish-
eries and other economic sectors. In fact, there are various social justice
concerns at different scale levels. Concern about inequality in the division
of labour between the North and the South, which continually manifests
itself in new ways, is at the high-end of the scale, as are claims pertaining
to inter-generational justice. In the middle there are conflicts between in-
dustrial and small-scale fishers about the allocation of resources, and gen-
der-related confrontations between large and small market parties. Com-
munities also pursue social justice and are affected by new developments,
such as the reallocation of fishing rights. Lastly, there are numerous justice
issues at the individual or household level. From this wider perspective, it
is difficult to estimate whether social justice is declining or increasing, with
the answer depending on perspective as well as scale level.
The third concern is livelihood and employment, which is different in
each situation. The FAO (2002a) indicates that the number of fishers and
fish farmers has increased from 1970 to 2000 across the globe. The rate of
employment growth is extremely variable though, with European fisheries
demonstrating the least development (<20% on average, with the work-
force in some developed countries even shrinking) and Asian fisheries the
most ( >300% on average). Similar timelines are not available for the post-
harvest sector, though it is also likely to have witnessed substantial growth
in the rate of employment.
308 Challenges and Concerns Revisited
In the future, the FAO (2002a) argues that in rich economies with steady
economic growth, the fisheries labour force will shrink. In poor countries
with more stagnant economies and insufficient employment alternatives,
however, capture fisheries will probably continue to absorb large numbers
of newcomers. Their situation may come to resemble the involution char-
acteristic of Indonesian farmers in the 1960s, making do with smaller and
smaller parcels of land and diminishing overall returns (Geertz 1966).
There are also indications of changes in the nature of livelihoods in fish-
eries. The industrialisation of fisheries noted in chapter 4 has had major
effects on the use of labour and will probably continue to do so. The
changes in the post-harvest sector, especially the globalisation of trade and
the movement towards consumer-driven, food safety-oriented markets, also
have implications for the nature of livelihoods in the sector.
The last concern is food security and safety, which is defined as the con-
tribution of fisheries to the availability of sufficient, safe, and nutritious
food for the world’s non-fishing poor (in contrast to the world’s fishing
poor, who are discussed under the heading of employment and livelihood).
Recent documents note the continued relevance of under-nourishment and
food security in the world. According to The state of food insecurity in the
world 2003 (FAO 2003h), the number of undernourished people across the
developing world as a whole is again rising to an estimated 798 million
(figures 1999-2001). The number of chronically hungry people fell in
some countries, but in many others it rose.
Although a great deal has been written about the real and potential role
of fisheries in providing food security, the evidence of actual trends has
been scarce. Do the poor have more access to seafood than before or less?
It is argued that globalisation and the orientation of fishers towards the
international market may have reduced the availability of cheap fish for the
non-fishing poor in the South. However, the development of aquaculture is
sometimes considered relevant to domestic markets, thus contributing to
food security. A recent study of fish supply and demand in changing global
markets until 2020 (Delgado et al. 2003) projects that global per capita fish
consumption in 2020 will range from 14.2 kg per capita in a scenario of
extreme ecological collapse in capture fisheries to 19.0 kg per capita in a
scenario with faster investment in aquaculture, while a baseline scenario
indicates 17.1 kg per capita. This compares with an estimated 15.7 kg per
capita in 1997. The study concludes that
‘growth in fish consumption will very likely continue, but it will be driven
primarily by the developing countries. Moreover, growth will occur slightly
more in high-value than in low-value items, except in India and the rest of
South Asia. Overall consumption of food fish will overwhelmingly occur in
developing countries, where the effects of population growth will combine
with consumer desire for a larger, diversified food basket’.
Urbanisation is identified as an important factor in the growth of develop-
ing country fish consumption. The supply for this increase is expected to
Maarten Bavinck, c.s. 309
come from aquaculture, mainly in developing countries. Real prices for
fish products, including prices for low-value fish, are expected to rise and
generally become more expensive relative to meat and other food products.
The implications are heavy pressure on capture fisheries, a link between
aquaculture and capture fisheries leading to increased prices for low-value
capture fish, and a shift in ‘fishing pressure from output fish (such as sal-
mon) to input fish (such as capelin)’. Concerning the outlook for the poor,
the study concludes that
‘the outlook is not especially good …On the consumption side, it seems
likely that over time the poor who used to get small amounts of animal pro-
tein from small fish are likely to substitute milk and meat as meat and milk
calories become cheaper relative to fish. The nutritional impact of this is not
known, but at minimum it will be necessary for the poor in question to
increase their total consumption of animal protein despite rising prices of
fish’.
Judgement of the Concerns
Bavinck and Chuenpagdee (see chap. 12) describe the current international
principles in terms of how they address the concerns of ecosystem health,
social justice, livelihood and employment, and food security and food
safety. The next step is to relate the principles to the governance approach
prescribed in this book and discuss the connections. Following the division
introduced in chapter 1, we distinguish first-order, second-order, and meta-
order governance. The principles we suggest should structure them are dis-
cussed more fully in chapter 13.
First-Order Governance Principles
First-order governance focuses on the resolution of day-to-day problems
and the realisation of fisheries management goals. Rationality of action is a
key principle and sub-principles deal with sustainability, precaution, and
the economic efficiency of fisheries operations. There is an obvious link
between these first-order principles and the ones currently prescribed. The
precautionary approach in the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
(CCRF) and other principles promoting ecosystem health are complemen-
tary. At this level of governance, the precautionary approach in fisheries
management directly promotes sustainability and results in food security.
However, there are some complications as efforts are made to achieve so-
cial justice, good livelihoods, and food security at the same time. In fact, the
problems with fisheries today, whether related to ecosystem health, such as
overfishing and habitat degradation, or to unequal access to food, suggest
we have not been able to effectively adopt the principles that can lead to
economic efficiency and sustainability. So, although balancing between en-
310 Challenges and Concerns Revisited
vironmental, economic, and social considerations is evidently one of the
fisheries management objectives, mechanisms to facilitate it are not clearly
identified.
At the basis of economic efficiency, the total market and non-market va-
lues of resources need to be properly incorporated. This involves traditional
monetary valuation techniques as well as innovative valuation approaches
such as generational cost-benefit analysis (Sumaila 2001) and the non-
monetary damage schedule approach (Chuenpagdee et al. 2001). Unfortu-
nately, only generational cost-benefit analysis has been widely practiced de-
spite its shortcomings, and often results in the promotion of unsustainable
fishing practices. Moreover, the use of inappropriate incentives in many
fishing nations, such as subsidies on fuel prices and for the development
of fisheries using destructive gear (e.g., trawlers in the Gulf of Thailand)
widens the gap between economic efficiency, sustainability, and precaution.
Subsidies counteract sustainability by promoting catch capacity beyond the
carrying capacity of the resources and have been shown to mainly benefit
large-scale operators. They are thus the sources of equity issue concerns as
discussed below in the second-order principles section.
On the positive side, many of the principles for ecosystem health, parti-
cularly the CCRF principles on sound fisheries management and good fish-
ing practices that minimise waste, improve product quality and extend to
sustainable aquaculture development, are supportive of this level of govern-
ance. Initiatives by the Marine Stewardship Council for certifying seafood
products and the whole process encourage economic efficiency, particularly
when they are conducted to achieve conservation and the wise use of fish-
eries and marine resources and are not used as a marketing tool by indus-
tries. Efforts to raise awareness and build capacity at the local level as pre-
scribed in many principles can also lead to sustainability in the long run. It
should be noted, however, that while the need for ecosystem-based research
and training is recognised in the CCRF, training on economic and social
research is not yet emphasised.
Second-Order Governance Principles
Second-order governance relates to institutions and is particularly con-
cerned with their responsiveness. It has three aspects, respect, inclusive-
ness, and equity. These are critical to the pursuit of social justice, livelihood
and employment, and food security. Here, things seem to be more consis-
tent than in the first-order level, at least in principle. For example, the Uni-
ted Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) aims to give the
use of the seas and the oceans legitimacy, peace, and order. The ILO Con-
ventions and Declarations aim to promote equitable rights for everyone.
The notion of rights in these statements is noteworthy since they include
the rights of small-scale fishers to engage in fishing activities, rights to a
healthy lifestyle, and rights to adequate, safe, and nutritious food. It is not
surprising that access is an important aspect of the discussion related to
Maarten Bavinck, c.s. 311
these principles. Recent debates on access and property rights in fisheries
suggest a need for revolutionary thought involving a different system of
rights, such as community fishing rights allocated through an open-bid
system (Bromley and Macinko 2002). In some ways, this is a mechanism
to ensure that the allocation of rights does not favour large-scale operators,
as is often the case.
Another interesting emphasis in the CCRF is on ensuring food security
and poverty alleviation for present and future generations. While this is an
admirable initiative, its implementation is extremely difficult, considering
that even in the current generation, the societal gap between those who
have and those who have not is large. More often than not, consideration
for future generations is explicitly stated as a principle, and we tend to be-
lieve that what we express in terms of our choices and actions is for the
benefit of our children and grandchildren. However, incorporating the va-
lues of future generations requires serious re-interpretation of current eco-
nomic theory, which not too many economists are prepared or pleased to
do.
Incorporating all the stakeholders in management and decision-making,
i.e., others in the coastal areas as well as fishers and fisheries-related peo-
ple, is equally challenging. Integrating fisheries into coastal area manage-
ment simply means multiplying the numbers of actors and issues as well
as management conflicts. Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM),
widely accepted as an approach to deal with such complexity, also involves
a thorough understanding of coastal resource systems, the impacts of hu-
man activities on these systems, and the social, cultural, and economic va-
lues of the resources. Needless to say, these are daunting tasks and there
are very few good examples of ICZM around the world.
The inclusiveness principle, requiring the involvement of all the stake-
holders and the integration of local and scientific knowledge, can help facil-
itate our understanding of the systems and minimise the conflicts. More
importantly, it can lead to an exploration of alternative jobs outside fishing.
This trend is observed in several fishing communities where tourism is
bringing additional income to fishing households that participate in the
activities, such as adapting fishing boats to serve tourists and providing
lodging in their homes.
Many principles encourage regional and international collaboration in
the conservation and management of fisheries and coastal resources. These
initiatives enhance the overall management capability of coastal states and
help provide a level playing field for everyone. It should be noted, however,
that the equity principle needs to be rigorously practiced to ensure fair op-
portunities for countries of different sizes and economy scales.
Meta-Governance Principles
Meta-governance is related to ethics and its main principle is responsibility.
While it is not directly addressed by any of the initiatives for ecosystem
312 Challenges and Concerns Revisited
health, the Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) aim of maintaining
biological diversity is founded on ethical issues and responsibility and sug-
gests harmonising man and the ecosystem (CBD 1994). Together with the
precautionary principle, this can result in greater ecosystem health and
food security at all levels. The principles that support social justice, liveli-
hood and employment, and food security address ethical issues more di-
rectly. In particular, the fundamental rights of people to access safe and
nutritious food are based on high ethical grounds. This is the most challen-
ging principle, especially in a modern society that relies heavily on the mar-
ket economy and in a world where many people may feel threatened and
insecure.
As is noted in Global Environmental Outlook (UNEP 2002), when a lack
of security is a real prospect in the world, people do not care much about
each other and most of them tend to withdraw into their own secure world,
as is already clear from gated communities in various parts of the world. At
this level of principle, it might also be wise to revisit gender roles and con-
servation issues and the protection of ecosystems in promoting social jus-
tice and improving everyone’s livelihood and food security.
Searching for Institutional Solutions
Institutions to Address the Concerns
Institutions, i.e., the organisations as well as the rules, norms, values, and
knowledge that facilitate communication, are crucial to fisheries problems.
They have been discussed at length in Parts II and III of this book. In this
section, we gather some of the threads of the argument and explore the
consequences of the institutional state of affairs in addressing our four con-
cerns. In doing so, we leave the institutional design and best fit, which are
so important to policy-makers, to the side.
As Suarez de Vivero et al. (see chap. 10) point out, fisheries institutions
present ‘a confused and complex panorama’. An enormous assortment of
organisations engages in fisheries management at all levels and locations,
and the number of rules, norms, and instruments is overwhelming. There
are many variations in the range and effectiveness of the institutions and in
the measures of agreement and cooperation or disagreement and opposi-
tion.
The institutions are divided in this volume into those of the state, the
market, and civil society. Depending on the perspective of the observer, the
values attributed to these parties and the contributions they are expected to
make to fisheries governance differ.
Despite the criticism of its functioning, the state continues to occupy a
major position in most fisheries management perspectives. The political
reality of power is a major rationale. Although international institutions
have obviously become stronger in recent decades, in the field of fisheries
Maarten Bavinck, c.s. 313
they continue to rely heavily on state support. Suarez de Vivero notes that
the state has actually seen its authority over fisheries increase with the rati-
fication of UNCLOS and the extension of its jurisdiction to 200 nm. An-
other reason to emphasise the state is because it is the only authority with
sufficient legitimacy (see chap. 9).
All authors in Part III of this volume note however that the state is a
complex body with parts pointing in various directions. Departments of
Fisheries and Aquaculture may have different goals than Departments of
the Environment or Economic Affairs. What is more, local bodies may
have different agendas than provincial or national ones. States vary greatly
in their responsiveness to public issues and demands. There are autocratic
states and states run by the few and powerful for their own interests. Other
states are singularly weak and incapable of any action at all. Some states are
genuinely interested in devolution and the promotion of participation, and
others are centralised to the extreme. Flexibility and strategic thinking with
regard to the role of the state thus emerge as central elements in any gov-
ernance approach.
Market forces are among the main drivers for globalisation and the ever-
increasing exploitation of marine resources. They are an essential part of
the problem, and in as far as problems are tackled at their roots, they are a
necessary ingredient of any solution. It is not surprising that market re-
forms should figure in most governance approaches, including those of
the World Trade Organization and the anti-globalisation movement. In con-
temporary fisheries management, market considerations play a significant
role, e.g., in the promotion of transferable property rights and certification,
or in coming to grips with subsidies.
Alluding to the supposed limitations of the state, the market is promoted
as a management mechanism. Rather than the state applying itself to fish-
eries management, for example through subsidies, the market is presented
as a way to find an optimal solution. Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs)
are an example of market-based regulations primarily based on an under-
standing of the optimal solution, defined as economic efficiency. But some
authors in this volume, especially Suarez de Vivero et al. (see chap. 10), are
fervent opponents of this tendency, which contributes to the growth of mul-
tinationals and capitalism and the impoverishment of some segments of
society. The debate reveals how many competing criteria there are for the
optimal solution, including equity, sustainability, and governance issues, in
addition to economic efficiency. The basic concerns discussed in this vo-
lume can also be seen as a discussion of multidimensional optimality. Solu-
tions based exclusively on the market cannot automatically be expected to
address this multidimensional optimum. In many cases, the situation dif-
fers in the South and the North. Rather than leading to economic efficiency,
in some cases in the South a reduction of the role of the state has led to a
political vacuum, banditism, and monopolisation, which has proven sub-
optimal, even from a strictly economic perspective. The failure of privatisa-
tion in the North in relation to equity and sharing the resource rent of com-
314 Challenges and Concerns Revisited
mon resources with the greater society once again reveals the importance
of the state versus the market.
Although civil society manifests itself in various ways and exists at all
levels of society, in this book it features most prominently in the discussion
of communities and the local level of fisheries governance (see chap. 8).
Community institutions frequently play a constructive role in managing
common pool resources such as capture fisheries and in providing social
justice, employment, and food security. More generally, we argue that fish-
ers’organisations and non-governemental organisations embody expertise,
capabilities, and insights that are valuable for fisheries governance. These
inputs have often been overlooked in the past, with distrust prevailing be-
tween government and science-based organisations on the one hand and
user groups and their representatives on the other. Slowly, however, bridges
are being built. Co-management has emerged as one of the useful frame-
works for this process.
Means to Address the Concerns –Remedies
The concerns need to be addressed within the governance principles and
through the institutions of the state, the market, and civil society. The gov-
ernance principles and institutions addressed so far at the abstract level
apply generally, but it is impossible to derive specific solution models that
apply universally. Each case has to be judged on its own merits within the
boundaries of governance principles and based on the institutions’own
experiences. In identifying ways to address the concerns, issues of nested-
ness, horizontal and vertical problems of agreement (diversity of goals and
values), and problems of cooperation (unwillingness to work together, re-
cognising each other’s contribution) all need to be addressed.
Nestedness, Agreement and Co-operation
The contradictions that emerge between governance principles as they are
applied, and the varying political discourses to which actors in their choice
of solutions refer, constitute major challenges. The solution is to focus on
processes rather than outcomes. There is no automatic optimal balance be-
tween what may seem to be contradictory principles. Political discourses
can only arrive at compromises through dialogue and a willingness to com-
promise.
In specifying ways to address the concerns, we should start by identify-
ing the stakeholders, their interests, and the scale of the issues to be ad-
dressed. Scale is a major determinant of institutional solutions because in-
stitutions are set up very differently if the scale of the issue is such that it
can be addressed entirely at the local level with direct participation of the
parties involved. It is a very different matter if the scale is global and re-
quires interaction among governments. The scale of an issue relates to the
Maarten Bavinck, c.s. 315
scale of the underlying biological resource system, the social organisation
of the fish chain and the norms that apply. Fisheries management in a
small lake supporting subsistence fisheries would merit local management
with direct participation. Even in this case, though, there would be a need
to develop mechanisms to relate to norms at a larger scale. After all, an
international agreement such as the Convention on Biological Diversity
would also apply in this local context if the government of the country
where the lake is located has signed it. In practice, this means there will
always be an element of state involvement, even in local management ar-
rangements.
The management of larger-scale systems where direct participation is no
longer possible can be addressed through representation and nested insti-
tutions. A hierarchy of management institutions is developed and stake-
holders participate indirectly through representation. In systems of this
kind, accountability and transparency are crucial to positive outcomes in
terms of legitimacy, inclusiveness, and equity (second-order governance
principles). There is a risk in nested institutions of the direct discussion of
knowledge and interests being replaced by coercion and power plays. This
can be counteracted through responsibility (meta-governance principle) on
the part of everyone involved, checked by institutionalised accountability
and transparency.
The development of solutions does not start from a blank slate. All fish-
eries operate through existing institutions, involving various blends of the
state, the market, and civil society. The people who advise on solutions and
the ones who make the decisions each have their own perceptions of the
causes of problems and their own experiences with various types of solu-
tions. The situation and the perceptions thereof influence and limit the
choice of solutions to be decided upon and prescribed.
The starting point is the present situation, and it will induce path depen-
dence in the process. Transitions are always required, but path dependence
may also develop into a long-term limitation on management options.
There are, for example, the long-term consequences of decisions pertaining
to the distribution of access rights. They may be the most fundamental
decisions made in a fisheries management system and can be very difficult
to change once they have been made. If access rights are defined as a per-
centage of the quantities of each species caught, the management system is
bound to rely mainly on single species catch quotas. If access rights are
defined as territorial user rights, area-based management tools will play a
key role. This may seem trivial but it has far-reaching consequences if and
when fisheries are affected by internationalisation, technological advances,
or the exploitation of new species or areas. Management tools that seemed
reasonable in the starting situation may prove counterproductive or even
disruptive, but may be very difficult to abandon because of the distribution
implications.
An example is the European Union’s policy of relative stability. The dis-
tribution of fishing access among nations in the first common fisheries
policy starting in 1983 was locked into a percentage of the annual total avail-
316 Challenges and Concerns Revisited
able catch (TAC) for each stock separately, based on historical catches. To-
day, a single stock TAC-based management system has demonstrated its
inability to manage the mixed fisheries characterising most European de-
mersal fisheries. Because of the path dependency originating from the de-
cision on the distribution key in 1982, it has proven very difficult to develop
more adequate solutions.
Perceptions of the problems to be addressed and experiences from other
fisheries systems are increasingly globalised via the debate on fisheries in
international political and technical circles and the media. Specific solu-
tions may be promoted across the globe as panaceas on the basis of real or
perceived positive experiences in some specific situations. Panaceas of this
kind may represent an imbalanced focus on the problems in other situa-
tions. Solutions with a strong emphasis on increased state intervention
may be relevant in cases where the market functions well but where effects
outside the market need to be addressed. However, solutions with a strong
emphasis on market forces may be relevant in cases where distortions of
the market such as subsidies lead to overinvestment, ecological unsustain-
ability or low economic efficiency. Solutions of this kind cannot automati-
cally be transferred to other situations where the local problems are very
different. Individual transferable quotas and marine protected areas are
two examples of solutions that are relevant in specific situations, but are
also being promoted as global panaceas.
Example 1: Individual transferable quotas
One of the best examples of the global extrapolation of an unbalanced man-
agement focus is the ITQ paradigm. It is linked to the management of sin-
gle-species fisheries, primarily in industrialised countries, but also extends
to many other areas in the world. In this case, the role of scientific institu-
tions in charge of evaluating the allowable catch in the stocks and the mod-
els designed by economists to minimise capital expenditures allocating
transferable property rights have changed the lifestyle of fishing popula-
tions in many areas of the world.
In fisheries, the system was invented by resource economists at the
University of British Columbia in the early 1970s, exported to the rest of
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand by the early 1980s, and then adopted
by Iceland, the Netherlands, the United States and other countries. There
are several reasons why this model has become so popular. Firstly, the ana-
lysis is simple and the solution concrete. The solution follows logically
from the premises of the analysis. If open access is the problem, then
some form of access restriction is needed. This simple answer led to licen-
sing programmes, but by the 1980s they were doing poorly in promoting
more efficiency, hence the shift to ITQs, which allot specific and transfer-
able amounts or shares of a quota to participants in a fishery. Secondly,
ITQs provide an answer to a serious problem in fisheries, i.e., overcapitali-
sation. Today, there is far too much fishing capacity for the resources avail-
Maarten Bavinck, c.s. 317
able. As has been shown in the surf clam and ocean quahog ITQ system of
the United States (McCay and Brandt 2001), once ITQs are implemented,
fleet tonnage, a measure of capacity, can decline significantly as vessel own-
ers economise. These are the two most widespread reasons for the popular-
ity of ITQs. Thirdly, ITQs are in perfect harmony with current neo-liberal
economic policies and the belief in the supremacy of the market. Fourthly,
the popularity of ITQs may also be related to the much stronger involve-
ment and prestige of economists in state bureaucracies compared to other
social scientists, such as anthropologists or sociologists who prefer other
solutions to the commons problems and who tend to see the tragedy as
neither natural nor inevitable, but as a result of the erosion of community
(McCay and Jentoft 1998).
Criticism has been voiced on the feasibility and social impact of ITQs.
For instance, ITQs are more feasible in temperate waters, where there is
less biodiversity, than in tropical waters. ITQs may work well in single-spe-
cies fisheries, but are useless if fishing cannot target specific stocks, as is
noted by the economist Hanneson in the case of Kerala (Kurien 2002). But
ITQs are also controversial in developed Northern countries, partly because
of their distributional impacts. As the economist Copes, whose research
mainly draws on the Canadian experience, notes, ‘The problem is that this
theoretical case for superiority [of ITQs] is highly dependent on gross sim-
plifications embedded in the implicit or explicit assumptions, which re-
move the ITQ mode from the real world of fisheries’. He further claims
that ‘ITQs are prone to external diseconomies that impose a variety of costs
on society, invalidating in large measure the theoretical claims of efficiency’
(Copes 1997: 65). Copes is troubled by the social inequities that ITQs tend
to create between small and large scale, between license holders and crew,
and between generations of fishers. Over time, ITQs also tend to become
geographically concentrated, removing the only conditions some coastal
communities have for survival. This has been well documented in the case
of Iceland. Helgason and Pálsson (1998) express fundamental criticism of
the use of the ITQ model in fisheries, arguing that ITQs fall within the
tendency to regard the world in idealised terms, and then act to make the
ideal real. In Carrier’s words, ‘the virtual becomes a blueprint for the real’
(Carrier 1998: 8). Then, the tragedy of the commons becomes a self-fulfill-
ing prophecy. If fishers are not homo economicus in the narrow sense of the
term at the outset, i.e., atomised, ego-centred profit-maximisers, ITQs turn
them into precisely that. Helgason and Palsson see the alternative as a man-
agement model firmly embedded in empirical reality, a model that fits the
social and cultural context in which it is supposed to operate. These critics
propose an alternative perspective that addresses a complex reality and re-
ject the advantages of oversimplifying models that only try to optimise
some variables such as capital investment or fleet tonnage. The social con-
sequences of divesting coastal communities and their residents of access
rights to the resources can be extremely significant in the long term. The
concentration of boats with fishing rights in some harbours can even lead
to the depopulation of large coastal areas. Since they are considered extern-
318 Challenges and Concerns Revisited
alities, the costs of these processes are often not taken into account in the
economic analysis of the efficiency of these measures.
Example 2: Aquatic protected areas
1
Aquatic protected areas, such as marine reserves or marine protected areas
(MPAs), constitute one of the emergent measures developed to guarantee
the conservation and viability of many fisheries. At the first World Confer-
ence on National Parks held in Seattle, Washington (US) in 1962, a recom-
mendation was passed to advise the governments of the world to establish
marine parks or marine reserves to protect endangered habitats in their
shallow waters (Bacallado et al. 1989: 17). The recommendation has been
taken into account all over the world, especially in recent years (Munro and
Willison 1998; Shackell and Willison 1995). In 1970, there were 118 marine
protected areas in 27 nations, by 1980 the figure had increased to 319 (Silva
et al. 1986), and in 1995 there were more than 1,300 (Boersma and Parrish
1999; Kelleher et al. 1995). This number has probably increased substan-
tially since then.
The decline in biological diversity and productivity in many areas due to
fishing, alterations of coastal spaces, tourism, and so forth has led to the
promotion of alternative management approaches geared towards conser-
ving and restoring biological diversity and productivity, especially in critical
ecosystems (National Research Council 2001). Generally speaking, aquatic
protected areas have a ‘fundamental role as a common-sense and flexible
tool for providing holistic protection to marine species, habitats, and ecolo-
gical processes’(Kelleher and Recchia 1998: 2),avoiding the risks of tradi-
tional fisheries resource management measures for ecosystems and sea-
beds. Another reason these areas are created is to allow the fish populations
to reach their full reproductive age in the protected area so as to enhance
recruitment. The surrounding areas are the immediate recipients of fish
spill-over from the reserves (Kelly et al. 2002). The conservation measures
intend to preserve ecosystems as a whole in all their complexity and diver-
sity and to reduce the interference of human activities, especially fishing.
There is a great deal of variety in the design of these conservation meas-
ures. In the Canary Islands, the reserve core is an area of integral protec-
tion, an ecological reserve in the typology of the National Research Council
(2001), where almost any human activity is forbidden except for strictly
research purposes, and even in that case only under the supervision of the
authorities. On the margins of this no-take zone, there is frequently a cush-
ion area with many restrictions. Lastly, in the remaining zone professional
fishing is allowed under certain conditions, along with recreational activ-
ities such as scuba diving or even sports fishing, also with many restric-
tions.
Protected zones have advantages and disadvantages for fishers who work
in the area. One advantage may be the increase in captures due to the spill-
over effect in the surrounding areas. In this sense, protected areas are use-
Maarten Bavinck, c.s. 319
ful if they somehow increase the total fisheries production of the region.
There is virtual unanimity in the biological sciences about the benefits of
these measures, but some critics note that it may not be the definitive solu-
tion to overfishing problems (cf. Shipp 2002, 2003). From an economic
point of view, several authors tend to be sceptical of the aggregate benefits
in the fisheries sector of the protected areas (Farrow and Sumaila 2002), no
matter how many other benefits may derive from them. One consequence
of the creation of protected areas is the increased flow of tourists attracted
by the natural values of the area, assured by the classification as marine
reserve. The tourists’activities may generate relevant impacts on the pro-
tected areas, but they also constitute an economic alternative for the fishers,
who have been restricted in their activities. However, in many cases, and in
the MPAs of the Canary Islands in particular, it is frequently not the local
people who take advantage of these new economic opportunities, it is non-
fishing or even foreign people who have an important role in the diving
clubs, restaurants, hotels, boat trips, and so on. Economic models of pro-
tected areas usually take into account extractive activities, but in many
areas, as in the Canary Islands, tourism-related activities need to be taken
into account since the winners and losers may be different groups. In this
context, the opportunity for local fishing populations to participate in eco-
tourism activities related to the reserve may constitute an interesting alter-
native for maintaining their income levels (Boncoeur et al. 2002).
Up to now, tourism has received only marginal attention from most
scientists collaborating in the design of MPAs. However, it is not uncom-
mon for the politicians who demand the installation of these areas to clearly
consider the effects of an increasing influx of quality tourism focused on
nature. Marine reserves receive the same kind of attention from tourists as
inland national parks (Roberts and Hawkins 2000), since people assume
that the marine life will be interesting or unusual.
The protected areas could offer fishers important opportunities to im-
prove their standards of living, but in fact they are frequently limited by
specific regulations. Fishers in Spain are prohibited by law from using their
fishing boats to take tourists to visit or even fish in some areas. This limits
their chances of improving their standard of living and reducing their fish-
ing effort. If the MPAs were linked to part-time alternative activities that
valued the fishers’knowledge and abilities, reducing the necessity to extract
marine resources, the effects of these measures would probably be much
more adapted to the needs of the local populations (Pascual-Fernández et
al. 2001; Roberts and Hawkins 2000).
This means the design of protected areas not only affects the fish popula-
tions, in a very relevant way it also affects the human communities that
depend on those areas. Frequently, the design efforts focus on the non-hu-
man populations in an area, overlooking the fact that local communities
may depend on these resources and it may even be essential to get their
consent and participation in the implementation process. Surveillance and
enforcement costs are one of the main difficulties in setting up these meas-
ures in a top-down scheme, but if they are created in collaboration with
320 Challenges and Concerns Revisited
local institutions and communities, local people may assume some of these
duties.
Management models of aquatic protected areas oscillate between top-
down schemes linking their implementation and administration to state
institutions that constantly monitor the protected territory, and commu-
nity-based systems that place resource control in the hands of the local po-
pulation, which has many advantages and also some possible inconve-
niences (Roberts and Hawkins 2000). The effectiveness of protection
measures increases with user collaboration in administration and surveil-
lance duties.
However, this model is not always feasible, as Robert Wade outlined
some years ago. There are preconditions of collective action that may vastly
facilitate common property regimes and community administration (Wade
1992 [1987]). For example, a bounded and not too large population with a
sense of community and with institutions already in charge of solving prob-
lems related to natural resources may facilitate the co-management of pro-
tected areas. Top-down state management of these institutions does not
guarantee the sustainable use of the resources (Pascual-Fernández 1993).
In general, aquatic protected areas are included on the global agendas of
international institutions and decision makers and in the plans of develop-
ment agencies and environmental groups. Even in the scientific arena,
there is a growing tendency to consider the creation of protected areas a
holy grail in fishing management. Further social and natural science re-
search may lead to greater understanding of the practical benefits of these
measures and the consequences of their implementation for various user
groups. In many cases, they may constitute examples of good governance
measures, but they can sometimes lead to conflicts due to a lack of local
participation in the creation process or in the institutions devised for their
management.
One of the polemic issues pertains to how large these protected areas
need to be for them to be effective in a local and global perspective (see
chap. 4). In this sense, the scale aspect constitutes a crucial element in the
implementation of these measures. In the short run, the transformations
induced in global or local fisheries by these new institutions may produce
new tensions, increasing the global dynamics in the system. In the long
run, however, they may be diminished as a result of better management of
the resources and ecosystems.
The Cognitive Remedy –Crossing the Interdisciplinary Divide
There are many things we do not know about the fish chain and institu-
tional options. This should not lead to the conclusion, though, that this
lack of knowledge is the main impediment to action. There is enough nat-
ural science knowledge of the ecological problems of fisheries to identify
the specific action required and to move in a more ecologically sustainable
direction, which would also serve the food security of future generations. In
Maarten Bavinck, c.s. 321
most fisheries world-wide, a reduction in the overall fishing pressure is
called for and can be achieved by combining reduced fishing capacity and
effort with fishing practices that have fewer impacts on habitats.
Improved knowledge on the fish chain and institutional options may not
be needed to guide immediate action, but in the longer term it is crucial to
ensure that whatever processes are initiated are monitored and adapted ac-
cording to the lessons learnt underway. The major gap is in the integration
of various types of knowledge which, when used in isolation, may lead to
poorly advised solutions or even conflicts. In the past, extreme conse-
quences of disciplinary isolation could be observed when biologists advised
closed areas or quota control in certain situations without the institutional
capacity to decide and implement the measures.
Social scientists have similarly advised community-based resource man-
agement systems to deal with resources that are steered by ecological pro-
cesses on a much larger scale than can be handled on the local scale. It is
easy to ridicule extreme cases along these lines, but less extreme advice that
still exhibits the same kind of blindness to other aspects than the ones ad-
dressed by the advisor’s discipline is still ubiquitous and can be an obstacle.
Another reason knowledge needs to be integrated is related to legitimacy
and inclusiveness. To achieve legitimacy, and as a necessary component of
a co-management institution where fishers take responsibility for imple-
mentation, it is often noted that fishers’and other users’knowledge should
serve as a basis for decisions. However, it is difficult in actual practice to
find a way to achieve this kind of inclusion. This is a reflection of the con-
siderable discourse differences resulting from the differing practices of
fishers and researchers. It has proven difficult to incorporate fishers’
knowledge in management institutions based on the knowledge require-
ments formulated and rationalised in the language of research. Efforts to
incorporate local knowledge may be rather extractive and alienated from
the users if local knowledge is selected and re-rationalised to meet the for-
mal criteria of management institutions.
So, in terms of knowledge, it is hard to include fishers in management
institutions by simply allowing biologists to extract and translate fishers’
knowledge. Social scientists need to help identify the conditions for the
common ground between research-based and local knowledge and respect
the local as well as the research discourse. Social scientists also have a re-
sponsibility to assist in identifying management institutions that are able to
absorb multiple sources of knowledge without needing them all interpreted
and translated. In itself, including users in management institutions is an
example of the need for interdisciplinary co-operation.
Conclusion
In this chapter we have discussed developments in fisheries and aquacul-
ture from the perspective of real-life concerns that affect people all across
the globe presently and in the future. It is precisely because of real or per-
322 Challenges and Concerns Revisited
ceived impacts on people’s lives and conflicting valuations that alternate
courses of action have become highly politicised. Policy-makers conse-
quently face hard choices (see chap. 14).
From a governance perspective, the diversity, complexity, and dynamics
of the system to be governed are striking. Fish chains are so varied, com-
plex, and in flux that in order to be effective, governing systems can only
adapt and take on similar characteristics. The scale levels where governance
takes place are of particular importance. We have pointed out the need to
determine the appropriate scale level for governance in any situation and
the need for connections between the governance at various scale levels.
The fact that fish chains involve so many actors has special implications
for governance. At various points in this volume, we note that governance
is not the prerogative of government, it is also carried out by market and
civil society actors. It is only by considering the interaction between the
various actors that governance can potentially become more effective. But
for this to occur, there has to be some notion of partnership. Mahon et al.
(see chap. 17) further explore this topic. Partnership would seem to be espe-
cially important if and when the system to be governed is undergoing a
major transition. This is clearly the case in contemporary capture fisheries
and aquaculture, where crisis and opportunity alternately emerge.
Note
1. This section is partially based on findings of the project entitled ‘Marine reserves
and littoral fishing populations: impacts and strategies for sustainable develop-
ment’(REN 2001-3350/MAR), funded by the Ministry of Science and Technolo-
gie of Spain and the European Regional Development Fund, and directed by José
J. Pascual-Fernández.
Maarten Bavinck, c.s. 323
References
Aarset, B. and L. Foss 1996. Norway’s cod farming industry: Adaptation, imitation
or innovation? In: C. Bailey, S. Jentoft, and P. Sinclair (Eds.), Aquacultural devel-
opment: Social dimensions of an emerging industry. Pp. 43-57. Boulder: Westview
Press.
Abila, R.O. and E.G. Jansen 1997. From local to global markets: The fish processing and
exporting industry on the Kenyan part of Lake Victoria –Its structure, strategies and
socio-economic impacts. Working Paper 1997.8. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Abramovitz, J.N. 1996. Imperiled waters, impoverished future: The decline of freshwater
ecosysytems. Worldwatch Paper 128. Washington DC: Worldwatch Institute.
Acheson, J.M. 1975. The lobster fiefs: Economic and ecological effects of territorial-
ity in the Maine lobster industry. Human Ecology 3 (3): 183-207.
Acheson, J.M. 1979. Variations in traditional inshore fishing rights in Maine lob-
stering communities. In: R. Andersen (Ed.), North Atlantic maritime cultures:
Anthropological essays on changing adaptation. Pp. 253-276. The Hague: Mouton.
Acheson, J.M. 1981. Anthropology of fishing. Annual Review of Anthropology 10:
275-316.
Acheson, J.M. 1988. The lobster gangs of Maine. Hannover: University Press of New
England.
Achieng, A.P. 1990. The impact of the introduction of the Nile Perch, Lates niloticus
(L.) on the fisheries of Lake Victoria. Journal of Fish Biology 37 (Supplement A):
17-23.
Ackefors, H. 1999. Environmental impact of different farming technologies. In: N.
Svennig, H. Reinertsen, and M. New (Eds.), Sustainable aquaculture. Food for the
future? Pp. 145-169. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Ackefors, H. and P. White 2002. A framework for declaring best environmental
practices for aquaculture. World Aquaculture 33 (2): 54-59.
Acosta, M.L. 2002. Condiciones laborales de los buzos miskitos en la Costa Atlántica de
Nicaragua. San José, Costa Rica: Oficina Internacional del Trabajo.
Afolabi, J.A. and O.A. Fagbenro 1998. Credit financing of coastal aquaculture in
Nigeria. In: A. Eide and T. Vassdal (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9
th
Biennial Confer-
ence of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade. Vol. 1. Tromsø:
University of Tromsø.
Agrawal A. and C.C. Gibson 2001. The role of community in natural resource con-
servation. In: A. Agrawal and C.C. Gibson (Eds.), Communities and the environ-
ment: Ethnicity, gender, and the state in community-based conservation. Pp. 1-31. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Ahmed, M. and M. Lorica 2002. Improving developing country food security
through aquaculture development –Lessons from Asia. Food Policy 27:125-141.
Akimichi, T. 1984. Territorial regulation in the small scale fisheries of Itoman, Oki-
nawa. In: K. Ruddle and T. Akimichi (Comps.), Maritime institutions in the Wes-
tern Pacific. Pp. 37-88. Osaka: National Senri Ethnological Studies, Museum of
Ethnology.
375
Aktea 2003. Les femmes dans la pêche et les cultures marines en Europe. Journal of the
“Femmes”European Thematic Network, No 2:http://www.fishwomen.org/IMG/pdf/
aktea2_net_uk.pdf. Accessed 18-04-2005.
Alegret, J.L. 1995. Co-management of resources and conflict management: The case of
the fishermen's confreries in Catalonia. MARE Working Paper No. 2.Aarhus: Aar-
hus University.
Alegret, J.L. 1996. Ancient institutions confronting change: The Catalan fisher-
men's confradies. In: K. Crean and D. Symes (Eds.), Fisheries management in
crisis. Pp. 92-98. Oxford: Blackwell.
Alegret, J.L. 1999. Space, resources and history: The social dimension of fisheries
in the northwest Mediterranean. In: D. Symes (Ed.), Europe’s southern waters:
Management issues and practice. Pp. 55-65. Oxford: Blackwell.
Alegret, J.L. 2000. Economics and political anthropology of fisheries governance:
The incipient failure of collective action in Catalan Cofradias. In: A. Hatcher and
K. Robinson (Eds.), Management institutions and governance systems in European
fisheries. Proceedings of the 3
rd
Concerted Action Workshop on Economics and the
Common Fisheries Policy, Vigo, Spain, 28-30 October 1999. Pp. 179-195. Ports-
mouth: CEMARE, University of Portsmouth.
Alexander, P. 1977. Sea tenure in southern Sri Lanka. Ethnology 16 (3): 231-251.
Ali, S.A. 1964. Increased fish consumption through improved fish handling and
distribution. Contribution to Symposium on Increasing Fish Consumption Through
Improved Fish Handling and Distribution, 16-31 October 1964. Rome: FAO.
Allison, E.H. and R.J. McBride, 2003. Educational reform for improved natural re-
source management: fisheries and aquaculture in Bangladeshi universities. So-
ciety and Natural Resources 16: 249-264.
Almond, B. (Ed.). 1995. Introducing applied ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Amegavie, K. 1995. Outline of a fishery policy and action plan. FAO Project TCP/
Tog/3454. Rome: FAO.
Anderson, E.N.J. 1987. A Malaysian tragedy of the commons. In: B.J. McCay and J.
M. Acheson (Eds.), The question of the commons –the culture and ecology of commu-
nal resources. Pp. 327-343. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Anderson, J.L. 2002. Aquaculture and the future: Why fisheries economists should
care. Marine Resource Economics 17: 133-151.
Anon. 2003. The promise of a blue revolution. The Economist, 9 August 2003: 19-21.
Apostle, R. and G. Barrett 1992. Emptying their nets: Small capital and rural industria-
lization in the Nova Scotia fishing industry. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Apostle, R., G. Barrett, P. Holm, S. Jentoft, L. Mazany, B.J. McCay, and K.H. Mikal-
sen 1998. Community, state, and market on the North Atlantic Rim: Challenges to
modernity in fisheries. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Apostle, R., B.J. McCay, and K.H. Mikalsen 2002. Enclosing the commons: Individual
transferable quotas in the Nova Scotia fishery. St. John’s, Newfoundland: Institute
of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Arbo, P. and B. Hersoug 1997. The globalization of the fishing industry and the
case of Finnmark. Marine Policy 21 (2): 121-142.
Argyris, C. 1991. Teaching smart people to learn. Harvard Business Review May-June
1991.
Argyris, C. 1992. On organizational learning. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Armstrong, C.W. and D.J. Clark 1997. Just fishing? Equity and efficiency in fish-
eries management regimes. Marine Resource Economics 12: 203-220.
Arnason, R. 1993. Ocean fisheries management: Recent international develop-
ments. Marine Policy 17 (5): 334-339.
376 References
Arnason, R. 1995. The Icelandic fisheries. Oxford: Blackwell, Fishing News Books.
Asche, F. and P. Bernard 2000. Fisheries and the internationalisation of markets.
In: U.R. Sumaila, R. Chuenpagdee, and M. Vasconcellos (Eds.), Proceedings of the
INCO-DC Workshop on Markets, Global Fisheries and Local Development,Bergen,
Norway, 22-23 March 1999. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report No.7. Brussels:
European Commission.
Asche, F. and R. Tveteras 2002. Economics of aquaculture. Special issue introduc-
tion. Marine Resource Economics 17: 73-75.
Bacallado, J.J., T. Cruz, A. Brito, J. Barquín, and M. Carrillo 1989. Reservas marinas
de Canarias. Canarias: Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca de Canarias Secretaría
General Técnica.
Bailey, C. and S. Jentoft 1990. Hard choices in fisheries development. Marine Policy
14 (4): 333-344.
Bailey, C., S. Jentoft, and P. Sinclair 1996. Social science contributions to aquacul-
tural development. In: C. Bailey, S. Jentoft, and P. Sinclair (Eds.), Aquacultural
development: Social dimensions of an emerging industry. Pp. 3-20. Boulder: West-
view Press.
Baines, G.B. 1989. Traditional resource management in the Melanesian South Paci-
fic: a development dilemma. In F. Berkes (Comp.), Common property resources:
Ecology and community based sustainable development. Pp. 273-295. London: Bel-
haven Press.
Bakhayokho, M. and M. Kebe 1991. Problématique des relations entre la pêche arti-
sanale et la pêche industrielle: Cas des ressources démersales. In: J.R. Durand, J.
Lemoalle and J. Weber (Eds.), La recherche face à la pêche artisanale. Pp. 933-941.
Orstom éditions, Montpellier.
Banuri, T.K., Göran-Mäler, M. Grubb, H.K. Jacobson, and F. Yamin 1995. Equity
and social considerations. In: J.P. Bruce, H. Lee, and E.F. Haites (Eds.), Climate
change 1995. Pp. 81-118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barrett, G., M.I. Caniggia, and L. Read 2002. There are more vets than doctors in
Chiloé: Social and community impact of the globalization of aquaculture in
Chile. World Development 30 (11): 1951-1965.
Bartley, D.M. and R.S.V. Pullin 1999. Towards policies for aquatic genetic resources.
In: R.S.V. Pullin, D.M. Bartley, and J. Kooiman (Eds.), Towards policies for conser-
vation and sustainable use of aquatic genetic resources. International Center for Living
Aquatic Resources Management Conference Proceedings 59: 1-16.
Basch, L.G., N.G. Schiller, and C. Szanton Blanc 1994. Nations unbound: Transna-
tional projects, postcolonial predicaments, and deterritorialized nation-states. Lan-
ghorne: Gordon and Breach.
Bataille-Benguigui, M.C. 1999. Pêche et pêcheurs aux îles Tonga: Facteurs sociaux
et culturelles du changement. In: G. Blanchet (Ed.), Les Petites activitités de pêche
dans le Pacifique Sud. Paris.
Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry,
evolution and epistemology. Northvale: Jason Aronson.
Bavinck, M. 2001. Marine resource management: Conflict and regulation in the fisheries
of the Coromandel coast. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Bavinck, M., R. Chuenpagdee, M. Diallo, P. van der Heijden, J. Kooiman, R. Mahon,
and S. Williams, 2005. Interactive governance for fisheries –a guide to better prac-
tice. Delft: Eburon.
Baytos, L.M. 1995. Designing and implementing successful diversity programs.NewJer-
sey: Prentice-Hall.
References 377
Beamish, R.J. and C. Mahnken 1999. Taking the next step in fisheries management.
Ecosystem approaches for fisheries management. Publication No. AK.SG. 99-01: 1-
21. Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant College Program.
Beetham, D. 1991. The legitimation of power. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press
International.
Begossi, A. 1996. The fishers and buyers from Búzios I.: Kin ties and modes of
production. Ciência e Cultura 48: 142-147.
Begossi, A. 2002. Latin America fisheries: Local organization and management. In:
Proceedings of the 7
th
Biennal Conference of the International Association of Ecologi-
cal Economics, 6-9 March 2002, Sousse, Tunísia. Sousse Tunisia: International So-
ciety for Ecological Economics (ISEE).
Belden, G., M. Hyatt, and D. Ackley 1993. Towards the learning organisation: a guide.
Toronto: Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA).
Belfiore, S., 2003. The growth of integrated coastal management and the role of
indicators in integrated coastal management: Introduction to the special issue.
Ocean & Coastal Management 46 (3-4): 225-234
Bellwood D.R., A.S. Hoey, and J.H. Choat 2003. Limited functional redundancy in
high diversity systems: Resilience and ecosystem function on coral reefs. Ecology
Letters 6: 281-285.
Béné, C. 2003. When fishery rhymes with poverty: A first step beyond the old para-
digm on povety in small-scale fisheries. World Development 31 (6): 949-975.
Berkes, F. 1985. Fishermen and the ‘tragedy of the commons’.Environmental Con-
servation 12: 199-205.
Berkes, F. 1987. Common-property resource management and Cree Indian fish-
eries in sub-arctic Canada. In: B.J. McCay and J.M. Acheson (Eds.), The question
of the commons: The culture and ecology of communal resources. Pp. 66-91. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Berkes, F. 2002. Cross-scale institutional linkages for commons management: Per-
spectives from the bottom up. In: E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, and N. Dolšak et al. (Eds.),
Drama of the Commons. Pp. 293-321. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Berkes, F., C. Folke, and J. Colding 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: Man-
agement practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Berkes, F., R. Mahon, P. McConney, R. Pollnac, and R. Pomeroy (Eds.) 2001. Mana-
ging small-scale fisheries: Alternative directions and methods. Ottawa: International
Development Research Centre.
Berting, J. 1996. Over rationaliteit en complexiteit. In: P. Nijkamp, W. Begeer, and J.
Berting (Eds.), Denken over complexe besluitvorming. Pp. 17-30. The Hague: SDU.
Bharadwaj, A.S., W.R. Brignon, N.L. Gould, and P.W. Brown 2002. Evaluation of
meat and bone meal in practical diets fed to juvenile hybrid striped bass Morone
chrysops xM. saxatilis.Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 33 (4): 448-457.
Bianchi, G., H. Gislason, K. Graham, L. Hill, X. Jin, K. Koranteng, S. Manickchand-
Heileman, I. Payá, K. Sainsbury, F. Sanchez, and K. Zwanenburg 2000. Impact
of fishing on size composition and diversity of demersal fish communities.
ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 558-571.
Biermann, F. 1999. Justice in the greenhouse. In: F.L. Tóth (Ed.), Fair weather. Pp.
160-171. London: Earthscan.
Bilimoria, P. 1993. Indian ethics. In: P. Singer (Ed.), A Companion to ethics. Pp. 43-
57. Oxford: Blackwell.
Binkley, M. 1995. Risks, dangers, and rewards in the Nova Scotia offshore fishery. Mon-
treal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
378 References
Blaber, S.J.M. 1997. Fish and fisheries of tropical estuaries. London: Chapman &Hall.
Blaber, S.J.M., D.P. Cyrus, J.J. Albaret, Chong Ving Ching, J.W. Day, M. Elliott, M.S.
Fonseca, D.E. Hoss, J. Orensanz, I.C. Potter, and W. Silvert 2000. Effects of fish-
ing on the structure and functioning of estuarine and nearshore ecosystems.
ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:590-602.
Blanchard, K., J. Carlos, and A. Randolph 1998. Empowerment takes more than a
minute. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Block, P. 1996. Stewardship: choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Boas, F. 1966. Kwakiutl ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Boersma, P.D. and J.K. Parrish 1999. Limiting abuse: Marine protected areas, a
limited solution. Ecological Economics 31 (2): 287-304.
Bonanno, A. and D. Constance 1996. Caught in the net: The global tuna industry,
environmentalism, and the state. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Boncoeur, J., F. Alban, O. Guyader, and O. Thebaud 2002. Fish, fishers, seals and
tourists: Economic consequences of creating a marine reserve in multi-species,
multi-activity context. Natural Resource Modeling 15 (4): 387-411.
Bonfil, R., G. Munro, U.R. Sumaila, H. Valtysson, M. Wright, T. Pitcher, D. Preik-
shot, N. Haggen, and D. Pauly 1998. Distant water fleets: An ecological, economic,
and social assessment. Vancouver: Fisheries Centre.
Boserup, E. 1970. Women’s role in economic development. London: Allen &Unwin.
Botsford, W., J.C. Castilla, and C.H. Peterson 1997. The management of fisheries
and marine ecosystems. Science 277: 509-514.
Boudon, R. 1996. The ‘Cognivist Model’,Rationality and Society, 8: 123-150.
Bouju, J. 1994. De la bêche au filet. Étude anthropologique des populations littorales et
des pêcheurs côtiers de Guinée. Paris: Thèse d’Anthropologie Sociale et d’Ethnolo-
gie, EHESS, 2 Vols.
Bowen, B. 1999. Preserving genes species, or ecosystems? Healing the fractured
foundations of conservation policy. Molecular Ecology 8: S5-S10.
Boyd, C.E. 1999a. Aquaculture sustainability and environmental issues. World
Aquaculture 30: 10-13, 71-72.
Boyd, C.E. 1999b. Codes of practice for responsible shrimp farming. St. Louis: Global
Aquaculture Alliance.
Boyd, C.E. 2003. The status of codes of practice in aquaculture. World Aquaculture
34 (2): 63-66.
Branch, G.M., J. May, B. Roberts, E. Russell, and B.M. Clark 2002a. Case studies on
the socio-economic characteristics and lifestyles of subsistence and informal
fishers in South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Sciences 24: 439-62.
Branch, G.M., M. Hauck, N. Siqwana-Ndulo, and A.H. Dye 2002b. Defining fishers
in the South African context: Subsistence, artisanal and small-scale commercial
fisheries. South African Journal of Marine Sciences 24: 475-88.
Brand, A.R., E.H. Allison, and E.J. Murphy 1991. North Irish Sea scallop fisheries: A
review of changes. In: S.E. Shumway and P.A. Sandifer (Eds.), An international
compendium of scallop biology and culture world aquaculture society. Pp. 204-218.
Baton Rouge, LA: World Aquaculture Society
Brandt, A. 1984. Fish catching methods of the world. Farnham: Blackwell, Fishing
News Books.
Bridger, C.J., B.A. Costa-Pierce, C.A. Goudey, R.R. Stickney, K.M. Fletcher, J.R.
Gold, D.H. Lewis, J. Lotz, B.C. Posadas, E.W. Neyrey, R. Rayburn, T. Reid, C.A.
Moncreiff, and D.L. Swann 2001. Sustainable offshore aquaculture development
in the Gulf of Mexico. World Aquaculture 32 (3): 28-33, 60.
References 379
Britton, J.C. and B. Morton 1994. Marine carions and scavengers. Oceanography and
Marine Biology: An Annual Review 32: 369-434.
Bromley, D.W. and S. Macinko 2002. Who Owns America’s Fisheries? Center for Re-
source Economics, Covelo. CA: Island Press.
Bromley, D.W. and J. Paavola (Eds.), 2002. Economics, ethics, and environmental pol-
icy. Oxford: Blackwell.
Brugha, R. and Z. Varvasovsky, 2000. Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy
and Planning 15 (3),: 239-246.
Bruntland, G. (Ed.) 1987. Our common future. World Commission on Environment
and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burbidge, J. 1997. Beyond prince and merchant; citizen participation and the rise of civil
society. New York: Pact Publications.
Bureau, D.P. 2000. Use of rendered animal protein ingredients in fish feeds. Inter-
national Aquafeed Magazine (July).
CAC 2003. Understanding the Codex Alimentarius. Rome: Codex Alimentarius Com-
mision. Available http://www.fao.org/docrep/w9114e/w9114e00.htm (Accessed
11 February 2005).
Caddy, J.F. 2000. Marine catchment basin effects versus impacts of fisheries on
semi-enclosed seas. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 628-640.
Caddy, J.F. and R. Mahon 1995. Reference points for fisheries management. FAO Fish.
Tech. Pap. 347. Rome: FAO.
Cadigan, S. 1991. Economic and social relations of production in the Northeast coast of
Newfoundland, with special reference to Conception Bay 1785-1855. Ph.D. Thesis. St.
John’s, Newfoundland: Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial
University of Newfoundland.
Campbell, T. 1996. Co-management of aboriginal resources. Information North 22
(1) Arctic Institute of North America. Available http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/
NatResources/comanagement.html.
Carrier, J.G. 1987. Marine tenure and conservation in Papua New Guinea: Problems
in interpretation. In: B.J. McCay and J.M. Acheson (Eds.), The question of the
commons: The culture and ecology of communal resources. Pp. 142-167. Tucson: Uni-
versity of Arizona Press.
Carrier, J.G. 1998. Introduction. In: J.G. Carrier and D. Miller (Eds.), Virtualism: A
new political economy. Oxford and New York: Berg.
Cash, D.W. and S.C. Moser 2000. Linking global and local scales: Designing dy-
namic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change 10
(2): 109-120.
Caverivière A., M. Kulbicki, J. Konan, and F. Gerlotto 1981. Bilan des connaissances
actuelles sur Balistes carolinensis dans le golf de Guinée. Documents Scientifiques
du Centre de Recherche Océanographique d’Abidjan 12 (1) : 1-78
CBD 1994. Convention on Biological Diversity. Text and annexes. Châtelaine, Switzer-
land: Interim Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity.
CBD 2000. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Text and Annexes. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat for the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
CEC 2000. Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle. COM
(1. 02/02/2000). Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Cerny, P.C. 1990. The changing architecture of politics: Structures, agency, and the fu-
ture of the state. London: Sage Publications.
380 References
CFS 2002. Report of the 28th Session of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome, 6-
9 June 2002. Available http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/004/y707e.htm#p70
_4078 (Accessed 11 June 2003).
Chamberlain, T. 2000. Histamine in artisanal tuna fisheries of the Pacific Islands. Mar-
ine Studies Technical Report 2000/06. Suva, Fiji: University of the South Paci-
fic.
Chamberlain, T. 2001. Histamine levels in longlined tuna in Fiji: A comparison of
samples from two different body sites and the effect of storage at different tem-
peratures. The South Pacific Journal of Natural Sciences 19: 30-34.
Chang, R. (Ed.) 1997. Incommensurablity, incomparability, and practical reason. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press.
Chapin, F.S., E.S. Zavaleta, V.T. Eviner, R.L. Naylor, P.M. Vitousek, H.L. Reynolds,
D.U. Hooper, S. Lavorel, O.E. Sala, S.E. Hobbie, M.C. Mack, and S. Diaz 2000.
Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405: 234-242.
Charles, A. 1992. Fisheries conflicts: A unified framework. Marine Policy 16 (5): 376-
393.
Charles, A. 2001. Sustainable fishery systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chauveau, J.P. and E. Jul-Larsen 2000. Du paradigme halieutique à l'anthropologie
des dynamiques institutionnelles. In: J.P. Chauveau, E. Jul-Larsen, and C. Cha-
boud (Eds.), Les pêches piroguières en Afrique de l'Ouest. Dynamiques institution-
nelles: Pouvoirs, mobilités, marchés. Pp. 9-86. Paris: Karthala, Institut de recherche
pour le développement; Bergen: Christian-Michelsen Institute.
Chauveau, J.P., E. Jul-Larsen, and C. Chaboud (Eds.) 2000. Les pêches piroguières en
Afrique de l'Ouest. Dynamiques institutionnelles: pouvoirs, mobilités, marchés. Paris:
Karthala, Institut de recherche pour le développement; Bergen: Christian-Mi-
chelsen Institute.
Cheong, S.M. 2003. Privatizing tendencies: Fishing communities and tourism in
Korea. Marine Policy 27 (1): 23-29.
Childs, W.R. 2000. Control, conflict and international trade (The internal and inter-
national fish trades of medieval England and Wales). In: D.J. Starkey, C. Reid,
and N. Ashcroft (Eds.), England’s sea fisheries: The commercial sea fisheries of Eng-
land and Wales since 1300. Pp. 32-35. London: Chatham Publishing.
Christensen, V. 1998. Fishery-induced changes in a marine ecosystem: Insights for
models of the Gulf of Thailand. Journal of Fish Biology 53 (Supplement A): 128-
142.
Christensen, V. 2000. Indicators for marine ecosystems affected by fisheries. Mar-
ine and Freshwater Research 51: 447-450.
Christensen, V. and D. Pauly 1998. Changes in models of aquatic ecosystems ap-
proaching carrying capacity. Ecological Applications 8 (1) Supplement: S104-S109.
Christensen, V. and C. Walters 2002. Ecosystem-scale optimization policies: The
nature of the beast. Presentation at the 4
th
William R. and Lenore Mote Interna-
tional Symposium in Fisheries Ecology, Confronting Trade-offs in the Ecosystem Ap-
proach to Fisheries Management, 5-7 November 2002, Sarasota, Florida.
Chuenpagdee, R., J.L. Knetsch, and T.C. Brown 2001. Coastal management using
public judgments, importance scales, and predetermined schedule. Coastal
Management 29 (4): 253-270.
Chuenpagdee, R., L.E. Morgan, S.M. Maxwell, E.A. Norse, and D. Pauly 2003. Shift-
ing gears: Assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in the US waters.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10 (1): 517-524.
Chuenpagdee, R. and D. Pauly 2004. Improving the state of coastal areas in the
Asia-Pacific region. Coastal Management 32 (1): 3-15.
References 381
Cicin-Sain, B., M.K. Orbach, S.J. Sellers, and E. Manzanilla 1986. Conflictual inter-
dependence: United States-Mexican relations on fishery resources. Natural Re-
sources Journal 26: 769-92.
Cicin-Sain, B. and R.W. Knecht 1998. Integrated coastal and ocean management. Con-
cepts and practices. Washington DC: Island Press.
CITES 2004. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora.. Available http://www.cites.org/eng/. (Accessed 9 April 2004).
Clark, B.M., M. Huack, J.M. Harris, K. Salo, and E. Russell 2002. Identification of
subsistence fishers, fishing areas, resource use and activities along the South
African Coast. South African Journal of Marine Sciences 24: 425-38.
Coase, R. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica (Nov.): 386-405.
Cochrane, K.L. (Ed.) 2002. A fishery managers guidebook: management measures and
their application. Fisheries Technical Paper No. 424. Rome: FAO.
COFI 2003. Strategies for increasing the sustainable contribution of small-scale
fisheries to food security and poverty alleviation. The 25
th
session of the Committee
on Fisheries of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Rome,
Italy, 24-28 February 2003. Available http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/005/
Y8111E.HTM (Accessed 28 August 2003).
Cohen, M. 1989. The problem of studying ‘economic man’. In: A.R. Miles and G.
Finn (Eds.), Feminism: From pressure to politics. Pp. 147-159. Montreal: Black Rose
Books.
Cole, S. 1991. Women of the praia: Work and lives in a Portuguese coastal community.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Collet, S. 2002. Appropriation of marine resources: from management to an ethical
approach to fisheries governance. Social Science Information 41 (4): 531-553.
Collison, C., G. Parcell, 2001. Learning to fly: practical lessons form one of the world’s
leading knowledge companies. Chichester: Capstone Publishing Ltd.
Comas d’Argemir, D. 1995. Trabajo, género, cultura: La construcción de desigualdades
entre hombre y mujeres. Barcelona: Institut Català d’Antropologia.
COM (Commission of the European Communities) 2002. A strategy for the sus-
tainable development of European aquaculture. Communication from the Com-
mission to the Council and the European Parliament. COM (2002) 511 final. Avail-
able http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2002/com2002_0511en01.pdf
(Accessed 11 February 2005).
Connell, J.H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:
1302-1310.
Connelly, M.P. and M. MacDonald 1995. State policy: The household and women’s
work in the Atlantic fishery. In: D. Frank and G. Kealey (Eds.), Labour and work-
ing-class history in Atlantic Canada: A reader. St. John’s, Newfoundland: Institute
for Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Conover, D.O. and S.B. Munch 2002. Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary
time scales. Science 297: 94-96.
Cooper, F. 2002. Africa since 1940. The past and the present. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Copes, P. 1997. Social impacts of fisheries management regimes based on indivi-
dual quotas. In: G. Pálsson and G. Petursdottir (Eds.), Social implications of quota
systems in fisheries. Copenhagen: TemaNord.
Copesino, W.C. 1997. Supply chain management: The basics and beyond. Eastborne,
UK: Saint Lucie Press.
Cormier-Salem, M.C. 2000. Appropriation des ressources, enjeu foncier et espace
halieutique sur le littoral ouest-africain. In: J.P. Chauveau, E. Jul-Larsen, and C.
382 References
Chaboud (Eds.), Les pêches piroguières en Afrique de l’Ouest. Dynamiques institu-
tionnelles: Pouvoirs, mobilités, marchés. Pp. 205-230. Paris: Karthala, Institut de
recherche pour le développement; Bergen: Christian-Michelsen Institute.
Costanza, R. 1992. Toward an operational definition of ecosystem health. In: R.
Costanza, B.G. Norton, and B.D. Haskell (Eds.), Ecosystem health: New goals for
sustainable development. Pp. 238-256. Covelo: Island Press.
Costanza, R., F. Andrade, P. Antunes, M. van den Belt, D. Boesch, D. Boersma, F.
Catarino, S. Hanna, K. Limburg, B. Low, M. Molitor, J.G. Pereira, S. Rayner, R.
Santos, J. Wilson, and M. Young 1998. Principles for sustainable governance of
the oceans. Science 281: 198-199.
Costa-Pierce, B.A. 1998. Constraints to the sustainability of cage culture for resettle-
ment from hydropower dams in Asia: An Indonesian case study. Journal of En-
vironmental Development 7 (4): 333-363.
Costa-Pierce, B.A. 2002. Ecology as the paradigm for the future of aquaculture. In:
B.A. Costa-Pierce (Ed.), Ecological aquaculture: The evolution of the blue revolution..
Pp. 339-372. Oxford: Blackwell.
Côté, I.M. and J.D. Reynolds 2002. Predictive ecology to the rescue? Science 298:
1181-1182.
Cury, P., L. Shannon, and Y. Shin 2003. The functioning of marine ecosystems: a
fisheries perspective. In: M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson (Eds.), Responsible fish-
eries in the marine ecosystem. Pp. 103-123. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Coull, J.R. 1996. The sea fisheries of Scotland: A historical geography. Edinburgh: John
Donald Press.
Coward, H., R. Ommer, and T.J. Pitcher (Eds.) 2000. Fish ethics: Justice in the Cana-
dian fisheries. St. John’s, Newfoundland: Institute of Social and Economic Re-
search, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Creswell, R.L. and R. Flos 2002. Perspectives on responsible aquaculture for the new
millenium. Baton Rouge: the World Aquaculture Society; Oostende, Belgium: the
European Aquaculture Society.
Crozier, M. 1964. The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Crucible Group 2000. Seeding Solutions: Policy options for Genetic Resources. Vol. 1.
Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.
CUTS (Consumer Unity and Trust Society) 2001. Standards and market access. Avail-
able http://cuts.org/sps-analysis-sps_case_kny.htm (Accessed 15 July 2002).
Cyert, R.M. and J.G. March 1963. A behavioural theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Dahlberg, F. 1981. Woman the gatherer. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Davenport, J., K. Black, G. Burnell, T. Cross, S. Culloty, S. Ekaratne, B. Furness, M.
Mulcahy, and H. Thetmeyer 2003. Aquaculture: The ecological issues. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Davis, D.L. and J. Nadel-Klein 1992. Gender, culture and the sea: Contemporary
theoretical approaches. Society and Nature Resources 5: 135-147.
Davis, S. 1984. Aboriginal claims to coastal waters in North Eastern Arnhem Land,
Northern Australia. In: K. Ruddle and T. Akimichi (Comps.), Maritime institu-
tions in Western Pacific. Pp. 231-251. Osaka: Senri Ethnological Studies, National
Museum of Ethnology.
Dayton, P.K., S.F. Thrush, M.T. Agardy, and R.J. Hofman 1995. Environmental ef-
fects of marine fishing. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 5:
205-232.
References 383
De Andrade, R. 1999. Fisheries disputes in Latin America. ECLAC Environment and
Development Series Paper No. 5. Santiago: ECLAC.
Deere, C. 1999a. Eco-labelling and sustainable fisheries. Washington DC: IUCN.
Deere, C. 1999b. Net gains: linking fisheries management, international trade and sus-
tainable development. Washington DC: IUCN.
Degnbol, P. 2003. Science and the user perspective: The scale gap and the need for
co-management. In: D.C. Wilson, J.R. Nielsen, and P. Degnbol (Eds.), The fish-
eries co-management experience: Accomplishments, challenges and prospects. Pp. 31-
49. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Degnbol, P., A. Eide, J.T. de Almeida, V. Johnsen, and J. Raakjær Nielsen 2002. A
study of the fisheries sector of Mozambique. Oslo: NORAD.
Delgado, C.L., M.W. Rosegrant, S. Meijer, N. Wada, and M. Ahmed 2002. Fish to
2020: Implications of global fish outlook for developing countries. Washington DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute; Penang, Malaysia: World Fish Cen-
ter.
Delgado, C.L., N. Wada, M.W. Rosegrant, S. Meijer, and M. Ahmed 2003. Fish to
2020: Supply and demand in changing global markets. Washington DC: Interna-
tional Food Policy Research Institute; Penang, Malaysia: World Fish Center.
Denzau, A.T. and D.C. North 2000. Shared mental models: Ideologies and institu-
tions. In: A. Lupia, M.D. McCubbins, and S.L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason.
Pp. 23-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Des Clers, S. and C.E. Nauen (Eds.) 2002. New concepts and indicators in fisheries and
aquaculture/ Nouveaux concepts et indicateurs pour la peche et l’aquaculture/ Nuevos
conceptos e indicadores para las pesquerias y la acuicultura. Brussels: ACP-EU Fish-
eries Research Report No. 13.
De Silva, P. 1993. Buddhist ethics. In: P. Singer (Ed.), A Companion to ethics. Pp. 58-
67. Oxford: Blackwell.
DeVorets, D. and K.G. Salvanes 1993. Market structure for farmed salmon. Ameri-
can Journal of Agricultural Economics 75 (2): 227-233.
DFID 1999. Introduction, overview. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets 1.1.
London: UK Department for International Development.
Diallo, M.M., V. Fautrel, R.P. Milimono, and K. Solie 1996. Fish marketing in Gui-
nea: An overview of the main marketing player. EC Fisheries Cooperation Bulletin
9 (4): 16-17.
Die, D. 2002. Design and implementation of management plans. FAO Fisheries Tech-
nical Paper No. 424: 205-220. Rome: FAO.
Dierberg, F.E. and W. Kiattisimkul 1996. Issues, impacts, and implications of
shrimp aquaculture in Thailand. Environmental Management 20 (5): 649-666.
Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea 2003. A historical perspective.
Available http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_
historical_perspective.htm (Accessed 11 February 2005).
Djelic, M.L. and S. Quack (Eds.) 2003. Globalization and institutions. Redefining the
rules of the economic game. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
DOF (Thailand Department of Fisheries) 2002. Thai fishing vessels statistics 2000.
Document No. 16/2002. Bangkok: Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives,
Department of Fisheries.
Dollar, S.J. and G.W. Tribble 1993. Recurrent storm disturbance and recovery: A
long-term study of coral communities in Hawaii. Coral Reefs 12: 223-233.
Donagan, A. 1992. Twentieth-century Anglo-American ethics. In: L.C. Becker and
C.B. Becker (Eds.), A history of Western ethics. Pp. 142-154. New York: Garland
Publishers.
384 References
Done, T.J. 1999. Coral community adaptability to environmental changes at scales
of regions, reefs and reef zones. American Zoologist 39: 66-79.
Drainville, A.C. 2004. Contesting globalization: Space and place in the world economy.
London: Routledge
Dror, Y. 2002. The capacity to govern. A report to the Club of Rome. London: Frank
Class.
Duff, A.S. 2000. Information society studies. London: Routledge.
Dunn, E. 2003. The role of environmental NGOs in fisheries governance. Paper
presented to the Workshop on Fisheries Governance Politics, Newcastle, UK, 4-6 Sep-
tember 2003.
Duplisea, D.E. and S.R. Kerr 1995. Application of a biomass size spectrum model to
demersal fish data from the Scotian Shelf. Journal of Theoretical Biology 177: 263-
269.
Durkheim, E. 1964 [1893]. The division of labor in society. London: The Free Press.
Durrenberger, E.P. 1996. Gulf coast soundings: People and policy in the Mississippi
shrimp industry. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
Dwire, A. 1996. Paradise under siege: A case study of aquacultural development in
Nova Scotia. In: C. Bailey, S. Jentoft, and P. Sinclair (Eds.), Aquacultural develop-
ment: Social dimensions of an emerging industry. Pp. 93-110. Boulder: Westview
Press.
Dyer, C.L. and J.R. McGoodwin (Eds.) 1994 Folk management in the world’s fisheries:
Lessons for modern fisheries management. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Eagle, J., R. Naylor, and W. Smith 2004. Why farm salmon outcompete fishery sal-
mon. Marine Policy 28:259-270.
Eberlee, J. 2003. Assessing the benefits of bio-prospecting in Latin America. Re-
ports: Science from the Developing World. Available http://www.idrc.ca/reports/
read_article_english.cfm?article_num=609 (Accessed 15 April 2003).
Edel, A. 1986. Ethical theory and moral practice. In: J.P. Demarco and R.M. Fox
(Eds.), New directions in ethics. Pp. 317-335. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Edwards, P. 1998. A systems approach for the promotion of integrated aquaculture.
Aquaculture Economics and Management 2 (1): 1-12.
Edwards, P. 2000. Wastewater-fed aquaculture: State of the art. In: B.B. Jana, R.D.
Banerjee, B. Conterstam, and J. Heeb (Eds.), Waste recycling and resource manage-
ment in the developing world. Pp. 37-69. Kalayani, India: University of Kalayani;
Geneva: International Ecological Engineering Society.
Edwards, P., R.S.V. Pullin, and J.A. Gartner 1988. Research and education for the
development of integrated crop-livestock-fish farming systems in the tropics.
ICLARM Studies and Reviews 16. Manila: International Center for Living Aquatic
Resources Management.
Edwards, P., D.C. Little, and H. Demaine (Eds.) 2002. Rural aquaculture. Walling-
ford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Elliot, C.M. (Ed.) 2003. Civil society and democracy. A reader. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Ellis, F. 2000. Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. 2003. The empty ocean. Washington DC: Island Press.
El-Saidy, D.M.S.D. and M.M.A. Gaber 2002. Complete replacement of fishmeal by
soybean meal with dietary L-lysine supplementation for Nile tilapia Oreochromis
niloticus (L.) fingerlings. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 33 (3): 297-306.
References 385
Elvevoll, E.O. and D.G. James 2000. Potential benefits of fish for maternal, foetal
and neonatal nutrition. Food, Nutrition and Agriculture 27: 28-39.
Erkoreka Gervasio, J. 1991. Análisis histórico institucional de las cofradías de mareantes
del país vasco. Vitoria: Gobierno Vasco.
Escallier, C. 1995. L’Empreinte de la mer: Identité des pêcheurs de Nazaré, Portugal.
Ethnologie d’une communauté de pêcheurs. Paris: Département d’Anthropologie,
Université de Paris X-Nanterre.
Essuman, K.M. 1992. Fermented fish in Africa: A study on processing, marketing and
consumption. T329. Rome: FAO.
European Commission 2003. The use of fish by-products in aquaculture. Report of
the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare. Brussels: Health and Con-
sumer Protection Directorate General, European Commission.
European Parliament 2003. European Parliament resolution on aquaculture in the Eu-
ropean Union: Present and Future (2002/2058 (INI)). Brussels: European Com-
mission.
Evans, C. 2003. Managing for knowledge. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Eythórsson, E. 1996. Theory and practice of ITQs in Iceland. Privatization of com-
mon fishing rights. Marine Policy 20 (3): 269-281.
Fagbenro, O.A. 1997. A review of biological and economic principles underlying
commercial fish culture in Nigeria. Journal of West African Fisheries 3 (2): 171-177.
Fairtrade Foundation. Available http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/about_standards.htm
(Accessed 4 March 2005).
FAO 1985. Fish processing in Africa. Proceedings of the FAO expert consultation on
fish technology in Africa. (R329 Suppl.). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion.
FAO 1995. Code of Conduct For Responsible Fisheries. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization.
FAO 1996. Precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introductions.
FAO Technical guidelines for responsible fisheries No. 2. Rome: Food and Agricul-
ture Organization.
FAO 1997a. Aquaculture development. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fish-
eries No. 5. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
FAO 1997b. Fisheries management. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fish-
eries No. 4. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
FAO 1998. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization.
FAO 1999a. Numbers of fishers 1970-1996. Fishery Information Data and Statistics
Unit. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
FAO 1999b. Yearbook of fisheries statistics: Commodities. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization.
FAO 1999c. International plan of action for the management of fishing capacity. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization.
FAO 1999d. Indicators for sustainable development of marine capture fisheries. FAO
Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 8. Rome: Food and Agricul-
ture Organization.
FAO 2000a. FAO yearbook of fisheries statistics. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organi-
zation.
FAO 2000b. El estado mundial de la pesca y la acuicultura-2000 (SOFIA). Available
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X8002S/x8002s04.htm.
386 References
FAO 2001a. The state of food and agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion.
FAO 2001b. Plan of action for women in development. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization.
FAO 2001c. The state of food insecurity in the world 2001. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization.
FAO 2001d. Aquaculture in the third millennium. Technical proceedings of the Con-
ference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. Rome: Food and Agriculture Or-
ganization.
FAO 2002a. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2002. Rome: Food and Agri-
culture Organization.
FAO 2002b. World fisheries and aquaculture atlas. CD-Rom. Rome: Food and Agri-
culture Organization.
FAO 2002c. Community fishery centres: Guidelines for establishment and operation.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
FAO 2003a. FAOSTAT: FAO statistical database. Rome: Food and Agriculture Orga-
nization.
FAO 2003b. Farming fish for the future, sustainably. Report of the FAO Sub-Commit-
tee on Aquaculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Available http://
www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2003/21619-en.html.
FAO 2003c. Supply utilisation accounts and food balance sheets in the context of a na-
tional statistical system. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Available
http://www.fao.org/es/ESS (Accessed 3 January 2003).
FAO 2003d. Review of the state of world aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Circular No.
886, Rev.2. FIRI/C886 (REV.2). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
FAO 2003e. Fish is food for the brain as well as good protein. Rome: Food and Agricul-
ture Organization. Available http://www.fao/org/focus/e/fisheries/nutr.htm (Ac-
cessed 26 March 2003).
FAO 2003f. Aquaculture: Not just an export industry. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization Available http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/
aquacutlre.htm (Accessed 17 September 2003).
FAO 2003g. Introducing fisheries subsidies. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 437.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
FAO 2003h. The state of food insecurity in the world 2003. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization.
FAO 2004a. Fisheries and aquaculture issues fact sheet, United Nations fish stocks agree-
ment. Available http://www.fao.org/figis (Accessed 9 April 2004).
FAO 2004b. Report of the second session of the Working Party on Small-scale Fisheries.
Bangkok, Thailand, n18-21 November 2003. FAO Fisheries Reports No. 735:
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
FAO/DFID 2004. Sustainable fisheries livelihoods programme. Rome: Food and Agri-
culture Organization. London: Department For International Development.
Available http://www.sflp.org/ (Accessed April 21, 2004).
Farrow, S. and U.R. Sumaila 2002. Conference summary: The ‘new’emerging econom-
ics of marine protected areas. Fish & Fisheries 3: 356-359. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fay, C. 2000. Des poissons et des hommes: Pêcheurs, chercheurs et administra-
teurs face à la pêche au Maasina (Mali). In: J.P. Chauveau, E. Jul-Larsen, and C.
Chaboud (Eds.), Les pêches piroguières en Afrique de l’Ouest. Dynamiques institu-
tionnelles: Pouvoirs, mobilités, marchés. Pp. 125-166. Paris: Karthala, Institut de
recherche pour le développement; Bergen: Christian-Michelsen Institute.
References 387
Fearne, A., S. Hornibrook, and S. Dedman 2001. The management of perceived
risk in the food supply chain: A comparative study of retailer-led beef quality
assurance schemes in Germany and Italy. International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review 4: 19-36.
Feeny, D., F. Berkes, B.J. McCay, and J.M. Acheson 1990. The tragedy of the com-
mons: Twenty-two years later. Human Ecology 18 (1): 1-19.
Felt, L. 1990. Barriers to user participation in the management of the Canadian
Atlantic salmon fishery: If wishes were fishes. Marine Policy (July): 345-360.
Féral, F. 1990. La prud'homie des pêcheurs de Palavas, droit et économie de l'environne-
ment. Lyon: Publications Périodiques Spécialisées.
Ferguson, A.R.B. 1999. The essence of ecological footprints. Letters to the Editor.
Ecological Economics 31: 318-319.
Fine, B. 1998. The triumph of economics: Or, ‘rationality’can be dangerous to your
reasoning. In: J.G. Carrier and D. Miller (Eds.), Virtualism: A new political econo-
my. Pp. 49-73. New York: Berg.
Fink, D.B. 1998. Judaism and ecology: A theology of creation. Earth Ethics 10 (1).
Finlayson, A.C. 1994. Fishing for truth: A sociological analysis of northern cod stock
assessments from 1977-1990. St. John’s, Newfoundland: Institute of Social and
Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Finlayson, A.C. and B.J. McCay 1998. Crossing the threshold of ecosystem resili-
ence: The commercial extinction of northern cod. In: F. Berkes and C. Folke
(Eds.), Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social me-
chanisms for building resilience. Pp. 311-337. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Finnish Sami Parliament 1997. Land rights, linguistic rights, and cultural autono-
my for the Finnish Sami people. Indigenous Affairs 33/4.
Firth, R. 1966. Malay fishermen: Their peasant economy. Hamden: Archon Books.
Fishing News 2003. Get ready now for catch traceability. 9 May: 6.
Flyvbjerg, B. 2001. Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University
press.
Folke, C. and N. Kaustky 1992. Aquaculture with its environment: Prospects for
sustainability. Ocean and Coastal Management 17: 5-24.
Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and B. Walker
2002. Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a
world of transformations. Ambio 31: 437-440.
Folkerts, H. and H. Koehorst 1998. Challenges in international food supply chains:
Vertical co-ordination in the European agribusiness and food industries. British
Food Journal 100 (8): 385-388.
Fonseca, M.S., G.W. Thayer, and A.J. Chester 1984. Impact of scallop harvesting on
eelgrass (Zoostera marina) meadows: Implications for management. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 4: 286-293.
Frangoudes, K. 1997. Marine resource management in the French and Greek Mediterra-
nean, final report. MARE/EU, Contract EV5V-CT94-0386. Brest: OIKOS
Frangoudes, K. 2002. Fisherwomen in France: Role, organisations and claims. Con-
tribution to Workshop on Gender in Fisheries and Aquaculture, EC/INCO pro-
gramme, Brussels, Belgium, 9-10 December 2002. Unpublished manuscript.
Franquesa, R. 1993. Le rôle des organisations professionnelles dans la gestion des pêches
en Méditerranée: Étude de cas concernant de l’Espagne. DGXIV, contrat 1/med/91/
010. Barcelona: University of Barcelona.
Fraser, O. and S. Sumar 1998. Compositional changes and spoilage in fish –An
introduction. Nutrition and Food Science 5: 275-279.
388 References
Friedrich, C.J. 1963. Man and his government. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Friis, P. 1994. Some outlines for the future of European fishing industry. Contribu-
tion to EC/AIR Programme Workshop, Brussels, Belgium, 5-6 May 1994.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly (Eds.) 1998. FISHBASE 98: Concepts, design and data
sources. Manila: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly (Eds.) 1999. FISHBASE 99: Concepts, design and data
sources. Penang, Malaysia: World Fish Center.
Galbraith, J.K. 1973. Economics and the public purpose. London: Penguin Books.
Garcia, S.M. and R. Willmann 1999. Responsible marine capture fisheries: Main
global issues and solutions. In: Sustainable Agriculture Solutions: The Action Re-
port of the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative. Pp. 277-291. London: Novello Press
Ltd.
Garcia, S.M. and D. Staples 2000a. Sustainability indicators in marine capture fish-
eries: introduction to the special issue. Marine and Freshwater Research 51: 381-
384.
Garcia, S.M. and D. Staples 2000b. Sustainability reference systems and indicators
for responsible marine capture fisheries: A review of concepts and elements for
a set of guidelines. Marine and Freshwater Research 51: 385-426.
Garcia, S.M. and I.L. Moreno 2003. Global overview of marine fisheries. In: M.
Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson (Eds.), Responsible fisheries in the marine ecosystem.
Pp. 1-24. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Garrison, L.P. and J.S. Link 2000. Fishing effects on spatial distribution and trophic
guild structure of the fish communtiy in the Georges Bank region. ICES Journal
of Marine Science 57: 723-730.
GATT 1947. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Available http://www.wto.
org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_01_e.htm (Accessed 11 February 2005).
Geertz, C. 1966. Agricultural involution: The process of ecological change in Indonesia.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gemmill, B. and A. Bamidele-Izu, n.d. The role of NGOs and civil society in global
environmental governance. In: D.C. Esty and M.H. Ivanova (Eds.), Global envir-
onmental governance: Options and opportunities. Yale Center for Environmental
Law and Policy. Available http://www.yale.edu/environment/publications/geg/
gemmill.pdf.
Gibbon, P. 1997. Of saviours and punks: The political economy of the Nile Perch market-
ing chain in Tanzania. Working Paper 97.3. Copenhagen: Centre for Develop-
ment Research.
Gibson, C.C., E. Ostrom, and T.K. Ahn 2000. The concept of scale and the human
dimensions of global change: A survey. Ecological Economics 32: 217-239.
Gibson, C.C., M.A. McKean, and E. Ostrom 2000. Forests, people and governance:
Some initial theoretical lessons. In: C.C. Gibson, M.A. McKean, and E. Ostrom
(Eds.), People and forests: Communities, institutions, and governance. Pp. 227-242.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Oxford: Polity Press.
Gillespie, S. and L. Haddad 2001. Attacking the double burden of malnutrition in Asia
and the Pacific. ADB Nutrition and Development Series No. 4. Manila: Asian
Development Bank.
Glencross, B., J. Curnow, W. Hawkins, and M. Felsing 2002. Evaluation of yellow
lupin Lupinus lutens meal as an alternative protein resource in diets for sea-cage
reared rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Journal of the World Aquaculture So-
ciety 33 (3): 287-296.
References 389
Globefish 1994. Fish trade in West Africa. Globefish Research Programme. Vol. 29.
Rome: FAO.
Gordon, D.V. and R. Hannesson 1996. On prices of fresh and frozen cod fish in
European and U.S. markets. Marine Resource Economics 11: 223-238.
Goulding, I. 2002. Health conditions and trade in fishery products. Contribution to
the 14
th
Annual Conference, European Association of Fisheries Economists, University
of the Algarve, 25-27 March 2002. Alfeizerão, Portugal: Megapesca.
Graham, M. 1948. Rational fishing of the cod of the North Sea. Being the Buckland
Lectures for 1939. London: Edvard Arnold.
Graham, P., N. Klijn, A. Cox, A. Stokes, and J. Hartmann 1998. Modelling seafood
trade liberalism in the APEC region. In: A. Eide and T. Vassdal (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 9
th
Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics
and Trade. Vol. 2. Tromsø: IIFET.
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of em-
beddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91 (3): 481-510.
Graz, M. 2002. Realizing new tracing technology in food safety manufacturing systems:
A case study in the fishing industry (Mimeo). Cape Town, South Africa: Irvin and
Johnson.
Greenstreet, S.P. and S.J. Hall 1996. Fishing and groundfish assemblage structure
in the north western North Sea: An analysis of long term and spatial trends.
Journal of Animal Ecology 65: 577-598.
Grzetic, B., M. Shrimpton, and S. Skipton 1996. Women, employment, equity and the
Hibernia construction project: A study of women’s experiences on the Hibernia con-
struction Project, Mosquito Cove, Newfoundland. St. John’s, Newfoundland: WITT
Newfoundland.
GWP 2002a. Dialogue on effective water governance. Stockholm: Secretariat for the
Global Water Partnership.
GWP 2002b. Toolbox. Integrated Water Resources Management. Policy Guidance and
Operational Tools. Version I. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership.
Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hahn, M.H. and R.V. Ribeiro 1999. Heuristic guided simulator for the operational
planning of the transport of sugar cane. Journal of the Operational Research So-
ciety 50 (5): 451-460.
Hall, S. 1994. Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: Life in un-
consolidated sediments. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 32:
179-239.
Hall, S. 1999. Effects of fishing on marine ecosystems and communities. Oxford: Black-
well.
Handfield, R.B. and E.L. Nichols, Jr. 1996. Introduction to supply chain management.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hannerz, U. 1996. Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. London and
New York: Routledge.
Hannesson, R. 1996. Fisheries mismanagement: The case of the Atlantic cod. London:
Blackwell.
Hannesson, R. 2001. The role of economic tools in redefining fisheries manage-
ment. In: T.J. Pitcher, P.J.B. Hart, and D. Pauly (Eds.), Reinventing fisheries man-
agement. Pp. 251-260. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Haraway, D. 1994. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York:
Routledge.
Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248.
390 References
Hardy, R.W. and J.A. Green 1999. How much feed does the world need? Aquacul-
ture Asia IV (1): 4-8.
Harrison, R. 1995. The collected papers of Roger Harrison. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Hart, M.W. and R.E. Scheibling 1988. Heat waves, baby booms and the destruction
of kelp beds by sea urchins. Marine Biology 99: 167-176.
Harvey, B., C. Ross, D. Greer, and J. Carolsfeld (Eds.) 1998. Action before extinction:
An international conference on conservation of fish genetic diversity. Victoria, Canada:
World Fisheries Trust.
Harvey, D. 1989. The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Haskell, B.D., B.G. Norton and R. Costanza 1992. What is ecosystem health and
why should we worry about it? In: R. Costanza, B.G. Norton, and B.D. Haskell
(Eds.), Ecosystem health: New goals for sustainable development. Pp. 3-20. Covelo:
Island Press.
Hatcher, B.G. 1997. Coral reef ecosystems: How much greater is the whole than the
sum of the parts? Coral Reefs 16 suppl.: S77-S91.
Haughton M.O., R. Mahon, P. McConney, G.A. Kong, and A. Mills 2004. Establish-
ment of the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism. Marine Policy, 28: 351-
359.
Hawkins, J.P., C.M. Roberts, and V. Clark 2000 The threatened status of restricted-
range coral reef fish species. Animal Conservation 3: 81-88.
Helgason, A. and G. Pálsson 1998. Cash for quotas: Disputes over the legitimacy of
an economic model of fishing in Iceland. In: J.G. Carrier and D. Miller (Eds.),
Virtualism: A new political economy. Pp. 117-135. Oxford and New York: Berg.
Henson, S., A.M. Brouder, and W. Mitullah 2000. Food safety requirements and
food exports from developing countries: The case of fish exports from Kenya to
the European Union. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82 (5): 1159-
1169.
Hernes, H.K., S. Jentoft, and K.H. Mikalsen 2005. Fisheries governance, social jus-
tice and participatory decision-making. In: T. Gray (Ed.), Participation in fisheries
governance. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hersoug, B. 2004. Exporting fish, importing institutions –Fisheries development
in the Third World. In: B. Hersoug, S. Jentoft, and P. Degnbol (Eds.), Fisheries
development: The institutional challenge. Pp. 21-93. Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
Hersoug, B., S. Jentoft, and P. Degnbol 2004. Fisheries development: The institutional
challenge. Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
Hessel, D.T. 1998. Christianity and ecology: Wholeness, respect, justice, sustain-
ability. Earth Ethics 10 (1):
Hetherington, C. 1995. Celebrating diversity. Duluth, Minnesota: Whole Person As-
sociation.
Hilborn, R. and C.J. Walters 1992. Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: Choice, dy-
namics, and uncertainty. London: Chapman and Hall.
Hill, T.E., Jr. 1991. Autonomy and self-respect. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hillery, G.A.J. 1955. Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology
20: 111-123.
Hites, R.A., J.A. Foran, D.O. Carpenter, M.C. Hamilton, B.A. Knuth, and S.J.
Schwager 2004. Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon.
Science 303: 226-229.
Hobbes, T. 1991 [1651]. Leviathan. Tuck R. (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
References 391
Hobley, M. and D. Shields 2000. The reality of trying to transform structures and pro-
cesses: Forestry in rural livelihoods. Working Paper 132. London: Overseas Develop-
ment Institute.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 1999. Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the
world's coral reefs. Marine and Freshwater Research 8: 839-866.
Hoffman, J.M. and S. Mehra 2000. Efficient consumer response as a supply chain
strategy for grocery businesses. International Journal of Service Industry Manage-
ment 11 (4): 365-374.
Holland, A. 2002. Are choices tradeoffs? In: D.W. Bromley and J. Paavola (Eds.),
Economics, ethics, and environmental policy. Pp. 17-33. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hollingworth, C. (Ed.) 2000. Ecosystem effects of fishing. ICES Journal of Marine
Science 57 (3), special issue 465-792.
Holm, P. 1995. The dynamics of institutionalization: Transforming processes in
Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly 40: 398-422.
Holman, P. and T. Devane (Eds.) 1999. The change handbook: group methods for shap-
ing the future. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
Horemans, B.W. and A.M. Jallow (Eds.) 1997. Report of the Workshop on Gender Roles
and Issues in Artisanal Fisheries in West Africa, Lomé, Togo, 11-13 December 1996.
IDAF/WP/97. Cotonou, Benin: Programme for the integrated development of
artisanal fisheries in West Africa.
Hoza, R.B. 1999. Study on the impact of the EU-ban of 1999 to Nile Perch fish exports
from Lake Victoria. Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project. Available
http://www.lvemp.org/L_News-articles-events/Tanzania/articles/eu_fish__ban
1999.htm (Accessed 19 August 2002).
Hubbell, S.P. 2001. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press.
Hughes, T.P. 1994. Catastrophes, phase shifts and large scale-degradation of a Car-
ibbean coral reef. Science 265: 1547-1551.
Hutchings, J.A. 2000. Collapse and recovery of marine fishes. Nature 406: 882-885.
Hutchings, P. 1990. Review of the effects of trawling on macrobenthic epifaunal
communities. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 41 (1): 111-120.
ICLARM 1992. ICLARM’s strategy for international research on living aquatic resources
management. Makati, Philippines: International Center for Living Aquatic Re-
sources Management.
ICSF 1995. NGOs and the FAO: Collaboration on the Code of Conduct. Responsible
Fisheries, Development Education Exchange Papers (DEEP). Rome: International
Collective for the support of fishworkers and Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion.
ICSF 2004. Home page International Collective in Support of Fishworkers. Avail-
able: http://www.icsf.net/jsp/english/index.jsp. (Accessed 22 April 2004).
ILO 1944. Declaration concerning the aims and purposes of the International Labour
Organization. ILO General Conference 26
th
Session. Available http://www.ilo.
org/public/english/about/iloconst.htm (Accessed 11 February 2005).
ILO 1948. Freedom of association and protection of the right to organize (No. 87). Inter-
national Labour Organization, General Conference 31
st
Session. Available http://
www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/j_ilo87.htm (Accessed 11 February 2005).
ILO 2000. Safety and health in the fishing industry. Report for discussion at the tripartite
meeting on safety and health in the fishing industry, Geneva, Switzerland, 13-17 De-
cember 1999. Geneva: International Labour Organization.
392 References
ILO 2003. Conditions of work in the fishing sector. A comprehensive standard (a Conven-
tion supplemented by a Recommendation) on work in the fishing sector. Report V (1)
for the International Labour Conference, 92
nd
Session 2004.Available http://
www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc92/pdf/rep-v-1.pdf (Accessed
11 February 2005).
Indicello, S., M. Weber, and R. Wieland 1999. Fish, markets and fishermen. The eco-
nomics of overfishing. Washington DC: Island Press.
Ingram, A. 1994. A political theory of rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Innis, H.A. 1954. The cod fisheries: The history of an international economy. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
IUCN 1991. Caring for the Earth. Published in co-operation with UNEP and WWF.
Gland (Switzerland): IUCN –The World Conservation Union.
IUCN 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. Gland, Switzerland
and Cambridge, UK: IUCN and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
Jackson, J. 2001. What was natural in the coastal oceans? Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science 98 (10): 5411-5418.
Jackson, J., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R.
H. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B.
Lange, H.S. Lenihan, J.M. Pandolfi, C.H. Peterson, R.S. Steneck, M.J. Tegner, R.
R. Warner 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosys-
tems. Science 293: 629-638.
Jacobs, M. 1999. Sustainable development as a contested concept. In: A. Dobson
(Ed.), Fairness and futurity: Essays on environmental sustainability and social justice.
Oxford: Pp. 21-45. Oxford University Press.
Jallow, A.M. 1994. Utilization of Bonga (Ethmalosa Ffimbriata) in West Africa. FAO
Fisheries Circular. No. 870. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Jansen, E.G. 1999. Out of a Lake. Samudra (Sept.): 7-8.
Jansen, E.G., R.O. Abila, and J.P. Owino 1999. Constraints and opportunities for com-
munity participation in the management of the Lake Victoria fisheries. IUCN Eastern
Africa programme. Available http://www.iucn.org/places/lakevictoria/6.htm
(Accessed 19 August 2002).
Jennings, S. and N.V.C. Polunin 1997. Impacts of predator depletion by fishing on
the biomass and diversity of non-target reef fish. Coral Reefs 16: 71-82.
Jennings, S. and M.J. Kaiser 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems.
Advances in Marine Biology 34: 2-27.
Jennings, S., J.D. Reynolds, and N.V.C. Polunin 1999. Predicting the vulnerability
of tropical reef fishes to exploitaiton with phylogenies and life histories. Conser-
vation Biology 13 (6): 1466-75.
Jennings, S., J.K. Pinnegar, N.V.C. Polunin, and K.J. Warr 2001. Impacts of trawling
disturbance on the trophic structure of benthic invertebrate communities. Mar-
ine Ecology Progress Series 213: 127-142.
Jentoft, S. 1985. Models of fishery development: The cooperative approach. Marine
Policy 9 (4): 322-331.
Jentoft, S. 1986. Fisheries co-operatives: Lessons drawn from international experi-
ences. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 7 (2): 197-209.
Jentoft, S. 1989. Fisheries co-management: Delegating government responsibility to
fishermen’s organizations. Marine Policy 13 (2): 137-154.
Jentoft, S. 2000a. The community: A missing link of fisheries management. Marine
Policy 24 (1): 53-60.
References 393
Jentoft, S. 2000b. Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries management. Marine
Policy 24 (2): 141-148.
Jentoft, S. 2004a. Institutions in fisheries: What they are, what they do, and how
they change. Marine Policy 28 (2): 137-149.
Jentoft, S. 2004b. Public-private management in European fisheries. Samudra
37:14-16.
Jentoft, S. and B.J. McCay 1995. User participation in fisheries management: Les-
sons drawn from international experiences. Marine Policy 19 (3): 227-246.
Jentoft, S., B. McCay, and D.C. Wilson 1998. Social theory and fisheries co-manage-
ment. Marine Policy 22 (4-5): 423-436.
Jentoft, S., P. Friis, J. Kooiman, and J.W. van der Schans 1999. Knowledge-based
fisheries. In: J. Kooiman, S. Jentoft, and M. van Vliet (Eds.), Creative governance:
Opportunities for fisheries in Europe. Pp. 239-258. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Jentoft, S. and B.J. McCay 2003. The place of civil society in fisheries management:
A research agenda. In: D.C. Wilson, J. Raakjær Nielsen, and P. Degnbol (Eds.),
The fisheries co-management experience. Accomplishments, challenges, and prospects.
Pp. 293-307. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jentoft, S., H. Minde, and Ragnar Nilsen (Eds.) 2003. Indigenous people. Resource
management and global rights. Pp. 1-18. Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
Jentoft, S. and K.H. Mikalsen 2004. A vicious circle? The dynamics of rule produc-
tion in Norwegian fisheries management. Marine Policy 28: 127-135.
JICA (Japanese International Cooperation Industry) 1994. The development study on
improvement of nationwide fish marketing system in Solomon Islands: Final Report,
Mimeo.
Johannes, R.A. and J.W. MacFarlane 1984. Traditional sea rights in the Torres Straits
Islands, with emphasis in Murray Island. In: K. Ruddle and T. Akimichi
(Comps.), Maritime institutions in the Western Pacific. Pp. 253-366. Osaka: Senri
Ethnological Studies, National Museum of Ethnology.
Johannes, R.E. 1978. Traditional marine conservation methods in Oceania and their
demise. Annual Review in Ecology and Systematics 9: 349-364.
Johnson, D. 1999. Merchants, the state and the household: Continuity and change
in a 20
th
century Acadian fishing village. Acadiensis 29 (1): 57-75.
Johnson, D. 2001. Wealth and waste: Contrasting legacies of fisheries development
in Gujarat since the 1950s. Economic and Political Weekly 36 (13): 1095-1102.
Johnson, D. 2002. Emptying the sea of wealth: Globalisation and the Gujarat fishery,
1950 to 1999. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis Guelph: Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, University of Guelph.
Johnston, R. 1995. Developments in seafood markets and marketing research. In:
D.S. Liao (Ed.), International cooperation for fisheries and aquaculture development:
Proceedings of the 7
th
Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries
Economics and Trade. Vol. 3. Taipei: IIFET.
Johnston, R.S. and J.R. Wilson 1987. Interdependencies among fisheries manage-
ment, fisheries trade, and fisheries development: Experiences with extended jur-
isdiction. Marine Fisheries Review 49 (3): 45-55.
Jones, E. 2000. England’s Icelandic fishery in the early modern period. In: D.J.
Starkey, C. Reid, and N. Ashcroft (Eds.), England’s sea fisheries: The commercial
sea fisheries of England and Wales since 1300. London: Chatham Publishing.
Jones, G.P., P.L. Munday, and M.J. Caley 2002. Rarity in coral reef fish commu-
nities. In: P. Sale (Ed.), Coral reef fishes. Pp. 81-102. San Diego: Academic Press.
Jul-Larsen, E. 2000. Prolifération des institutions et performance économique:
L’accès au ressources des pêcheurs migrants à Pointe Noire (Conco). In: J.P.
394 References
Chauveau, E. Jul-Larsen, and C. Chaboud (Eds.), Les pêches piroguières en Afrique
de l'Ouest. Dynamiques institutionnelles: Pouvoirs, mobilités, marchés. Pp. 167-204.
Paris: Karthala, Institut de recherche pour le développement; Bergen: Christian-
Michelsen Institute.
Kaczynski, V.M. and D.L. Fluharty 2002. European policies in West Africa: Who
benefits from fisheries agreements? Marine Policy 26 (2): 75-93.
Kalland, A. 1984. Sea tenure in Tokugawa Japan: The case of Fukuoka domain In: K.
Ruddle and T. Akimichi (Comps.), Maritime institutions in the Western Pacific. Pp.
11-36. Osaka: Senri Ethnological Studies, National Museum of Ethnology.
Kamphorst, B. 1994. A socio-economic study on the distribution and marketing pattern
of marine fish products in Ndian Division, South West Province, Republic of Camer-
oon. FAO/DANIDA Programme for Integrated Development of Artisanal Fish-
eries in West Africa. Cotonou, Benin: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Kassibo, B. 2000. Pêche continentale et migration: contrôle politique et contrôle
social des migrations de pêche dans le Delta central du Niger. In: J.P. Chauveau,
E. Jul-Larsen, and C. Chaboud (Eds.), Les pêches piroguières en Afrique de l'Ouest.
Dynamiques institutionnelles: Pouvoirs, mobilités, marchés. Pp. 231-246. Paris:
Karthala, Institut de recherche pour le développement; Bergen: Christian-Mi-
chelsen Institute.
Kaufman, L. 1992. Catastrophic change in species-rich freshwater ecosystems: The
lessons from Lake Victoria. Bioscience 42 (11): 846-858.
Kaufmann, F.X., G. Majone, and V. Ostrom (Eds.) 1986. Guidance, control, and eva-
luation in the public sector. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kay, R. and J. Alder 1999. Coastal planning and management. New York: E & FN
Spon.
Kazmierski, K.J. and M.K. Formela 1964. The organisation of the distribution of fish in
Poland. Meeting on business decisions in fishery industries, R22, Vol.2 Paper
2.5. Rome: FAO.
Keane, J. (Ed.) 1988. Civil society and the state. London: Verso.
Kearney, M.M. 1995. The local and the global - The anthropology of globalisation
and transnationalism. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 547-565.
Kelleher, G. (Ed.) 1999. Guidelines for marine protected areas. Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN.
Kelleher, G., C. Bleakley, and S. Wells 1995. A global representative system of marine
protected areas. Canberra, Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority;
Washington DC: The World Bank; Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Kelleher, G. and C. Recchia 1998. Lessons from marine protected areas around the
world. Editorial. Parks 8 (2): 1-4.
Kelly, S., D. Scott, and A.B. MacDiarmid 2002. The value of a spillover fishery for
spiny lobsters around a marine reserve in northern New Zealand. Coastal Man-
agement 30: 153-166.
Kempf, E., M. Sutton, and A. Wilson 1996. Wanted alive! Marine fishes in the wild.
Gland, Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature.
Keohane, R. 2002. Power and governance in a partially globalized world. London: Rout-
ledge.
Keown, D. (Ed.) 2000. Contemporary Buddhist ethics. Richmond: Curzon.
Kirman, A. 1994. Market structure and prices: The Marseille fish market. Proceed-
ings of the 6
th
Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Econom-
ics and Trade. Vol 2. Paris.
References 395
Kolar, C.S., D.M. Lodge 2002. Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien
fishes in North America. Science 298: 1233-1236.
Kooiman, J. 2003. Governing as governance. London: Sage Publications.
Kooiman, J., M. van Vliet, and S. Jentoft (Eds.) 1999. Creative governance: Opportu-
nities for fisheries in Europe. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Koslow, J.A., G.W. Boehlert, J.D.M. Gordon, R.L. Haedrich, P. Lorance, and N. Parin
2000. Continental slope and deep-sea fisheries: Implications for a fragile ecosys-
tem. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 548-557.
Kotter, J.P. 1996. Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kowaleski, M. 2000. The internal fish trade (The internal and international fish
trades of medieval England and Wales). In: D.J. Starkey, C. Reid, and N. Ashcroft
(Eds.), England’s sea fisheries: The commercial sea fisheries of England and Wales
since 1300. Pp. 29-31. London: Chatham Publishing.
Krishnarayan, V., T. Geoghegan, and Y. Renard 2002. Assessing capacity for participa-
tory natural resource management. Guideline Series No. 3. Vieux Fort: Caribbean
Natural Resource Institute
Kronen, M. 2002. Gender in fisheries and aquaculture: Case studies from Tonga and Fiji
-South Pacific. Contribution to Workshop on Gender in Fisheries and Aquacul-
ture, Brussels, Belgium, 9-10 December 2002. EC/INCO programme. unpub-
lished.
Kulbicki, M. 1992. Present knowledge of the structure of coral reef fish assemblages
in the Pacific. Coastal resources and systems of the Pacific Basin: Investigation
and steps toward protective management. UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies
147: 31-54.
Kulbicki, M., P. Labrosse, and J. Ferraris, 2004. Basic principles underlying re-
search projects on the links between the ecology and the uses of coral reef fishes
in the Pacific. MARE 3: 28.
Kurien, J. 1985. Technical assistance projects and socio-economic change: Norwe-
gian intervention in Kerala's fisheries development. Economic and Political
Weekly 20: A71-A88.
Kurien, J. 2002. People and the sea: A ‘tropical-majority’world perspective. Mari-
time Studies (MAST) 1 (1): 9-26.
Kurien, J. 2004. Fish trade for the people. Toward understanding the relationship be-
tween international fish trade and food security. Rome: FAO. Available http://www.
tradefoodfish.org/ (Accessed 7 July 2004).
Kurien, J. and A. Paul 2000. Nets for social safety –An Analysis of the growth and
changing composition of social security programmes in the fisheries sector of Kerala
State, India. Samudra Monograph. Chennai: International Collective in Support
of Fishworkers.
Kurlansky, M. 1997. Cod: A biography of the fish that changed the world. London: Jo-
nathan Cape.
Landsbergh, J.H. 2002. The effects of harmful algal blooms on aquatic organisms.
Reviews in Fisheries Science 10 (2): 113-390.
Law, R. 2000. Fishing selection and phenotypic evolution. ICES Journal of Marine
Science 57: 659-668.
Lee, R.B. and I. DeVore 1969. Man the hunter. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Com-
pany.
Leeuw, F.L., R.C. Rist, and R.C. Sonnichsen 1994. Can governments learn? Compara-
tive perspectives on evaluation & organizational learning. New Brunswick: Transac-
tion Publishers.
396 References
Legendre, P. and L. Legendre 1998. Numerical ecology. Developments in Environ-
mental Modelling 20. 2
nd
English Edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Le Grand, J. 1991. Equity and choice. London: Harper.
Lenin, V.I. 1964. The development of capitalism in Russia. Moscow: Progress Publish-
ers.
Le Sann, A. 1998. A livelihood from fishing. London: Intermediate Technology Publi-
cations.
Lightfoot, C., M.A.P. Bimbao, J.P.T. Dalsgaard, and R.S.V. Pullin 1993. Aquaculture
and sustainability through integrated resources management. Outlook on Agri-
culture 22:143-150.
Lightfoot, C. and R. Noble 2001. Tracking the ecological soundness of farming sys-
tems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 19 (1): 9-29.
Linnerooth-Bayer, J. 1999. Climate change and multiple views of fairness. In: F.L.
Tóth (Ed.), Fair weather. Pp. 45-64. London: Earthscan.
Loasby, B.J. 1976. Choice, complexity and ignorance. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Lobe, K. and F. Berkes 2004. The padu system of community-based fisheries man-
agement: Change and local institutional innovation in South India. Marine Policy
28: 271-281.
Lögfren, O. 1979. Marine ecotypes in preindustrial Sweden: A comparative discus-
sion of Swedish peasant fishermen. In: R. Andersen (Ed.), North Atlantic mari-
time cultures: Anthropological essays on changing adaptations. Pp. 83-109. The Ha-
gue: Mouton.
Lokshin, M. and R. Yemtsov 2000. Household strategies for coping with poverty and
social exclusion in post-crisis Russia. Washington DC: World Bank.
Lomborg, B. 2001. The skeptical environmentalist. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Long, N. 2001. Development sociology: Actor perspectives. London: Routledge.
Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and
conservation. Science 260: 17-36.
Lugten, G.L. 1999. A review of measures taken by Regional Fishery Bodies to ad-
dress contemporary fishery issues. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 940. Rome: FAO.
Luhmann, N. 1982. The differentiation of Society. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Lukes, S. 1991. Moral conflict and politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lupia, A., M.D. McCubbins, and S.L. Popkin (Eds.) 2000. Elements of reason. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lupin, H.M. 1999. Producing to achieve HACCP compliance of fishery and aqua-
culture products for export. Food Control 10: 267-275.
MacAlister, E. 2002. The role of women in the fisheries sector. EC/DG Fisheries, Final
Report, 1443/R.03/C. Brussels: European Commission.
MacDonald, M. and P. Connelly 1990. Class and gender in Nova Scotia fishing
communities. In: B. Fairley, C. Leys, and J. Sacouman (Eds.), Class and Gender in
Nova Scotia Fishing Communities. Pp. 151-170. Toronto: Garamond.
MacFadyen, G. 2002. Poverty alleviation in small-scale fishing communities. Mimeo.
Macinko, S. and D.W. Bromley 2002. Who owns America's fisheries? Center for Re-
source Economics. Covelo: Island Press.
MacLean, D. 1998. The ethics of cost-benefit analysis: Incommensurable, incompa-
tible and incomparable values. In: M.M. Carrow, R.P. Churchill, and J.J. Cordes
(Eds.), Democracy, social values, and public policy. Pp. 107-121. Westport: Praeger.
References 397
Maclean, J.L. 1988. Thanks for using Naga. Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly 11 (3): 16-
17.
Maclean, J.L. 1993. Developing-country aquaculture and harmful algal blooms. In:
R.S.V. Pullin, H. Rosenthal, and J.L. Maclean (Eds.), Environment and aquacul-
ture in developing countries. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 31:252-284. Ma-
kati, Philippines: ICLARM.
Mahon, R., S. Almerigi, P. McConney, C. Parker, and L. Brewster 2003. Participa-
tory methodology used for sea urchin co-management in Barbados. Ocean and
Coastal Management. 46 (1-2): 1-25.
Mahon, R. and P. McConney, 2004. Managing the managers: improving the struc-
ture and operation of small fisheries departments, especially in SIDS. Ocean and
Coastal Management. 47 (9-10): 529-535 .
Malakoff, D. 2002. Mixed schools a must for fish. Science 297: 31-32.
Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the western Pacific: An account of native enterprise
and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge
and Keegan Paul.
Maltby, E. 1999. Ecosystem approach: from principles to practice. In P.J. Schei, O.T.
Sandlund, and R. Strand (Eds). The Norway/UN Conference on the Ecosystem Ap-
proach to sustainable use of biological diversity. Proceedings of the Trondheim Con-
ference, September. Pp. 30-40. Trondheim, Norway: International Institute for
Sustainable Development (IISD).
Mann, K.H. 1982. Ecology of coastal waters: A systems approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
Manz, C.C. and H.P. Sims 2003. The new superleadership: leading others to lead them-
selves. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Manzany, L., N. Roy, and W.E. Schrank 1996. Multi-product allocation under imper-
fect raw material supply conditions: The case of products. Applied Economics 28:
387-396.
Maragos, J.E., M.P. Crosby, and J.W. McManus 1996. Coral reefs and biodiversity: A
critical and threatened relationship. Oceanography 9 (1): 83-99.
Marashi, S.H. 1996. The role of FAO regional fishery bodies in the conservation and
management of fisheries. Fisheries Circular nº 916. Rome: FAO.
March, J.G. and J.P. Olsen 1995. Democratic governance. New York: The Free Press.
Mariojouls, C. and K. de Lesquen 1997. Recent evolutions in the fisheries chain in
France. Proceedings of the 9
th
Annual Conference of the European Association of Fish-
eries Economists,Quimper, France, 28-30 April. Quimper, France: EAFE.
Mariojouls, C. and C.R. Wessells 2002. Certification and quality signals in the aqua-
culture sector in France. Marine Resource Economics 17: 175-80.
Marsden, T., J. Banks, and G. Bristow 2000. Food supply chain approaches: Explor-
ing their role in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (4): 424-38.
Martinez, N.D. 1996. Defining and measuring functional aspects of biodiversity. In:
K.J. Gaston (Ed.), Biodiversity: A biology of numbers and difference. Pp. 114-148.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Martínez, R.O. 1998. Globalisation and the social sciences. The Social Science Jour-
nal 35 (4): 601-610.
Martínez Pratt, A.R. 2003. The impact of TRIPS and the CBD on coastal communities.
ICSF Occasional Paper. Chennai: International Collective in Support of Fishwor-
kers.
Martino, R.C., L.C. Trugo, E.P. Cyrino, and L. Portz 2003. Use of white fat as a
replacement for squid liver oil in practical diets for surubim Pseudoplatystoma
coruscans.Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 34 (2): 192-202.
398 References
Mason, H.E. (Ed.) 1996. Moral dilemmas and moral theory. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Mathew, S. 2003. Small-scale fisheries perspectives on an ecosystem-based ap-
proach to fisheries management. In: M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson (Eds.),
Responsible fisheries in the marine ecosystem. Pp. 47-63. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Publishing.
Maxwell, S. 1996. Food security: A post-modern approach. Food Policy 21 (2): 155-
170.
McCann, K.S. 2000. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405: 228-233.
McCay, B.J. 1981. Development issues in fisheries as agrarian systems. Culture and
Agriculture 11: 1-8.
McCay, B.J. and S. Jentoft 1998. Market or community failure? Critical perspectives
on common property research. Human Organization 57 (1): 21-29.
McCay, B.J. and S. Brandt 2001. Changes in fleet capacity and ownership of harvest-
ing rights in the United States surf clam and ocean quahog fishery. In: R. Shot-
ton (Ed.), Case studies on the effects of transferable fishing rights on fleet capacity and
concentration of quota ownership. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 412. Pp. 44-60.
Rome: FAO.
McClanahan, T.R. 1994. Kenyan coral reef lagoon fish: Effects of fishing, substrate
complexity, and sea urchins. Coral Reefs 13: 231-241.
McConney, P.A. 1999. Organising fisherfolk in Barbados without completing a
clean round. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 52: 290-299.
McConney, P.A. and R. Mahon 1998. Introducing fisheries management planning
to Barbados. Ocean and Coastal Management 39: 189-195.
McElroy, M.W. 2003. The new knowledge management: Complexity, learning and sus-
tainable innovation. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann.
McEvoy, A.F. 1986. The fisherman's problem: Ecology and law in the California fisheries,
1850-1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGoodwin, J.R. 1990. Crisis in the world's fisheries: People, problems, and policies.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
McGoodwin, J.R. 2001. Understanding the cultures of fishing communities: a key to fish-
eries management and food security. Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 401. Rome:
FAO.
McIntosh, D. 2002. The tragedy of the commons: Perspectives on sustainable aqua-
culture. World Aquaculture 33 (4): 21-22, 64.
McKenzie, J. 1922. Hindu ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McManus, J.W., L.A.B. Menez, K.N. Kesner-Reyes, S.G. Vergara, and M.C. Ablan
2000. Coral reef fishing and coral-algal phase shifts: Implications for global reef
status. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 572-578.
Megapesca 1997. Nile Perch –Marketing success or ecological disaster? Available http://
www.gisl.co.uk/Megapesca/nileperch.html (Accessed 19 August 2002).
Mehra, R. and S. Esim 1998. What gender analysis can contribute to irrigation re-
search and practice in developing countries: Some issues. In: D. Merry and S.
Baviskar (Eds.), Gender analysis and reform of irrigation management: Concepts,
cases, and gaps in knowledge. Proceedings of Workshop on Gender and Water, Habar-
ana, Sri Lanka, 15-19 September 1997. Pp. 265. Colombo, Sri. Lanka: International
Water Management Institute.
Meltzoff, S.K. 2000. Nylon nets and national elites: Alata system of marine tenure
among the Lau of Fanalei village, Port Adam passage, Small Malaita, Solomon
Islands. In: T.D. King and E.P. Durrenberger (Eds.), State and community in fish-
References 399
eries management: Power, policy, and practice. Pp. 69-81. Westport: Bergin &Gar-
vey.
Migdal, J.S. 1988. Strong societies and weak states: State-society relations and state capa-
cities in the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Miki, K. and T. Yamamoto 1992. Fish marketing system developed in Japan and
price maintenance system. In: M. Antona, J. Catanzano, and J.G. Sutinen (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 6
th
Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries
Economics and Trade. Paris.
Milazzo, M. 1998. Subsidies in world fisheries: A re-examination. World Bank Techni-
cal Paper (Fisheries Series) No. 406. Washington DC: World Bank.
Mitchell, B. 1999. La gestión de los recursos y del medio ambiente. Madrid: Mundi-
Prensa.
Mora, C., P.M. Chittaro, P.F. Sale, J.P. Kritzer, and S.A. Ludsin 2003. Patterns and
processes in reef fish diversity. Nature 421: 933-936.
Moran, M. and M. Wright 1991. The market and the state. Studies in interdependence.
London: MacMillan.
Moran, M.J. and P.C. Stephenson 2000. Effects of otter trawling on macrobenthos
and management of demersal scalefish fisheries on the contiental shelf of north-
west Australia. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 510-516.
Morgan, P. 1998. Capacity and Capacity Development –Some Strategies. Note pre-
pared for the Political and Social Policies Division. Quebec: Canadian Interna-
tional Development Agency.
Muir, J.F. and J.A. Young 1998. Aquaculture and marine fisheries: Will capture fish-
eries remain competitive? Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 23: 157-74.
Münch, R. 1988. Understanding modernity. London: Routledge.
Munro, N. and J.H.M. Willison 1998. Linking protected areas with working land-
scapes conserving biodiversity. Proceedings of the 3
rd
International Conference on
Science and Management of Protected Areas, 12-16 May 1997. Wolfville, N.S.:
Science and Management of Protected Areas Association.
Myers, R.A and B. Worm 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish com-
munities. Nature 423: 280-283.
Myrdal, G. 1968. Asian drama. An inquiry into the poverty of nations. London: Allen
Lane.
NACA/FAO 2000. Aquaculture development beyond 2000: The Bangkok declaration
and strategy. Bangkok: Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia (NACA); Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization.
Nadal Egea, A. 1996. Esfuerzo y Captura. Mexico D.F.: El Colegio de Mexico.
Nadel-Klein, J. and D.L. Davis (Eds.) 1988a. To work and to weep: Women in fishing
economies. St. John’s, Newfoundland: Institute of Social and Economic Research,
Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Nadel-Klein, J. and D.L. Davis 1988b. Introduction: Gender in the maritime arena.
In: J. Nadel-Klein and D.L. Davis (Eds.), To work and to weep: Women in fishing
economies. Pp. 1-17. St. John’s, Newfoundland: Institute of Social and Economic
Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Nanji, A. 1993. Islamic ethics. In: P. Singer (Ed.), A companion to ethics. Pp. 106-118.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Naqvi, S.N.H. 2001. The Islamic ethical system. In: K. Ahmad and A.M. Sadeq
(Eds.), Ethics in business and management. Pp. 25-39. London: Asean Academic
Press.
400 References
Narotzky, S. 1988. Trabajar en familia: Mujeres, hogares y talleres. Valencia: Edicions
Alfons El Magnánim Institució Valenciana d'Estudis i Investigació.
Narotzky, S. 1995. Mujer, mujeres, género: Una aproximación crítica al estudio de las
mujeres en las Ciencias Sociales. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Científicas.
National Research Council 2001. Marine protected areas: Tools for sustaining oceans
ecosystems. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Nautilus Consultants (1998) Report on Advisory Committee on Fisheries Organisations.
Prepared for the DGXIV of the European Commission by in collaboration with
Cofrepêche (France), Gico (Italy), IFM (Denmark), LEI (Netherlands) and the
University of Seville (Spain). Edinburgh, UK: Nautilus Consultants.
Naylor, R.L., R.J. Goldburg, H. Mooney, M. Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, N. Kautsky,
J. Lubchenco, J. Primavera, and M. Williams 1998. Nature’s subsidies to shrimp
and salmon farming. Science 282: 883-884.
Naylor, R.L., R.J. Goldburg, J. Primavera, N. Kautsky, M.C.M. Beveridge, J. Clay, C.
Folke, J. Lubchenco, H. Mooney, and M. Troell 2000. Effect of aquaculture on
world fish supplies. Nature 405: 1017-1024.
Naylor, R.L., J. Eagle, and L.S. Whitney 2003. Salmon aquaculture in the Pacific
Northwest: A global industry. Environment 45 (8): 18-39.
Nielsen, J.L. and D.A. Powers (Eds.) 1995. Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: Defin-
ing unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries Society Sympo-
sium 17. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society.
Neilsen, M. 2000. A review of research of market outlets for Nordic fishermen. Copenha-
gen: TemaNord.
New, M.B. 2003. Responsible aquaculture: Is this a special challenge for developing
countries? World Aquaculture 34 (3): 26-30, 60-68, 72.
New, M.B. and U.N. Wijkström 2002. Use of fishmeal and fish oil in aquafeeds.
Further thoughts on the fishmeal trap. Fisheries Circular 975. FIPP/C975. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization.
Noble, B.F. 2000. Institutional criteria for co-management. Marine Policy 24 (1): 69-
77.
North, D.C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Novaczek, I., I.H.T. Harkes, J. Sopacua, and M.D.D. Tathuey 2001. An institutional
analysis of Sasi Laut in Maluku, Indonesia. Penang, Malaysia: International Center
for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
NTAS 1998. Holmenkollen guidelines for sustainable aquaculture 1998. Oslo: Norwe-
gian Academy of Technological Sciences.
Nyström M., C. Folke, and F. Moberg 2000 Coral reefs distubance and resilience in
a human dominated environment. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 15 (10): 413-
417
O’Connor, M. 2002. Social cost and sustainability. In: D.W. Bromley and J. Paavola
(Eds.), Economics, ethics, and environmental policy. Pp. 181-201. Oxford: Blackwell.
Odaka, N. and T. Yamamoto 1992. Fishery cooperative association in Japan and its
vital role in fish marketing. In: M. Antona, J. Catanzano, and J.G. Sutinen (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 6
th
Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries
Economics and Trade. Paris.
Odum, E.P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 104:262-270.
References 401
OECD Committee for Fisheries 2000 Transition to Responsible Fisheries. Economic
and Policy Implications. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and De-
velopment.
Offe, C. 2000. Civil society and social order: Demarcating and combining market,
state and community. Archives Européennes de Sociologique 41 (1): 71-94
Office of the High Commissioner for Minorities Rights 1994. The rights of minorities
(Art. 27). CCPR General Comment 23 (General Comments). New York: United Na-
tions.
Olson, M. 1977. The logic of collective action. Public goods and the theory of groups.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ommer, R.E. 1989. Merchant credit and the informal economy: Newfoundland,
1919-1929. Historical Papers 1989. Pp. 167-189. Ottawa: Canadian Historical
Association.
O’Neill, O. 1993. Kantian ethics. In: P. Singer (Ed.), A companion to ethics. Pp. 175-
185. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ostrom, E. 1986. A method of institutional analysis. In: F.X. Kaufmann, G. Majone,
and V. Ostrom (Eds.), Guidance, control, and evaluation in the public sector. Pp.
495-510. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective
action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrove, J. and N. Adler 1998. The relationship of socio-economic status, labor force
participation, and health among men and women. Journal of Health Psychology 3
(4): 451-463.
Overaa, R. 2000. Les femmes chefs d'entreprise dans la pêche piroguière au Gha-
na. Le cas de la ville de fante de Moree. In: J.P. Chauveau, E. Jul-Larsen, and C.
Chaboud (Eds.), Les pêches piroguières en Afrique de l’Ouest. Dynamiques institu-
tionnelles: Pouvoirs, mobilités, marchés. Pp. 299-324. Paris: Karthala, Institut de
recherche pour le développement; Bergen: Christian-Michelsen Institute.
Oyewumi, O. 1997. The invention of women: Making an African sense of western gender
discourses. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Paavola, J. 2002. Rethinking the choice and performance of environmental policies.
In: D.W. Bromley and J. Paavola (Eds.), Economics, ethics, and environmental pol-
icy. Pp. 88-101. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pálsson, G. 1991. Coastal economies, cultural accounts –human ecology and Icelandic
discourse. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Pardey, P.G., B.D. Wright, C. Nottenburg, E. Birenbaun, and P. Zambrano 2003.
Intellectual property and developing countries: Freedom to operate in agricultur-
al biotechnology. Biotechnology and Genetic Resources Policies Brief. No. 3.
Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Parsons, T. 1968. The structure of social action. Vol. 2. New York: The Free Press.
Pascual-Fernández, J.J. 1991. Entre el mar y la tierra: Los pescadores artesanales canar-
ios. Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Ministerio de Cultura-Interinsular Canaria.
Pascual-Fernández, J.J. 1993. Apuntes para el debate en torno a la tragedia de los
comunes. In: J.J. Pascual-Fernández (Ed.), Procesos de apropiación y gestión de re-
cursos comunales. Pp. 23-45. Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Asociación Canaria de An-
tropología, VI Congreso de Antropología.
Pascual-Fernández, J.J. 1999. Participative management of artisanal fisheries in the
Canary Islands. In: D. Symes (Ed.), Southern waters: Issues of management and
practice. Pp. 66-77. London: Blackwell.
402 References
Pascual-Fernández, J.J. 2001. Littoral fishermen, aquaculture and tourism in the
Canary Islands: Attitudes and economic strategies. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference People and the Sea: Maritime research in the social sciences, an
agenda for the 21st century, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, (cd-rom) Amsterdam Cen-
tre for Maritime Research.
Pascual-Fernández, J.J. 2004. Littoral fishermen, aquaculture and tourism in the
Canary Islands: Attitudes and economic strategies. In: J. Boissevain and T. Sel-
wyn (Eds.), Contesting the foreshore: Tourism, society and politics on the coast. Pp. 61-
82. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Pascual-Fernández, J.J., A. Santana Talavera, J.A. Batista Medina, C. Dorta Morales,
R. Hernández Armas, A. Díaz de la Paz, B. Martín de la Rosa, and J. Macías
González 2001. Pescatur: Un modelo de desarrollo integral de poblaciones litorales.
La Laguna: Instituto U. de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, Viceconsejería de Pesca
del Gobierno de Canarias. unpublished.
Paulson, J.A. (Ed.) 1999. African economies in transition. Vol. 1. The changing role of
the state. Oxford: MacMillan Press.
Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 10 (10): 430.
Pauly, D. and R. Chuenpagdee 2003. Development of fisheries in the Gulf of Thai-
land large marine ecosystem: Analysis of an unplanned experiment. In: G. Hem-
pel and K. Sherman (Eds.), Large marine ecosystems of the world: Trends in exploita-
tion, protection, and research. Pp. 337-354. The Hague: Elsevier.
Pauly, D. and J.L. Maclean 2003. In a perfect ocean: The state of fisheries and ecosystems
in the north atlantic ocean. Washington DC: Island Press.
Pauly, D. 2001. Importance of the historical dimension in policy and management
of natural resources systems. In: E. Feoli and C. Nauen (Eds.), Proceedings of the
INCO-DEV International Workshop on Information Systems for Policy and Technical
Support in Fisheries and Aquaculture. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report No. 8.
Pp. 5-10. Brussels: European Commision.
Pauly, D. and V. Christensen 1995. Primary production required to sustain global
fisheries. Nature 374: 255-257.
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, and C. Walters 2000. Ecopath, ecosim and ecospace as
tools of evaluating ecosystem impacts on fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine
Science 57: 697-706.
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, R. Froese, and M.L. Palomares 2000. Fishing down aqua-
tic food webs. American Scientist 88: 46-51.
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guénette, T.J. Pitcher, U.R. Sumaila, C.J. Walters, R.
Watson, and D. Zeller 2002. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature
418: 689-695.
Pauly, D., J. Alder, E. Bennett, V. Christensen, P. Tyedmers, and R. Watson 2003.
The future for fisheries. Science 302: 1359-1361.
Peterson G., C.R. Allen, and C.S. Holling 1998. Ecological resilience, diversity, and
scale. Ecosystems 1: 6-18.
Phasuk, B. 1994. Fishing effort regulations in the coastal fisheries of Thailand. In:
Proceedings of the IPFC Symposium on Socio-economic issues in coastal fisheries
management. Bangkok, Thailand. 23-26 November 1993. RAPA Publication 1994/
8. Bangkok: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Orga-
nization.
Phillips, N. 1998. Globalisation and the ‘paradox of state power’: Perspectives from Latin
America. Coventry: Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation
(CSGR), University of Warwick.
References 403
Phyne, J. 1996. Along the coast and the state: Aquaculture and politics in Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick. In: C. Bailey, S. Jentoft, and P. Sinclair (Eds.), Aqua-
cultural development: Social dimensions of an emerging industry. Pp. 69-92.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Pilger, J. 2003. Los nuevos gobernantes del mundo. Barcelona: RBA Group.
Pinkerton, E. (Ed.) 1989a. Cooperative management of local fisheries: New directions for
improved management and community development. Vancouver: University of
British Columbia Press.
Pinkerton, E. 1989b. Introduction: Attaining better fisheries management through
co-management: Prospects, problems and propositions. In: E. Pinkerton (Ed.),
Co-operative management of local fisheries. Pp. 3-33. Vancouver: University of
British Columbia Press.
Pinkerton, E. 1994. Summary and conclusions. In: C.L. Dyer and J.R. McGoodwin
(Eds.), Folk management in the world’s fisheries: Lessons for modern fisheries manage-
ment. Pp. 317-337. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Pitcher, T.J. 1999. Rapfish, a rapid appraisal technique for fisheries, and its application
to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Circular No 947. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization.
Pitcher, T.J. and D. Pauly 1998. Rebuilding ecosystems, not sustainability, as the
proper goal of fisheries management. In: T.J. Pitcher, P.J.B. Hart, and D. Pauly
(Eds.), Reinventing fisheries management. Pp. 311-329. London: Chapman and
Hall.
Plahar, W.A., G.A. Nerquaye-Tetteh, and N.T. Annan 1999. Development of an inte-
grated quality assurance system for the traditional Sardinella sp. and anchovy
fish smoking industry in Ghana. Food Control 10: 15-25.
Platteau, J.P. 1989a. Penetration of capitalism and persistence of small-scale organi-
sational forms in third world fisheries. Development and Change 20 (4): 621-651.
Platteau, J.P. 1989b. The dynamics of fisheries development in developing coun-
tries: A general overview. Development and Change 20 (4): 565-599.
Platteau, J.P. 1993. The free market is not readily transferable: Reflections on the
link between market, social relation, and moral norms. New institutional econom-
ics and development theory. Pp. 71-178. Roskilde, Denmark: International Develop-
ment Studies Roskilde University.
Platteau, J.P and J. Nugent 1992. Share contracts and their rationale: Lessons from
marine fishing. The Journal of Development Studies 28 (3): 386-422.
Platteau, J.P. and J.M. Baland 1998. Halting degradation of natural resources: Is there a
role for rural communities? Oxford: Clarendon Press; Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization.
Poirier, C.C. 1999. Advanced supply chain management: How to build a sustained com-
petition. San Francisco: Publishers Group West.
Poli, B.M., G. Parisi, G. Zampacavallo, M. Mecatti, P. Lupi, M. Gualtieri, and O.
Franci 2001. Quality outline of European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) reared
in Italy: Shelf life, edible yield, nutritional and dietetic traits. Aquaculture 202 (3-
4): 303-15.
Pollar,O. and R. González 1994. Dynamics of diversity: strategic programs for your orga-
nisation. California: Crisp Publications.
Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert 2000. Public management reform. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Pomeroy, R.S., R.B. Pollnac, B.M. Katon, and C.D. Predo 1997. Evaluating factors
contributing to the success of community-based coastal resource management:
404 References
the Central Visayas Regional Project-l, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Manage-
ment 36: 97-120.
Pontecorvo, G. 2003. Insularity of scientific disciplines and uncertainty about sup-
ply: The two keys to the failure of fisheries management. Marine Policy 27 (1):
69-73.
Powles, H., M.J. Bradford, R.G. Bradford, W.G. Doubleday, S. Innes, and C.D.
Levings 2000. Assessing and protecting endangered marine species. ICES Jour-
nal of Marine Science 57: 669-676.
Prein, M. and M. Ahmed 2000. Integration of aquaculture into smallholder farm-
ing systems for improved food security and household nutrition. Food and Nutri-
tion Bulletin 21 (4): 466-471.
Pressman, J. and A. Wildavsky 1983. Implementation. Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press.
Preston, R. 1993. Christian ethics. In: P. Singer (Ed.), A companion to ethics. Pp. 91-
105. Oxford: Blackwell.
Prins, H.H. 1999. The Malawi Principles: Clarification of the thoughts that under-
lay the ecosystem approach. Proceedings of the UN Conference on the Ecosystem
Approach to Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity. Pp. 23-29. Trondheim: Norwe-
gion Institute for Nature Research.
Pullin, R.S.V. 1981. Fish pens of Laguna de Bay; Philippines. ICLARM Newsletter 4
(4): 11-13.
Pullin, R.S.V. 1993. An overview of environmental issues in developing country aquacul-
ture. In: R.S.V. Pullin, H. Rosenthal and J.L. Maclean (Eds.), Environment and
Aquaculture in Developing Countries. Pp. 359. ICLARM Conference Proceedings
31. Makati, Phillipines: ICLARM.
Pullin, R.S.V. 1998. Genetic resources for aquaculture: ownership and access. In: J.-
F. Agnèse (Ed.), Genetics and aquaculture in Africa. Pp. 21-31. Paris: ORSTOM.
Pullin, R.S.V. 2000. Management of aquatic biodiversity and genetic resources. Re-
views in Fisheries Science 8 (4): 379-393.
Pullin, R.S.V. 2002. FISHGOVFOOD: Principles group, draft discussion paper. Am-
sterdam: Centre for Maritime Research (MARE)
Pullin, R.S.V. and D.M. Bartley 1996. Biosafety and fish genetic resources. In: R.S.
V. Pullin and C.M.V. Casal (Eds.), Consultation on fish genetic resources.Pp. 33-35.
Manila: International Center for Living Aquatic Resource Management/CGIAR
System-wide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP); Rome: International Plant
Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI).
Pullin, R.S.V., H. Rosenthal, and J.L. Maclean (Eds.) 1993. Environment and aquacul-
ture in developing countries. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 31. Makati, Philli-
pines: ICLARM.
Pullin, R.S.V., D.M. Bartley, and J. Kooiman (Eds.) 1999. Towards policies for conser-
vation and sustainable use of aquatic genetic resources. ICLARM Conference Pro-
ceedings 59. Makati, Phillipines: ICLARM.
Pullin, R.S.V., R.F. Froese, and D. Pauly, forthcoming. Indicators for the sustainabil-
ity of aquaculture. In: T.M. Bert (Ed.), Ecological and genetic implications of aqua-
culture activities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Raakjær Nielsen, J., P. Degnbol, K. Viswanathan, and M. Ahmed 2002. Fisheries co-
management –An institutional innovation.IIFET Conference 2002: Paper no 216.
Radin, M.J. 1996. Contested Commodities. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University
Press.
References 405
Ram, K. 1992. Mukkuvar women: Gender hegemony and capitalist transformation in a
South Indian fishing community. New Delhi: Kali For Women.
Randall, J.E. 1985. Guide to Hawaiian reef fishes. Newton Square: Harrowood Books.
Randall, J.E. 1987. Introduction of marine fishes to the Hawaiian Islands. Bulletin of
Marine Science 41: 490-502.
Rapport, N. 1996. Community. In: A. Barnard and J. Spencer (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
social and cultural anthropology. Pp. 114-117. London and New York: Routledge.
Rawls, J. 1973. A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press..
Rayner, S. 1999. Mapping institutional diversity for implementing the Lisbon prin-
ciples Ecological Economics 31: 259–274.
Rayner, S., E.I. Malone, and M. Thompson 1999. Equity issues and integrated as-
sessment. In: F.L. Tóth (Ed.), Fair weather. Pp. 12-43. London: Earthscan.
Redfield, R.R. 1971 [1955-6]. ‘The little community’and ‘Peasant society and culture’.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reid, C. 1998. Managing innovation in the British herring fishery: The role of the
Herring Industry Board. Marine Policy 22 (4): 281-295.
Reid, C. 2000. From trawler to table: The fish trades since the late 19
th
century. In:
D.J. Starkey, C. Reid, and N. Ashcroft (Eds.), England’s sea fisheries: The commer-
cial sea fisheries of England and Wales since 1300. London: Chatham Publishing.
Reid, C., forthcoming. A common delicacy: UK fish consumption in the 20
th
cen-
tury. In: D.J. Starkey, P. Holm, J. Thór, and B. Andersen (Eds.), Politics and people
in the North Atlantic fisheries since 1485: Studia Atlantica. Vol. 6. Hull: University
of Hull Press.
Reid, C. and C. Robinson, forthcoming. Fish processing in the UK, 1907-1994: Evi-
dence from the Census of Production. In D.J. Starkey, P. Holm, J. Thór, and B.
Andersen (Eds.), Politics and people in the North Atlantic fisheries since 1485: Studia
Atlantica. Vol. 6. Hull: University of Hull Press.
Revenga, C., J. Brunner, N. Henninger, K. Kassem, and R. Payne 2000. Pilot analy-
sis of global ecosystems: Freshwater Systems. Available http://www.wri.org/wr2000/
freshwater (Accessed 16 July 2002).
Reynolds, J.E. and D.F. Greboval 1988. Socio-economic effects of the evolution of Nile
Perch fisheries in Lake Victoria: A review. CIFA Technical Paper No. 17. Rome: Food
and Agriculture Organization.
Richardson, G.B. 1972. The organisation of industry. The Economic Journal (Sept.):
883-896.
Rijnsdorp, A.D. 1993. Fisheries as a large scale experiment on life-history evolution:
Disentangling phenotypic and genetic effects in changes in maturation and re-
production of North Sea plaice Pleuronectes platessa. Oecologia 96: 391-401.
Roberts, C.M. 1997. Connectivity and management of Caribbean coral reefs. Science
278: 1454-1457.
Roberts, C.M. and N.V.C. Polunin 1992. Effects of a marine reserve protection on
northern Red Sea fish populations. Proceedings of the 7
th
International Coral Reef
Symposium, Guam, 22-26 June 1992. Pp. 969-977. Guam: International Associa-
tion of Biological Oceanography (IABO).
Roberts, C.M. and N.V.C. Polunin 1993. Marine reserves: Simple solutions to mana-
ging complex fisheries. Ambio 22: 363-368.
Roberts, C.M. and J.P. Hawkins 2000. Reservas marinas totalmente protegidas: Una
guía. Washington: WWF; York: University of York.
Robertson, D.R. 2001. Population maintenance among tropical reef fishes: Infer-
ences from small island endemics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
98 (10): 5667-5670.
406 References
Robinson, D. and G. Osherenko 2001. Comparative analysis of fishing rights and
resource management arrangements in the Circumpolar North. In: Chapter 7 of
the Ponoi river report: Sport fishing on the Kola Peninsula. A project of the Circumpo-
lar Conservation Union. Available http://www.dartmouth.edu/~arctic/Fishcom-
paranalysis.pdf.
Rodríguez Guerra, R. 2000. Sociedad civil: Aventuras clásicas, arquetipos contem-
poráneos y una propuesta teórica. Laguna, Revista de Filosofía 7: 39-61.
Roest, F., P. Spliethoff, and V. van der Knaap 1995. Fisheries in developing countries:
Towards sustainable use of living aquatic resources. The Hague: Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Development Co-operation Department.
Roheim, C.A. 2003. Early indications of market impacts from the Marine Steward-
ship Council’s ecolabeling of seafood. Marine Resource Economics 18: 95-104.
Rolston III, H. 1990. Science-based vs. traditional ethics. In: J.R. Engel and J.G.
Engel (Eds.), Ethics of environment and development. Pp. 63-72. London: Belhaven.
Roos, N. 2001. Fish consumption and aquaculture in rural Bangladesh. Unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis. Frederiskberg, Denmark: Research Department of Human Nutri-
tion, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University.
Rosendahl, R.W. 1984. The development of Mexican fisheries and its effect on Uni-
ted States-Mexican relations. Pacific Basin Law Journal 3 (1): 1-20.
Ross D.J., C.R. Johnson, C.L. Hewitt, and G.M. Ruiz 2004. Interactions and im-
pacts of two introduced species on a soft sediment marine assemblage in SE
Tasmania. Marine Biology 144(4): 747-756
Rossi, C.R. 1993. Equity and international law. New York: Transnational Publishers.
Roth, E. and 36 co-authors 2001. An intellectual injustice to aquaculture development:
A response to the review article,‘Effects of aquaculture on work fish supplies’.Available
http://ciencia.silvert.org/eim/response/draft.htm (Accessed 2 March 2005).
Roth, G. and C. Wittich (Eds.) 1978. Max Weber: Economy and Society. Pp. 3-38. Ber-
keley: University of California Press.
Roy, R.N. 2002. Coming together to manage fisheries –a field guide to stakeholder analy-
sis. BOBP/MAG No 24. Chennai: Bay of Bengal Programme.
Ruckes, E. 1972. Fish marketing systems and their development: A cross-country
comparison. Zeitschrift fur Ausländische Landwirtschaft 11 (3-4): 335-352.
Ruckes, E. 1995. World trade in fish and fishery products: Review and outlook, in-
ternational cooperation for fisheries and aquaculture development. In: D.S. Liao
(Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fish-
eries Economics and Trade. Pp. 1-16. Keelung, Taiwan: National Taiwan Ocean
University.
Ruddle, K. 1988. The organization of traditional inshore fishery management sys-
tems in the Pacific. In: P.A. Neher, R. Arnason, and N. Mollett (Eds.), Rights
based fishing: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Scientific Foundations for Rights
Based Fishing, Reykjavik, Iceland, June 27-1 July 1988. Pp. 73-85. Dordrecht: Klu-
wer Academic Publishers.
Ruddle, K. 1989. Solving the common-property dilemma: Village fisheries rights in
Japanese coastal waters. In F. Berkes (Comp.), Common property resources: Ecology
and community based sustainable development. Pp. 168-184. London: Belhaven
Press.
Ruddle, K. 1996. The potential role of integrated management of natural resources
in improving the nutritional and economic status of resource poor farm house-
holds in Ghana. In: M. Prein, J.K. Ofori, and C. Lightfoot (Eds.), Research for the
future development of aquaculture in Ghana. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 42:
57-85. Makati, Phillipines: ICLARM
References 407
Ruddle, K. and T. Akimichi (Eds.) 1984. Maritime institutions of the Western Pacific.
Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
Ruddle, K. and R.E. Johannes (Eds.) 1985. The traditional knowledge and management
of coastal systems in Asia and the Pacific. Jakarta, Indonesia: UNESCO, Regional
Office for Science and Technology for Southeast Asia.
Ruddy, M. and T. Varley 1991. Sea farming and development in North Connemara.
In: T. Varley, T.A. Boylan, and M.P. Cuddy (Eds.), Rural crisis: Perpectives on Irish
rural development. Galway: University College Centre for Development Studies.
Ruffier, P. 1999. Fumeuses de poisson à Abidjan. Entre pirogues et sardines: Les nou-
velles dynamiques de la filière sardinière. Rennes: Ensar.
Russell, S.D. and R.T. Alexander 2000. Of beggars and thieves: Customary sharing
of the catch and informal sanctions in a Philippine fishery. In: T.D. King and E.
P. Durrenberger, (Eds.), State and community in fisheries management: Power, pol-
icy, and practice. Pp. 19-40. Westport: Bergin & Garvey.
Ryman, N., F. Utter, and L. Laitke 1995. Protection of intraspecific diversity of
exploited fishes. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 5: 417-446.
Sadovy, Y. 1993. The Nassau grouper, endangered or just unlucky? Reef Encounter 13:
10-12.
Sadovy, Y. 1996. Reproduction of reef fishery species. In: N.V.C. Polunin and C.M.
Roberts (Eds.), Reef fisheries. Pp. 15-59. London: Chapman and Hall.
Sagdahl, B. 2000. Norwegian fishery management: Learning by doing and ‘fishing’for
solutions. ELSA Working Papers, Rennes.
Sainsbury, K.J. 1987. Assessment and management of the demersal fishery on the
continental shelf of northwestern Australia. In: J.J. Polovina and S. Ralston
(Eds.), Tropical snappers and groupers –Biology and fisheries management. Pp. 465-
503. Boulder: Westview Press.
Sainsbury, J.C. 1996. Commercial fishing methods: An introduction to vessels and gears.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Sale, P.F. and J.A. Guy 1992. Persistence of community structure: What happens
when you change taxonomic scale? Coral Reefs 11: 147-154.
Sandersen, H.T. 1999. Organization and social capital as a prerequisite for partici-
patory fisheries management - The case of Trinidad & Tobago and St. Lucia:
Fisheries research in developing countries. Proceedings from the Soria Moria con-
ference, October 1998. Pp. 98-127.Oslo: Division of Environment and Develop-
ment, Research Council of Norway.
Sandersen, H.T. and S. Koester 2000. Co-management of tropical coastal zones:
The case of the Soufrière marine management area, St. Lucia, WI. Coastal Man-
agement 28: 87-97.
Santana Talavera, A. 1997. Antropología y turismo: ¿Nuevas hordas, viejas culturas?
Barcelona: Ariel.
Santana Talavera, A. 2003. Mirando culturas: La antropología del turismo. In: Á.
Rubio Gil (Ed.), Sociología del turismo. Pp. 103-125. Barcelona: Ariel.
Sarch M.T. and E.H. Allison 2000. Fluctuating fisheries in Africa’s inland waters: Well
adapted livelihoods, maladapted management. Available http://oregonstate.edu/
dept/IIFET/2000/papers/sarch.pdf. (Accessed 29 June 2004).
Satia, B.P. 1990. National reviews for aquaculture development in Africa, Nigeria.
Fisheries Circular No. 770. 29. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Schlager, E. and E. Ostrom 1993. Property-rights regimes and coastal fisheries: An
empirical analysis. In: T.L. Anderson and R.T. Simmons (Eds.), The political econ-
408 References
omy of customs and culture: Informal solutions to the commons problem. Pp. 13-41.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Schmid, A.A. 2002. All environmental policy instruments require a moral choice as
to whose interest count. In: D.W. Bromley and J. Paavola (Eds.), Economics, ethics,
and environmental policy. Pp. 134-145. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schroeder, W.R. 1992. Twentieth-century continental ethics. Part 2. In: L.C. Becker
and C.B. Becker (Eds.), A history of Western ethics. Pp. 129-141. New York: Garland
Publishers.
Schutter, O.D. 2002. Europe in search of its civil society. European Law Journal 8 (2):
198-217.
Schwarz, R.M. 1994. The skilled facilitator: practical wisdom for developing effective
groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schwinghamer, P., J.Y. Guigné, and W.C. Siu 1996. Quantifying the impact of trawl-
ing on benthic habitat structure using high resolution acoustics and chaos theo-
ry. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 288-296.
Scoffin, T.P. 1993. The geological effects of hurricanes on coral reefs and the inte-
pretation of storm deposits. Coral Reefs 12: 203-221.
Scott, A. 1999. Introducing property in fishery management. In: R. Shotton (Ed.),
Use of property rights in fisheries management. Proceedings of the FishRights 99 Con-
ference,Fremantle, Western Australia, Fisheries Technical Paper 404/1. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization.
Scott, W.R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. London: Sage Publications.
Seijo, J.C. and J.F. Caddy 2000. Uncertainty in bioeconomic reference points and
indicators in marine fisheries. Marine and Freshwater Research 51: 477-483.
Seitzinger, S.P. and C. Kroeze 1998. Global distribution of nitrous oxide production
and N inputs in freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems. Global Biochemical
Cycles 12 (1): 93-113.
Sen, S. and J.R. Nielsen 1996. Fisheries co-management: A comparative analysis.
Marine Policy 20 (5): 405-418.
Senge, P.M. 1990. The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organisation.
New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P.M., A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. Ross, and B. Smith 1994. The fifth discipline
fieldbook: strategies and tools for building a learning organisation. London: Century
Business.
Shackell, N.L. and J.H. Martin Willison (Eds.) 1995. Marine protected areas and sus-
tainable fisheries. Wolfville, N.S.: Science and Management of Protected Areas
Association.
Shackle, G.L.S. 1969. Decision, order and time in human affairs. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Shein, E. 2000. Web-Based OLAP Tools Peel Back Data. Managing Automation 15
(8): 56-59.
Shiganova, T.A. and Y.V. Bulgakova 2000. Effects of gelatinous plankton on Black
Sea and Sea of Azov fish and their food resources. ICES Journal of Marine Science
57:641-648.
Shipp, R.L. 2002. No take marine protected areas (nMPAs) as a fishery management
tool, a pragmatic perspective: A report to the Fish America Foundation. Available
http://www.asafishing.org/images/gais_shipp.pdf. (Accessed 30 March 2003).
Shipp, R.L. 2003. A perspective on marine reserves as a fishery management tool.
Fisheries 28 (12): 10-21.
Shiva, V. 1991. Ecology and the politics of survival, conflicts over natural resources in
India. New Delhi: United Nations University Press and Sage Publications.
References 409
Sider, G. 1986. Culture and class in anthropology and history: A Newfoundland illustra-
tion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Silva, M.E., E.M. Gately, and I. Desilvestre 1986. A bibliographic listing of coastal
and marine protected areas: A global survey. Technical Report WHOI-86-11.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Simchi-Levi, D. and E. Philip-Kaminsky 1999. Designing and managing the supply
chain: Concepts, strategies and case studies. Boston: Irwin/McGraw Hill.
Simon, H.A. 1957. Models of man: social and rational. New York: Wiley.
Simon, H.A. 1983. Reason in human affairs. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Sinclair, P.R. 1985. From traps to draggers: Domestic commodity production in northwest
Newfoundland, 1850-1982. St. John's, Newfoundland: Institute of Social and Eco-
nomic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Sinclair, P.R. 1992. Atlantic Canada's fishing communities: The impact of change.
In: D.A. Hay and G.S. Basran (Eds.), Rural sociology in Canada. Pp. 84-98. Don
Mills, Canada: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, P.R. 1996. Sustainable development in fisheries dependant regions? Re-
flections on Newfoundland cod fisheries. Sociologia Ruralis 36 (2): 225-235.
Skytte, H. and N.J. Blunch 1998. An analysis of retail buying behaviour in various
European countries. Proceedings from the 3
rd
International Conference on Chain
Management and the Food Industry. Aarhus: Aarhus School of Business.
Smith, P.J., R.I. Francis, and M. McVeagh 1991. Loss of genetic diversity due to
fishing pressure. Fisheries Research 10: 309-316.
Sniderman, P.M., R.A. Brody, and P.E. Tetlock 1999. Reasoning and choice. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Soutar, A., and J.D. Isaac 1974. Abundance of pelagic fish during the 19
th
and 20
th
centuries as recorded in anaerobic sediment off California. Fishery Bulletin 72:
257-274.
Stanfield, B. 2000. The courage to lead: transform self, transform society. Toronto: Ca-
nadian Institute of Cultural Affairs.
Stank, T., M. Crum, and M. Arango 1999. Benefits of inter-firm co-ordination in
food industry supply chains. Journal of Business Logistics 20 (2): 21-24
State Secretariat of Fisheries 1995. Master Plan. Maputo: Government of Mozambi-
que.
Steele, J.H. 1991. Marine functional diversity. BioScience 41: 470-474.
Steen, F. 1995. Testing for market boundaries and oligopolistic behaviour: An application
to the European Union market for salmon. SNF Working Paper No. 3.Bergen: In-
stitute for Research in Economics and Business Administration
Stevens, J.D., R. Bonfil, N.K. Dulvy, and P.A. Walker 2000. The effects of fishing on
sharks, rays and chimaeras (Chondrichthyans) and the implications for marine
ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 476-494.
Stewart, H. 1977. Indian fishing: Early methods on the northwest coast. Vancouver:
Douglas and McIntyre.
Steyn, N.P., J.H. Nel, J.F. Prinslao, H.Y. Tichelaar, M.A. Dhansay, J. Theron, L.C.
Hoffman, and A.J.S. Benadé 1995. Nutritional status of preschool children con-
suming a diet rich in Clarias gariepinus. The South African Journal of Food
Science and Nutrition 7 (4): 158-162.
Stickney, R.S. 2000. Encyclopedia of aquaculture. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.
Stokes, T.K., J.M. McGlade, and R. Law (Eds.) 1993. The exploitation of evolving re-
sources. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
410 References
Storey, K. and B. Smith 1995. Collapse in the Newfoundland groundfish fishery:
Responses, constraints and opportunities. In: S.T.F. Johansen (Ed.), Nordiske fis-
kersamfund i fremtiden: Fiskeri og fiskersamfund. Vol 1. Pp. 163-188. Copenhagen:
TemaNord, Nordisk Ministerrad.
Strange, S. 1996. The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Strathern, M. 1991. Partial connections. Savage: Rowman and Littlefield.
Sudo, K.I. 1984. Social organization and types of sea tenure in Micronesia. In: K.
Ruddle and T. Akimichi (Comps.), Maritime institutions in the Western Pacific. Pp.
203-230. Osaka: Senri Ethnological Studies, National Museum of Ethnology.
Sumaila, U.R. 1997. Strategic dynamic interaction: The case of Barents Sea fish-
eries. Marine Resource Economics 12: 77-94.
Sumaila, U.R. 1999. A review of game theoretic models of fishing. Marine Policy 23
(1): 1-10.
Sumaila, U.R. 2001. Generational cost benefit analysis for evaluating marine eco-
system restoration. In: T.J. Pitcher, U.R. Sumaila, and D. Pauly (Eds.), Fisheries
impacts on North Atlantic ecosystems: Evaluations and policy exploration. Fisheries
Centre Research Reports 9 (5). Vancouver, Canada: Fisheries Center, University
of British Columbia.
Sumaila, U.R. and Bawimia 2000. Ecosystem justice and the marketplace. In: H.
Coward, R. Ommer, and T.J. Pitcher (Eds.), Fish ethics. Justice in the Canadian
fisheries. Pp. 140-153. St. John’s, Newfoundland: Institute of Social and Economic
Research, Memorial University.
Sumaila, U.R., Y. Liu, and P. Tyedmers 2001. Small versus large-scale fishing opera-
tions in the North Atlantic. Fisheries impacts on north atlantic ecosystems: evalua-
tions and policy exploration. Vancouver: Fisheries Centre, University of British
Columbia.
Sumner, J. 2002. Sustainability and rural communities in the age of globalization: Can
we learn our way out? Unpublished. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Guelph,
Canada.
Sutton, M. 2001. Harnessing market forces and consumer power in favour of sus-
tainable fisheries. In: T.J. Pitcher, P.J.B. Hart, and D. Pauly (Eds.), Reinventing
fisheries management. Pp. 125-135. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Suvapepun, S. 1997. Environmental aspects of responsible fisheries in the Gulf of
Thailand. Proceedings of the APFIC Symposium Seoul, South Korea, October 1996.
FAO-RAPA Publication 1997/32: 168-183.
Svendsen, A. 1998. The stakeholder strategy: Profiting from collaborative business rela-
tionships. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Swan, J. and B.P. Satia 1998. Contribution of the Committee on Fisheries to global fish-
eries governance 1977-1997. FAO Fisheries Circular nº 938. Rome: Food and Agri-
culture Organization.
Sydnes, A.K. 2001a. New regional fisheries management regimes: Establishing the
South East Atlantic fisheries organisation. Marine Policy 25 (5): 353-364.
Sydnes, A.K. 2001b. Regional fishery organizations: how and why organizational
diversity matters. Ocean Development & International Law, 32: 349-72.
Sydnes, A.K. 2002. Regional fishery organisations in developing regions: adapting
to changes in international fisheries law. Marine Policy, 26 (5): 373-381.
Symes, D. 1996. Fishing in troubled waters. In: K. Crean and D. Symes (Eds.), Fish-
eries management in crisis. Pp. 3-16. Oxford: Blackwell, Fishing News Books.
Symes, D. 1998. The integration of fisheries management and marine wildlife conserva-
tion. Report, No. 287. Peterborough, UK: JNCC.
References 411
Tacon, A.G.J. 2001. Increasing the contribution of aquaculture for food security and
poverty alleviation. In: R.P. Subasinghe, P. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E.
McGladdery, and J.R. Arthur (Eds.), Aquaculture in the Third Millennium.Techni-
cal proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok,
Thailand, 20-25 February 2000. Pp. 63-72. Bangkok: Network of Aquaculture Cen-
tres in Asia; Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Tacon, A.G.J. (Ed.) 2003. Aquaculture production trends analysis. In: Review of the
State of World Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 886. Rev 2. FIRI C886
(Rev. 2): 5-29.
Tall, A. 2002. Small scale fish trade in West Africa –Prospects for expansion. Info-
fish International 2: 12-16.
Tasker, M.L., C.J. Camphuysen, J. Cooper, S. Garthe, W.A. Montevecchi, and S.J.M.
Blaber 2000. The impacts of fishing on marine birds. ICES Journal of Marine
Science 57: 531-547
Tayamen, M.M., R.A. Reyes, J. Danting, A.M. Mendoza, E.B. Marquez, A.C. Salguet,
R.C. Gonzales, T.A. Abella, and E.M. Vera-Cruz 2002. Tilapia broodstock for
saline water in the Philippines. Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly 25 (1): 32-36.
Trade & Environment Database (TED) 1996. Shrimp aquaculture in India. Available
http://www.american.edu/TED/INDSHRMP.HTM, (Accessed 6 June 2003).
Tegner M.J., and P.K. Dayton 2000. Ecosystem effects of fishing on kelp forest
communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 579-589.
Tempier, E. 1986. Prud'homie et régulation de l'effort de pêche. Economie Méridio-
nale 34 (133-4): 41-50.
Thiebaux, M.L. and L.M. Dickie 1993. Structure of the body size spectrum of the
biomass in aquatic ecosystems: A consequence of allometry in predator-prey in-
teractions. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 50: 1308-1317.
Thilsted, S.H., N. Roos, and N. Hassan 1997. The role of small indigenous fish
species in food and nutrition security in Bangladesh. Naga, The ICLARM Quar-
terly July-December 1997 Supplement: 13-15.
Thollot, P. 1992. Importance of mangroves for Pacific reef fish species, myth or
reality? Proceedings of the 7
th
International Coral Reef Symposium, Guam, 22-26
June 1992. Vol. 2. Pp. 934-941. Guam: International Association of Biological
Oceanography (IABO).
Thomson, D. 1980. Conflict within the fishing industry. ICLARM Newsletter 3 (3): 3-
4.
Thompson, P. 1983. Living the fishing. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Thompson, R. and J.L. Munro 1983. The biology, ecology and bionomics of the
hinds and groupers, Serranidae. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 7: 59-81.
Thompson, G.J., F.R. Levacic, and J. Mitchell 1991. Markets, hierarchies and networks:
The coordination of social life. London: Sage Publications.
Thorner, D. 1966. Chayanov’s concept of peasant economy. In: A. Thorpe, B. Ker-
blay, and R.E.F. Smith (Eds.), The theory of peasant economy. Pp. xi-xiii. Home-
wood: Richard D. Irwin.
Thorpe, A. and E. Bennett 2001. Globalisation and the sustainability of world fish-
eries: A view from Latin America. Marine Resource Economics 16: 143-164.
Thorpe, A., A.A. Ibarra, and C. Reid 2000. The new economic model and fisheries
development in Latin America. World Development 28 (9): 1689-1702.
Thurow, F. 1997. Estimation of the total fish biomass in the Baltic Sea during the
20th century. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 444-461.
Tidwell, J.H. and G.L. Allan 2002. Fish as food: aquaculture’s contribution. World
Aquaculture (Sept.): 44-48.
412 References
Tobor, J.G. 1984. A review of the fish industry in Nigeria. NIOMR Technical Paper.
Lagos: Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine Research (NIOMR).
Tobor, J.G. 1990. The fishing industry in Nigeria: Status and potential for self-suffi-
ciency in fish production. NIOMR Technical Paper No. 54. Lagos: Nigerian Insti-
tute for Oceanography and Marine Research (NIOMR).
Tobor, J.G. and F.O. Ajayi. 1979. Identification of marine fishes found in Nigerian
coastal waters. NIOMR Technical Report. Lagos: Nigerian Institute for Oceano-
graphy and Marine Research (NIOMR).
Tomoda, S. 1999. Safety and health of meat, poultry and fish processing workers. ILO
Working Paper. INDCOM/19-1.E97/fv2. Geneva: International Labour Organiza-
tion.
TPI (Tropical Products Institute) 1977. Proceedings of the Conference on the handling,
processing and marketing of tropical fish. London, 5–9 July 1976. London, Tropical
Products Institute.
Tuominen, T.R. and M. Esmark 2003. Food for thought: The use of marine resources in
fish feed. Oslo: World Wildlife Fund.
UC Atlas 2003. UC atlas of global inequality. Available http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/in-
come.php (Accessed June 11, 2003).
UN 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available http://www.un.org/
Overview/rights.html (Accessed 11 February 2005).
UN 1982. Law of the Sea Convention. Available http://www.globelaw.com/LawSea/
lsconts.htm (Accessed 11 February 2005).
UN 1992. Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14
June 1992: Convention on Biological Diversity. Available: http://www.biodiv.org/
doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf (Accessed 28 March 2003).
UN 1994. Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relation to the conservation
and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. Available
http://www.oceanlaw.net/texts/unfsa.htm (Accessed 11 February 2005).
UN 1995. United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory
Fish Stocks. Available: http://www.iisd.ca/fish.html (Accessed 2 March 2005)
UN 2001a. Millenium Development Goals. Available http://www.un.org/millennium-
goals/ (Accessed 11 February 2005).
UN 2001b. The right to food. Note by the Secretary General. UN 56
th
Session. Item
131(c) Provisional Agenda. Ref. A/56/210. New York: United Nations.
UN 2002a. World Summit on Sustainable Development. Plan of Implementation. Avail-
able http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/
2309_planfinal.htm (Accessed 29 March 2003).
UN 2002b. World Summit on Sustainable Development. The Johannesburg Declaration
on Sustainable Development. Available http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/
html/documents/summit_docs/1009wssd_pol_declaration.htm (Accessed 29
March 2003).
UN, UNCED 1992. Agenda 21, Chapter 17: Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas,
including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and coastal areas and the protection, ra-
tional use and development of their living resources. Available: http://www.oceansa-
tlas.com/world_fisheries_and_aquaculture/html/govern/instit/intlagr/unced.
htm (Accessed 2 March 2005)
UNDP 1986. Fisheries development: Review of support by UNDP. New York: United
Nations Development Program.
References 413
UNEP 2002. Global environmental outlook 3: Past, present and future perspectives. Lon-
don: United Nations Environment Programme and Earthscan Publications.
UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea 2005. A historical perspec-
tive. Available http://www.un.org.Depts.los.convention_agreements/conven-
tion_historical_perspective.htm (accessed 20 May 2005).
Ursin, E. 1982. Stability and variability in the marine ecosystem. Dana 2: 51-67.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 1998. Fishing for a living is dangerous work. Census of
Fatal Occupational Injuries. Available http://stats.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0025.txt
(Accessed 2 March 2005).
Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. and H. Verbruggen 1999. Spatial sustainability trade and
indicators: An evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’.Ecological Economics 29:
61-72.
Van der Schans, J.W. 1999. Governing aquaculture: Dynamics and diversity in in-
troducing salmon farming in Scotland. In: J. Kooiman, M. van Vliet, and S. Jen-
toft (Eds.), Creative governance: Opportunities for fisheries in Europe. Pp. 95-118.
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Van der Schans, J.W., K.I. Metuzals, N. Venema, and C.I. Malvido 1999. Adding
quality to the fish chain: How institutions matter. In: J. Kooiman, M. van Vliet,
and S. Jentoft (Eds.), Creative governance: Opportunities for fisheries in Europe. Pp.
119-140. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Van der Voorst, J.G.A.J., A.J.M. Beulens, and P. van Beek 2000. Modelling and
simulating multi-echelon food systems. European Journal of Operational Research
122 (2): 354-367.
Van Duijn, A.P. 2004. The rich eat fish, the poor eat pork: The decline of livelihoods
of handpickers of aquatic organisms in North Vietnam. In: L. Visser (Ed.), Chal-
lenging coasts: Transdisciplinary excursions into coastal zone development. Pp. 211-
238. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Van Vliet, M. and P. Friis 1999. Creating co-operation in the chain. Options for
integrating ‘catch’and ‘market’. In: J. Kooiman, M. van Vliet, and S. Jentoft,
(Red.), Creative governance. Opportunities for fisheries in Europe. Pp. 207-226. Al-
dershot, UK: Ashgate.
Van Vught, F.A. 1987. Verklaringsmodellen bij beleidsevaluatie: De keuze tussen de
rationalistische en de hermeneutische evaluatiemethodologie. In: P.B. Lehning
and J.B.D. Simonis (Red.), Handboek beleidswetenschap. Pp. 154-176. Meppel:
Boom.
Vázquez Gómez, E.M. 2002. Las organizaciones internacionales de ordenación pes-
quera. La cooperación para la conservación y gestión de los recursos vivos de la alta
mar. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca.
Vecchione, M., M.F. Mickevitch, K. Fauchald, B.B. Collette, A.B. Williams, T.A.
Munroe, and R.E. Young 2000. Importance of assessing taxonomic adequacy in
determining fishing effects on marine biodiversity. ICES Journal of Marine
Science 57: 677-681.
Vitalis, V. 2002. Private voluntary eco-labels: Trade distorting, discriminatory and envir-
onmentally disappointing. Paris: OECD. Available http://www.oecd.org/oecd/
pages/documentredirection?paramID=37686&language=EN&col (Accessed 23
June 2003).
Wackernagel, M. 1994. How big is our ecological footprint? Using the concept of appro-
priate carrying capacity for measuring sustainability. Vancouver: Task Force on
414 References
Healthy and Sustainable Communities, Department of Family Practice, Univer-
sity of British Columbia.
Wackernagel, M. 1999. An evaluation of the ecological footprint. Letters to the Edi-
tor. Ecological Economics 31: 317-318.
Wade, R. 1987. The management of common property resources - Collective action
as an alternative to privatisation or state-regulation. Cambridge Journal of Econom-
ics 11 (2): 95-106.
Wade, R. 1992 [1987]. La gestión de los recursos de propiedad común: La acción
colectiva como alternativa a la privatización o a la regulación estatal. In: F.C.
Aguilera Klink (Ed.), Lecturas sobre economía del agua. Pp. 403-425. Madrid:
MAPA.
Walters, C. 1998. Designing fisheries management systems that do not depend
upon accurate stock measurement. In: T.J. Pitcher, P.J.B. Hart, and D. Pauly
(Eds.), Reinventing fisheries management. Pp. 279-288. Dordrecht: Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, Fish and Fisheries Series 23.
Walzer, M. 1983. Spheres of justice. A defense of pluralism and equality. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Walzer, M. 2003. The idea of civil society: A path to social reconstruction. In: C.M.
Elliot (Ed.), Civil society and democracy. A reader. Pp 63-83. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Ward, B.E. 1985. A Hong Kong fishing village. In: B.E. Ward (Ed.), Through other
eyes: Essays in understanding ‘conscious models’–mostly in Hong Kong. Pp. 3-21.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Watling, L. and E.A. Norse 1998. Disturbance of the seabed by mobile fishing gear:
A comparison with forest clear-cutting. Conservation Biology 12: 1189–1197.
Watson, M. and R.F.G. Ormond 1994. Effects of an artisanal fishery on the fish and
urchin populations of a Kenyan coral reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series 109: 115-
129.
Watson, R. and D. Pauly 2001. Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch
trends. Nature 414: 534-536.
Weaver, R.G. and J.D. Farrell 1999. Managers and facilitators. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Weber, M. 1964 (1925). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: The
Free Press.
Weigel, J.Y. 1987. Nana et pêcheurs de port de Lomé: Une exploitation de l'homme
par la femme? Politique Africaine 27: 37-46.
Weiss, L. 1997. Globalisation and the myth of the powerless state. New Left Review
225: 3-27.
Wenz, P.S. 2001. Environmental ethics today. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wessells, C.R. and J.L. Anderson 1992. Innovations and progress in seafood de-
mand and market analysis. Marine Resource Economics 7 (4): 209-28.
WFFP Secretariat 2004. World forum of fisher peoples. Available http://www.wffp.org/
(Accessed February 24, 2004).
WFS 1996. World Food Summit, 13-17 November 1996, Rome, Italy. Available http://
www.fao.org/wfs/main_en.htm. (Accessed 11 June 2003).
WHAT 2000. Governance for a sustainable future. Part 2. Fishing for the future. Lon-
don: World Humanity Action Trust.
White, S.K. 1995. The Cambridge companion to Habermas. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wilkinson, R. (Ed.) 2004. The global governance reader. London: Routledge.
References 415
Williams, M. J., S. B. Williams and P. S. Choo 2002. From Women in Fisheries to
Gender and Fisheries. In M. J. Williams et. al (Eds). Global symposium on women
in fisheries. Sixth Asian Fisheries Forum. 29 November 2001, Kaohsiung, Tai-
wan. Pp. 13-20. Penang, Malaysia: ICLARM –The World Fish Center. Available
www.worldfishcenter.org.
Williams, S.B. 1998. Women’s participation in the fish industry in Nigeria: A re-
view. African Note. Women’s Research and Documentation Center (WORDOC),
Institute of African Studies, University of Ibadan.
Williams, S.B. 2000. Economic potentials of women in small-scale fisheries in West Afri-
ca. Paper presented at International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade
(IIFET) Conference, Corvalis, Oregon.
Williams, S.B. 2002. Making each and every African fisher count: Women do fish.
In: M.J. Williams, N.H. Chao, P.S. Choo, K.I. Matics, M.C. Nandeesha, M. Shar-
iff, I. Siason, E. Tech, and J.M.C. Wong (Eds.), Global symposium on women in
fisheries. Penang, Malaysia: World Fish Center.
Williamson, O.E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications.
New York: The Free Press.
Wilmsen, E.N. 1989. Land filled with flies: A political economy of the Kalahari. Chica-
go: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, D.C., J. Raakjær Nielsen, and P. Degnbol (Eds.) 2003. The fisheries co-man-
agement experience. Accomplishments, challenges and prospects. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Wilson, E.O. 1998. Consilience: the unity of knowledge. New York: Knopf.
Witte, F., T. Goldschmidt, J. Wanink, M. van Oijen, K. Goudswaard, E. Witte-Mass,
and N. Bouton 1992. The destruction of an endemic species flock: Quantitative
data on the decline of the Haplochromine Cichlids of Lake Victoria. Environmental
Biology of Fishes 34: 1-28.
Wolf, E.R. 1982. Europe and the people without history. Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press.
Wolfe, A. 1989. Whose keeper? Social science and moral obligation. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Wonham M.J., J.T. Carlton, G.M. Ruiz, and L.D. Smith 2000 Fish and ships: relat-
ing dispersal frequency to success in biological invasions. Marine Biology 136(6):
1111-1121.
Woolston, J. 2000. Food irradiation in the UK and the European Directive. Radia-
tion Physics and Chemistry 57 (3): 245-247.
World Bank 1984. Harvesting the waters: A review of bank experience with fisheries de-
velopment. Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank 1986. Poverty and hunger: Issues and options for food security in developing
countries. Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank 1989. A framework for capacity building in policy analysis and economic
management in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank 1992. A study of international fisheries research. Policy and Research
Series No. 19. Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank 1997. The state in a changing world. World Development Report 1997.
Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank 2001. World Development Report 2000/2001. Attacking poverty. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
World Bank 2004. Saving fish and fishers. Washington DC: World Bank.
416 References
World Food Conference 1974. Universal declaration on the eradication of hunger and
malnutrition, 16 November 1974. Available http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/
b/69.htm (Accessed 11 February, 2005).
WTO 1994. Marrakesh Agreement. World Trade Organization. Available http://www.
jurisint.org/pub/06/en/doc/02.htm (Accessed 9 April 2004).
WTO 1996. Singapore Ministerial Declaration. World Trade Organization. Available
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min96_e/wtodec_e.htm
(Accessed 11 February 2005)
WTO 2001. Trading into the Future. 2
nd
Edition, revised. World Trade Organization.
Available http://www.wto.org (Accessed 1 September 2003).
WTO Agreement on Technical barriers to trade (TBT Agreement). World Trade Organi-
zation. Available http://www.worldtradelaw.net/uragreements/tbtagreement.pdf
(Accessed 11 February 2005).
WTO Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade 1994 (The anti-dumping agreement). World Trade Organization. Avail-
able http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/19-adp.pdf (Accessed 11 Febru-
ary 2005).
WTO Agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures (SCM Agreement). World
Trade Organization. Available http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-
scm.pdf (Accessed 11 February 2005).
Yanagisako, S.J. and J.F. Collier 1987. Toward a unified analysis of gender and kin-
ship. In: J.F. Collier and S.J. Yanagisako (Eds.), Gender and kinship: Essays toward
a unified analysis. Pp. 14-50. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Young, J.A. 1986. Marketing in a dynamic environment: An overview of the UK fish
processing industry. Contribution to Marketing in the Food Chain Conference, Shef-
field City Polytechnic, 24-25 September 1986. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam Uni-
versity.
Young, J.A. and J.F. Muir 2002. Tilapia: Both fish and fowl? Marine Resource Eco-
nomics 17: 163-173.
Zaibet, L. 2000. Compliance to HACCP and competitiveness of Oman fish proces-
sing. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 3: 311-321.
Zalewski, N.G., A. Januaer, and G. Jolánski 1997. Ecohydrology: A new paradigm
for the sustainable use of aquatic resources. International Hydrological Pro-
gramme IHP-V Technical Documents in Hydrology No. 7. Paris: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (UNESCO).
Zohar, I., T. Dayan, E. Galili, and E. Spanier 2001. Fish processing during the early
Holocene: A taphonomic case study from Coastal Israel. Journal of Archeological
Science 28 (10): 1041-1052.
Zwanenburg, K.C. 2000. The effects of fishing on demersal fish communities of
the Scotian Shelf. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 503-509.
References 417
