|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
How social science can help the fishing industryN. A. Marshall and D. M. FentonOctober 2005 Most fisheries around the world are managed using ecological knowledge only (Pomeroy and Beck 1999, Gottret and White 2001). The failure to incorporate other important scientific information (such as social, economic, political, cultural and local information) into the management process is attributed to causing the collapse of many fisheries around the world, and the fact that many other fisheries are close to collapse (Milich 1999, Jackson et al. 2001, Kleiner 2002). The resulting crisis has precipitated an urgent call to rethink the way in which fisheries are managed (Seixas and Berkes 2004). This paper attempts to describe some of the ways in which social science – the science of understanding social systems - can help fisheries management. The success of fisheries management depends upon the adequacy and the breadth of the science behind it, the effects that it has on fish and people, and how well the rules are followed and enforced (Wilson et al. 1994, McCay 1996). Fisheries management is about managing people, gaining fishers’ acceptance and respect and improving policies so that they can be more effective in the protection of the fisheries resources and the sustainability of the fishing industry. Social science can be extremely useful in addressing these issues. Evidence is rapidly accumulating to show that the incorporation of social knowledge into the management process may significantly assist in the design of policies that not only protect a natural resource but also induce less conflict, inspire higher compliance and minimise the social costs associated with protecting the resource (Fricke 1985, Lane and Stephenson 1995, McPhee and Loveday 2000, Shivlani and Milon 2000). Frequently, management strategies are implemented with high uncertainty as to the likely associated social and environmental outcomes. It is often not clear what the consequences of a change in fisheries policy might be: what trade-offs will be required economically, socially and culturally, what is to be sustained, for how long, and in what manner, who is to benefit, and how the benefits will be distributed. It is often not clear why fishers are resistant to management strategies designed to sustain the very resource that they are dependent upon. How fishers interact and relate to the fisheries resource; how they best incorporate change into their lives; and how policies can be best designed so as to maximise the probability that compliance will be high are examples of further questions that need to be addressed before successful and effective management strategies can be designed that better protect the fisheries resource. Social science can assist in the collection of information and development of knowledge to reduce the uncertainty associated with designing and implementing management strategies. It can assist in the design of policies to ensure that the stress that they place upon individuals, industries and communities does not compromise their ability to adapt and prosper (Machlis and Force 1988, Levin et al. 1998). It can ensure that the strategies that are implemented are expected and desirable (Folke et al. 2005, Olsson et al. 2005). Social science can assist the management process through two main avenues: (i) it can provide information about the fisheries social system – the people that fish, and the people dependent upon them, and (ii) it can provide guidance in the best way to engage industry in the development of fisheries goals and objectives and in the design of fishery policy. In the first instance, in the same way that ecologists and biologists attempt to better understand the fishery system, social scientists attempt to better understand the fishery’s social system. Much of the science conducted acknowledges that policies will change the behaviour of fishers and alter the way they interact with the fisheries resource. Much benefit can therefore be obtained through a better understanding of the relationship that fishers have with the resource. The way in which fishers might respond and adapt to a policy change can be better predicted and the diversity of people working within the industry can be better appreciated. More effective discussions about the goals and strategies of fisheries management can be entered into. The second way in which the social sciences can assist fisheries managers is by providing a framework within which to engage the industry in the decision-making process. Within this framework, common goals can be identified and worked towards. Fishers are more likely to accept a policy change if they have been involved in the process because they are more likely to trust the motivation behind it and understand the need for the policy (Putnam 1993, Harms and Sylvia 2001). They need to trust that the decision was based on sensible information from which they themselves could benefit. There is an accumulation of experience suggesting that, “knowledge, compliance, and mediation of social and economic impacts are all influenced by the extent to which people are brought into the management process” (McCay 1996). The process of including fishers in the decision-making process acts to increase the credibility of management agencies and makes allies of the industry to increase the efficiency in producing workable outcomes (Burdge and Robertson 1990, Chong 2000). Although social science can be incorporated into every aspect of fisheries management, it is most frequently employed in the form of social impact assessments (SIAs). The adoption of social impact assessments at the initial phases of a policy-planning process can be a useful way to address the concerns and uncertainties associated with a particular management issue. A social impact assessment incorporates the two main approaches that social science offers. It allows the needs and concerns of fishers to be addressed, the social system to be understood, and is a way to identify, pre-test and promote the most suitable policy option (Rickson et al. 1988, Burdge and Robertson 1990, Craig 1990). A social impact assessment can (i) identify the potential social and economic impacts of a change in fisheries policy; (ii) integrate local knowledge with technical expert knowledge; (iii) evaluate the social and economic costs and benefits of various fisheries management strategies; and (iv) increase industry and community involvement in fisheries management. There are six generic steps to a social impact assessment: scoping, profiling, prediction, evaluation, mitigation and monitoring which are briefly outlined in the appendix. The incorporation of social, economic, cultural and political knowledge into the management of fisheries around the world is still only in its infancy. Nonetheless, there is sufficient evidence from other resource systems around the world (e.g. mining, logging, farming, coastal management) to suggest that where social knowledge is not considered, the fate of natural resources remains uncertain (Berkes et al. 2004). The inclusion of social knowledge into the decision-making process heralds a new era in the management of natural resources. Appendix The six generic steps to completing a social impact assessment are: (i) Scoping involves identifying the goals, issues and methods for the assessment, and the potential impacts that might be expected to result from a change in fisheries policy. Wherever possible, a well-developed industry and community involvement program is integrated into the process. A scoping study conducted in consultation with industry may help identify common goals. Common methods for scoping include broad-scale workshops, industry-specific workshops, qualitative interviews, key informant surveys and desktop-analysis, or a combination of these. (ii) Profiling describes the existing social and economic environment in which impacts are likely to occur. This step identifies the variables and indicators that describe the vulnerability of fishers to changes in fisheries policy. Profiling provides baseline data about the industry, and can therefore be acquired at any time prior to a policy change. Such data provide a basis for comparison should managers wish to set up a social and economic monitoring program to quantify the impacts of future changes. (iii) Prediction uses information collected during the profiling exercise to describe potential social and economic impacts. The probabilities, magnitude and distribution of impacts are described in this section. Social knowledge of how people are likely to respond to change, and how vulnerable they might be, are important for this component. Indirect impacts can be assessed by identifying and quantifying links between direct and indirect users of the fisheries resource. Predictions may also be qualitative, the results of the profiling exercise being assessed on the basis of broad discussions with industry. (iv) Evaluation is a process that determines the acceptability of potential impacts. This process involves considerable industry involvement since there are often significant differences in the way people evaluate impacts. The evaluation phase allows reef managers to assess the impacts associated with alternative proposals. This phase is initially conducted as a desk-top study, but it is crucial to ‘ground-truth’ the results by querying those people likely to feel the impact. (v) Mitigation focuses on minimising impacts. The aim of this component is to develop management strategies that maximise conservation values, while minimising the social and economic impacts. Again, this step requires extensive community involvement in the design of strategies. Conflicts between user groups in their expectations for management concessions can be minimised with good community involvement. (vi) Monitoring can enable reef managers to detect social and economic impacts associated with changes in fisheries policy. In addition, a monitoring program will help detect unforeseen impacts, and assess whether mitigation strategies are working as intended. References
|
