Environmental Governance - Science topic

One deliberative approach that seeks to draw on the wisdom of communities is the Most Significant Change technique, which involves collection and systematic participatory interpretation of stories emanating from the field.

Mozumder M.H. M. I think you will find some interesting subjects in the following link published article.

Dear Simon Sneddon social and environmental issues must be part of business operations and their interactions with their stakeholders on voluntary basis, not only fulfilling legal expectations, but also going beyond compliance, giving to markets the potential to deliver on the SDGs. Kind regards, Ernani

I suppose that these references may be useful :

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107706033.006

Yes USGS based softwares eg MODFLOW, Modelmuse, mt3dms, modpath. check their website for more info. All softwares are free and open source

You may use the Monde Carlo method with simulated network data to study the behavior of the uncertainty.

Have some sympathy with Marcelo's suggestion, but unlike the 'management' of natural resources - with which it's often confused - governance as applied to the environment spans political, legal and administrative frameworks, multiple socio-cultural contexts, the socio-economic environment, as well as the physical environment, both natural and man-made (e.g. settlements, infrastructure). Or put another way it's often complex - characterised by conflicting ideas for ecision-making (i.e. involving disagreements between decision-makers), and by knowledge gaps and uncertainties (e.g. climate impacts) - so may not be readily amenable either to cause and effect analyses, or cause and effect solutions!

It might then be useful - necessary - to clarify what is understood by 'governance', a concept which has been framed in different and changing ideological terms, ranging from simply 'doing things better' to the broader analytical basis for understanding the multiple political processes and relationships through which state and non-state actors do, and might, engage.

Definitions of the latter ilk include: “The exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs at all levels. Governance comprises the complex mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, mediate their differences, and exercise their legal rights and obligations.” UNDP (1997) Governance for Sustainable Human Development.

“Governance is a descriptive label that is used to highlight the changing nature of the policy process in recent decades. In particular, it sensitizes us to the ever-increasing variety of terrains and actors involved in the making of public policy. Thus, governance demands that we consider all the actors and locations beyond the [central government] ‘core executive’ involved in the policy making process.” Richards and Smith (2002) Governance and Public Policy in the United Kingdom.

From this analytical perspective, understanding governance will be closely linked to identifying and understanding how decisions are made (and in terms of ‘sound governance’, how this might be improved upon):

- Who is included in decision-making – or should be, and how should they be included?

- In which ‘terrains’ and/or at what levels are they made – or should they be made?

- Who initiates and/or is responsible for the process – or should be?

- Who has decision-making and implementation authority (decision-making entities; individual decision-makers; interactions among decision-makers) – or should have?

- Who and/or what influences the decisions (personal values, attitudes, believes etc; decision support resources e.g. info & knowledge; technological & other options) – or should influence decision?

In addition to decision-making governance is also about the subsequent implementation of those decisions. What are the outcomes of a decision once made; and how do decision-makers and stakeholders live with them?

When considering the management of natural resource in particular, one key focus will inevitably be that of local government and the broader system of what might be called local governance. Many developing countries have undergone or are in the process of decentralisation to improve service delivery and resource management, amongst other things. These processes are frequently only partially formulated and implemented, and reality typically falls well short of aspirations of devolution. Thus the ‘enabling environment’ required to facilitate local government and optimise local governance processes remains very much influenced if not constrained by national level processes (i.e. central decision-making and implications for implementation).

One key pervasive constraint relates to the divide that often characterises policy formulation, whereby the potential beneficiaries of policy change, and even those public servants with responsibilities for policy implementation, may not be consulted during this preliminary phase. Wider criticism relates to the very relevance of policy itself; it has been suggested that many of the earlier Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs) (linked to debt relief in the naughties) were oriented towards symptoms rather than solutions, and their implementation often diluted or ineffective. This leads to considerations of adaptive policy approaches, to better take account of risk, uncertainties and discontinuities.

Specific definitions of environmental governance include: “The interactions among structures, processes and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken, and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say in the management of natural resources – including biodiversity conservation” (CEESP and WCPA, 2004)

“…environmental governance refers to negotiations between communities and the state in respect of decision-making and/or implementation of environmental management, bearing in mind that environmental management involves the management of all components of the bio-physical environment, both living (biotic) and non-living (abiotic).” (IIED, 2006)

With respect to water governance, Cleaver offers the following definition: “the system of actors, resources, arrangements and processes which mediate society’s access to water” (2012).

Sound, good or good-enough governance? The various governance interpretations cited above are all descriptions of decision-making within a political context of multiple stakeholders or actors, at multiple levels, with multiple and diverse perspectives and objectives. As such none of them identifies what sound, good, or not-so-good governance actually looks like. There has been however increasing acknowledgement that poor governance is responsible both for grinding poverty and environmental destruction. Diagnoses of entrenched poverty have long identified weak governance and failed states as the root causes (DFID, 2006). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) and Global Environment Outlook both made similar diagnoses for environmental degradation and loss. While not using the term governance, the MA asserts that: pressures on ecosystems will increase globally unless human attitudes and actions change; and better conservation policies may be of limited value unless governments, businesses, and communities take natural systems into account in a wide range of other decisions. The MA argues that the productivity of ecosystems is dependent on policy choices on investment, trade, subsidy, taxation, and regulation, amongst other things. Thus, reversing poor governance – or moving towards good governance – is frequently linked to the realisation of equity and poverty reduction goals, and/or environmental conservation aims; and is associated with addressing issues of power and authority in society, and moving existing governance systems in aspirational directions.

For many the concept of ‘good governance’ is linked to a set of core principles based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

- Participation: the degree of involvement by affected stakeholders; - Fairness: the degree to which rules apply equally to everyone in society;

- Decency: the degree to which the formation and stewardship of the rules is undertaken without humiliating or harming people;

- Accountability: the extent to which political actors are responsible to society for what they say and do;

- Transparency: the degree of clarity and openness with which decisions are made;

- Efficiency: the extent to which limited human and financial resources are applied without unnecessary waste, delay or corruption.

Not everyone is happy with the concept of ‘good governance’, which may be seen as alignmed to western democratic and bureaucratic traditions, where congruence between formal and informal institutions, and formalised economies are well established. Writing about Pakistan Jabeen (2007) characterised the governance context there as one of authoritarianism, elitism, familism, paternalism, sectarianism, extremism and feudalism; and suggest the values of good governance stand in conflict with the prevailing norms. Building on the concept of ‘good enough governance’ (Grindle, 2004), she recommended ‘indigenisation’ of the concept of good governance.

With respect to local governance in NRM, some of the literature draws attention to the design principles first collated by Ostrom. These are the existence of:

- Clearly defined boundaries;

- Rules adaptable to local conditions: proportional equivalence between costs and benefits;

- Space for collective choice arrangements;

- Monitoring, particularly by third parties, for enforcement and punishment;

- Sanctions escalating with the severity of the violation;

- Conflict resolution mechanisms;

- The right to organise groups;

- Nested enterprises: arrangements where local knowledge and local institutions prevail, but shaped to accommodate larger and broader interests.

In the context of protected areas (PAs) principles identified with equitable and effective – or ‘good’ – governance include: legitimacy and voice, subsidiarity, fairness, doing no harm, direction (e.g. contextually informed objectives), performance, and accountability (see Borrini-Feyerabend et al.,).

As is probably obvious I've cut and pasted this from earlier work I did for WWF on environmental governance. Interestingly the conservation world, which previously focused on resource management has long been forced to concede that one can't ignore the political aspects of NRM, which inevitably means addressing governance challenges. Recognising the 'complexity' that typically characterises environmental governance is still work in progress. Hope something here is useful?

Preliminary considerations about Brazilian coast governance, considering oceanis MPAs and Ecosystem-based Management. Cheers!

The history and traditions of a country have the potential to greatly influence the direction governments take in terms of resource management. Fiji is an excellent example, and there is a nice case study to be found here:

Hi

I am sending herewith links to access for the soft copies of some research papers that may be useful for your needs

Regards

Dr. Kumara

I don't think a control group is relevant. It's more important to consistently compare the studies by adjusting their results for the different methodologies used. Often the only way is to obtain original data from the authors, but that is difficult in my experience :)

I greet you from Chile, and your question is very interesting and of general interest.

I have been in Spain (Catalunya) where with the group GENOCOV in the UAB have worked on the subject "waste treatment" including those produced with the production of biogas.

Unfortunately, I do not know "input / output databases with respect to waste treatment", all this in view of the fact that existing technologies and processes have patents involved.

regards

Hugo P. Sierra Goldberg

Centro de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente, AGRIMED.

Universidad de Chile

Here is a paper that I co-authored which talks about multilevel governance in terms of co-productive interactions between government and non-governmental actors.

"Rethinking Multilevel Governance as an Instance of Multilevel Politics: A Conceptual Strategy." Christopher Alcantara, Jörg Broschek, and Jen Nelles

Territory, Politics, Governance Vol. 4 , Iss. 1,2016

Hi Bianca,

here is what I found on "governance" in my library. Quite different approaches, hopefully including one thats is helpful to you.

Prince, Russell: Policy transfer, consultants and the geographies of governance. In: Progress in Human Geography 36 (2). 188–203.

The work of Russell Prince is usually conceptually advanced, but I haven't read that article.

Zimmermann, Karsten (2009): Changing Governance – Evolving KnowledgeScapes. How we might think of a planning-relevant politics of local knowledge. In: disP 178 (3). 56-66

Lowndes, Vivien (2005): SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW, SOMETHING BORROWED . . . How institutions change (and stay the same) in local governance. In: Policy Studies 26 (3/4). 291-309.

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996): The New Governance: Governing without Government. In: Political Studies XLIV. 652-667.

Steurer, Reinhard (2013): Disentangling governance: a synoptic view of regulation by government, business and civil society. In: Policy Sci 46. 387-410.

Haas, Peter M. (2010): The global spreading of ideas. Social learning and the evolution of multilateral environmental governance. In: WZB-Mitteilungen 127. 40-42.

Van Wezemael, Joris (2008): The contribution of assemblage theory and minor politics for democratic network governance. In: Planning Theory 7 (2). 165-185.

As I work on policy mobility and especially on policy translation, I use meta-theoretical approaches that somehow challenge the governance literature. Often drawing on Michel Foucault, Assemblage Theories (Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Manuel DeLanda) and Actor-Network-Theories (Michel Callon, John Law, Bruno Latour). This literature often focuses on the processes of mobilising and re-embedding policies in specific contexts. Maybe this is what you miss:

Gottweis, Herbert (2003): Theoretical strategies of post-structuralist policy analysis: towards an analytics of government. In: Maarten A. Hajer and H. Wagenaar (eds.): Deliberative policy analysis. Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge, UK, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press (Theories of institutional design). 247-265.

Law, John (1992): Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. In: Systems Practice 5 (4). 379-393.

Lendvai, Noémi and Paul Stubbs (2009): Assemblages, translation, and intermediaries in South East Europe. Rethinking transnationalism and social policy. In: European Societies 11 (5). 673-695.

Mukhtarov, Farhad (2014): Rethinking the travel of ideas: policy translation in the water sector. In: Policy & Politics 42 (1). 71-88.

Czarniawska, Barbara and Guje Sevón (2005): Translation is a vehicle, imitation its motor, and fashion sits at the wheel. In: Barbara Czarniawska und Guje Sevón (eds.): Global ideas. How ideas, objects and practices travel in the global economy. Malmö, Sweden, Herndon, VA: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press (Advances in organization studies, vol. 13). 7-12.

Freeman, Richard (2009): What is 'translation'? In: Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 5 (4). 429-447.

McCann, Eugene (2011): Urban Policy Mobilities and Global Circuits of Knowledge: Toward a Research Agenda. In: Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101 (1). 107-130.

McFarlane, Colin (2011): The city as a machine for learning. In: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36 (3). 360-376.

Prince, Russell (2010): Policy transfer as policy assemblage: making policy for the creative industries in New Zealand. In: Environment and Planning A 42 (1). 169-186.

Stein, Christian; Michel, Boris; Glasze, Georg and Robert Pütz (2015): Learning from failed policy mobilities: Contradictions, resistances and unintended outcomes in the transfer of "Business Improvement Districts" to Germany. In: European Urban and Regional Studies. 1-15.

Stone, Diane (2012): Transfer and translation of policy. In: Policy Studies 33 (6). 483-499.

Temenos, Cristina und Eugene McCann (2013): Geographies of Policy Mobilities. In: Geography Compass 7 (5). 344-357.

If you need some more details, don't hesitate to ask!

Kind regards,

Moritz

A cordial saludo.Mas administrators water environment purpose of meeting Rio in 1992 born INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF BASIN ORGANIZATIONS INBO. The undersigned headed a committee watershed where you were UNIAN State to recover the basin and with that experience I was invited by INBO and there I saw many small and great experiences. From this experience the LATIN AMERICAN NETWORK OF BASIN ORGANIZATIONS -RELOC born.

Listening is the most important thing outsiders can do. Then, ask clarifying questions-- people on the ground know a great deal.   

Ah, Emmanuel, one of the challenges of our age. If we want to conserve natural resources, or manage them in such a way that most if not all are conserved, the simplest solution is to find a Doug Tompkins who acquired enough Chilean rainforest between the Pacific and Argentine border to divide the country (in more ways than one) and buy the lot. Have you called on Mo Ibrahim?

More seriously and as you have concluded, in most cases one needs to reconcile both community and state interests, striving to involve each side as partner in a team effort. Such collaboration can be essential both to garner enough political will and public funding at first to get an idea off the ground and, afterwards, to ensure its sustainability.

A few of us face a similar challenge in Portugal where we hope to create a major reserve. While individual donors and companies are certainly in our sights, most support is likely to come from Brussels which will require not just some endorsement from national and local authorities but also community and other stakeholder participation.

Our task, probably unlike yours, is simplified by the decline of small-scale agriculture and migration from the land, an increasingly common phenomenon here and elsewhere. Nevertheless, we aim to win over a government indifferent to conservation and opposed to incurring any such costs, a largely apathetic community and, perhaps, even persuade some hostile eucalyptus plantations by proposing various strategies. Among them:

- employ the unemployed, much as a visionary Theodore Roosevelt did during the Great Depression, in restoration work;

- promote the area's considerable ecotourism potential;

- make a compelling case for the region as a climate change refuge;

- document and stress its outstanding surviving biodiversity;

- encourage extraction of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as cork;

- offer an opportunity to cellulose companies to improve their reputations.

You might also want to consider the strategy used in Guatemala's Petén, a situation which may be closer to yours: http://www.cifor.org/acm/download/pub/grassroot/Peten%20guatemala_eng%20All.pdf

Finally, several NGOs - CI for example (http://www.conservation.org/where/pages/sub-saharan-africa.aspx) - have undertaken similar initiatives in various parts of the world.  And UNEP in Nairobi (http://web.unep.org/regions/roa/) should also provide ideas and case studies.

Dear Avi, We do not differ but we operate at different linguistic levels. Of course, as I have mentioned, in  the English-language cultural sphere governance in public policy is well-efined - not ruling (governing?) but participatory governance. My headache is deriving from another area, namely corporate governance. I do know what are linguistic problems with transferring that term to German, Dutch, not-mentioning the Slavic languages. So if somebody begins to apply a "cultural" dimension to governance or corporate governance, then a deeper linguistic approach is needed. BTW, you have opened up another interesting area. As a "moderate constructivist" with a relative good knowledge of social sciences and mathematics, I am beginning a project titled: "Good practices of corporate governance as a social construct". What does it mean "good"?  For me the dissemination of all "good" practices, governances, etc., is a wonderful example of the impact of constructivism upon the modern science. 30 years ago it would have been mathematically-grounded "optimal" governance. Now it's just a "good" one. "Good" according to what criteria, who is setting the criteria, are they universal, what are cultural subtleties of the "good"?Unfortunately, I have only a draft presentation on that in Polish. In September I will have a text in English submitted to a journal, or perhaps presented at conferences.  

P.S. My spelling errors are deriving from fast writing and not from ignorance. There is another story with "a" and "the" but they are sometimes difficult to comprehend by somebody form outside the Anglo-Saxon language sphere. Smiilarly as the Slavic "baroque" grammar is difficult to grasp by the Anglo-Saxons and many others. 

Hi Mariel,

It seems to me that many links could be done with another researches, one concerning the National Park Sanjay Gandhi (Munbai, Indian Republic) made by 2 geographers Émilie Edelblutte and Yanni Gunnell (file below), the second concerning the pacific Colombia area made by the anthropologist Arturo Escobar (file below) I used theses papers  for lecture in France and they are really clear and interesting concerning the links between ecological/political groups and social/spatial conflicts.

Even if you cannot read french papers, you can, at least, have a look on their bibliographies which is almost in english or spanish.

Hope it can be useful,

Christophe

Please check out the GPC - Greenhouse Gas Protocol for community based GHG accounting and reporting.

For spatial information on water risk you may find the following site helpful:

Dear David Kafwamba,

I hope the following recent references and links are helpful – (if you click on the “Look inside” icon above the images of the book covers – for those that have it – you then have sometimes quite extensive searchable free access to the text).

Kind regards

Paul Chaney

Aarti Gupta and Michael Mason (2014) Transparency in Global Environmental Governance: Critical Perspectives (Earth System Governance), 18 Jul 2014. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00M16VZW8?keywords=environmental%20governance&qid=1442056904&ref_=sr_1_9&s=books&sr=1-9

John J Kirton and Ella Kokotsis (2015) The Global Governance of Climate Change (Global Environmental Governance)28 Sep 2015, http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/075467584X?keywords=environmental%20governance&qid=1442056904&ref_=sr_1_11&s=books&sr=1-11

Rudiger K.W. Wurzel and Andrew R. Zito (2014) Environmental Governance in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of New Environmental Policy Instruments, 31 Jan 2014. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1782545026?keywords=environmental%20governance&qid=1442056904&ref_=sr_1_5&s=books&sr=1-5

J.P. Evans (2011) Environmental Governance (Routledge Introductions to Environment: Environment and Society Texts) 14 Dec 2011, http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0415589827?keywords=environmental%20governance&qid=1442056904&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1

Henrik Selin and Stacy D. VanDeveer (2015) European Union and Environmental Governance (Global Institutions), http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0415628822?keywords=environmental%20governance&qid=1442056904&ref_=sr_1_7&s=books&sr=1-7

Afshin Akhtarkhavari (2010) Global Governance of the Environment: Environmental Principles and Change in International Law and Politics1 Dec 2010, http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1849802556?keywords=environmental%20governance&qid=1442056904&ref_=sr_1_14&s=books&sr=1-14

Jean-Frédéric Morin and Amandine Orsini (2014) Essential Concepts of Global Environmental Governance14 Jul 2014, http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0415822475?keywords=environmental%20governance&qid=1442057306&ref_=sr_1_19&s=books&sr=1-19

Gabriela Kütting and Ronnie Lipschutz (2009) Environmental Governance: Power and Knowledge in a Local-Global World19 Mar 2009, http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0415777135?keywords=environmental%20governance&qid=1442057306&ref_=sr_1_20&s=books&sr=1-20

Ok.. Thank You so much.. But can you help me in finding out the indicators of measuring each of them?

hi Damodaran, I guess a first step before looking for potential alternatives is to explore why have these different stakeholders failed and what you call failure in each of the cases. Communities or the government might have failed not because they are communities or government but because of external factors that have affected their ability to manage natural resources sustainably or because of false assumptions or misconceptions of what are the issues to address for managing these resources. So you first need to identify how has the problem been perceived and framed by different actors and which factors external to the natural resource users might have affected natural resource managememt. Only then you can start identifying alternative pathways in terms of reframing the problem, and in terms of institutional or political economic reforms.

Degree of power could be measured by assessing the degree of detail and specificity in any environmental legislation in a country and the way in which the legislation is enforced. Any such measures will be subjective and may not be quantitative.

Generally, environmental policies and plans may not exert the anticipated power, but standards and rules will. Countries that have many standards and rules will have more powers. Standards could be imposed either globally (emission rate of a car) or through permit systems (e.g. permit to discharge wastewater).

There are a number of ways in which an environmental regulation could exert its powers, (a) effects and outcome based approach and (b) activity based approach. Generally the latter approach results in exerting high powers.

The ultimate aim for any government is to bring about the desired environmental outcomes. It can choose to resort to full control (standards, permits, compliance monitoring and enforcement) or voluntary mechanisms backed up with environmental education. High degree of power may not necessarily translate into better environmental outcomes.

Selecting high power approach over a low power approach depends on community's own attitude; a low powered legislation with voluntary approach may work on a well informed and visionary community and a heavy handed bureaucratic approach may work on an ill informed and 'don't care' society.

Hello Leisa Perch, thank you again. I don´t really have a deadline, so far this is mostly out of curiosity. I am planning to take this on to a next level and design a research project but I am only speculating at the moment, learning more about the field and shaping ideias. Your  thoughts above, as well as the other's, have already been very helpful.

Safe travel.

Daniel 

Thanks Saif. Please go to the website for detals on abstract submission. I look forward to learning more of your wrk.

Emad, We developed a framework and methodology for computing a set of water governance indicators for 5 countries in the middle east, including Jordan, two or three years ago. Please see the concept and framework papers and the final report which we have placed on the SIWI website (http://www.watergovernance.org/ReWab-reports-presentations). A journal article is in process. Best, Mark

Dear Andrew, I would like to offer the following views:

Governance as we understand is a set of processes by which we manage the affairs of a given society towards some objectives. In other words, we can say that it is a theoretical concept as to what we want as a nation or society. Institutions are the tools of governance that we will adopt to take us towards our objectives.

For example, we want social justice in our country. So, first we get to define what we mean by social justice in our sociocultural context. Second, we legislate these definitions into laws through a body that we may call as legislature in a democratic system (council of ministers, in a monarchy, perhaps). Third, we put in place a policing organization to take cognizance of violations; Fourth we out in a system of courts to adjudicate; fifth, we set up a penal system that will safe keep the offenders till they are fit to be released back. We also will as a seventh step, set up institutions to educate the society.

In the example that I have tried to give above, steps 1 to 7 are institutions. Their relationship to governance is as a tool to carry governance to the targeted population. In countries where institutions become power centers, we see a clash between the institutions and other power centers, obviously to the peril of the population. In countries where governance lacks conceptual clarity, we see ineffectual institutions being set which aimlessly carry out bureaucratic functions again with no benefit to people. Only in countries where institutions are set up with clear conceptual basis, where the bureaucracy is trimmed to execute the procedures and processes in a transparent manner, we see the objectives of governance reach the people.

I hope my comments are helpful. Have a nice day!

Interesting question. There does seem to be a huge literature around this. See refs at the end of http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr80.pdf, and within http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr80.pdf. This book looks especially good - US EPA discussed a range of implications and also monitoring strategies. I think if you read this at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/Dam_removal_full_report.pdf with a more thorough review of the specific literature on monitoring methods (this book is a bit too descriptive and not precise enough in this regard) then you'll have enough to mentally exhaust you. One thing that is clear from this work, and the work of ours which I described earlier is the need for the monitoring to engage with the government decision makers, which requires both people engagement and knowledge of the legal and planning landscape. If your questions arise from a need to solve such problems in Brazil then you presumably have a different context again in terms of community engagement, legal/planning framework and stream ecology ...

For me the real crisis is not in the fishery (or at least into the biological sense), the real desaster of overfishing are ourselves...the lack of scientific base knowledge translated into real fishery's law. I have (as a Chilean my heart it's ivided in two) a positive story, the National fishery law has an apointment thanks to the research of Juan Carlos Castilla (you can see his publication elsewere) where the local fishermen have been empowered by technicians/Scientific people and determined a way to administrate (self administration form the artisanal fisheries' point of view) the so calles MEABRs (Management and Exploitation Areas for Benthic Resources). I attach here a good paper. By the other way into the pelagic realm, our politicians have just apporved a law where the total captures (of course not determined, just supported by the scientific commite) are assigned for more than 20 years to a (7 families) businessman, and are automatically renuewed after the period.

Just in a personal opinion this reflect the economic interests that are behind many negative interactions between humanity and nature. Economy move people, people move politicians, and they look for power....again the people, the great power of the commons is crucial...(risky)

So in our case, the tale has a Pelagic "black" and a Coastal "Ligh" scenarios...