New Directions in Natural Resource Management

Summaries The article offers theoretical insights from Actor?Network Theory (ANT) as to how natural resource management (NRM) perspectives might be enhanced. ANT asks us to abolish the conventional sociological practice of studying phenomena in terms of predefined categories and principles, as they hinder our analysis of how the stakeholders involved construct resource management processes and the way these constructions are used. In this analytical process, any (uncertain) outcome of NRM is regarded as an effect of the interplay amongst the different stakes in the resource and the way stakeholders continuously mobilise social and material resources in order to achieve their goals. Only by analysing how certain outcomes have been achieved can we develop our understanding of the dynamics and uncertainties involved in NRM. The article uses empirical examples from coastal management scenarios to illustrate these theoretical points

A new era for science-industry research collaboration – a view towards the future

Direct engagement of the fishing industry in the provision and co-creation of knowledge and data for research and management is increasingly prevalent. In both the North Atlantic and North Pacific, enhanced and targeted engagement is evident. More is needed. Science-Industry collaborative approaches to developing questions, collecting data, interpreting data, and sharing knowledge create opportunities for information transfer and improved understanding of ecosystem interactions, stock dynamics, economic incentives, and response to management. These collaborations require clear communication and awareness of objectives and outcomes. These initiatives also require careful attention to conditions and interactions that foster respect, trust, and communication. Respect is critical and entails acknowledging the respective skills and expertise of both scientists and fishers. Trust is needed to build confidence in the information developed and its use. Communication is essential to maintain relationships and leverage shared insights. To assess current trends and future opportunities related to this type of engagement, we convened a networking session of research scientists, industry scientists, industry leaders, and fishers at the Annual Science Meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to address the following questions: (1) What are scientific needs that could be addressed with industry-collected data or knowledge? And (2) How can science-industry collaboration be made sustainable? Here we identify opportunities and acknowledge challenges, outline necessary conditions for respectful and sustainable collaborative research, and highlight ways to promote stakeholder involvement in developing science. We address industry concerns and solicit industry advice. We also address challenges to scientists in ensuring standards for scientific data, conflict of interest, and applying information to advise management. The discussions in this session and subsequent correspondence have led to a set of guidelines and best practices that provide a framework to advance further collaboration between industry and research science. We identify opportunities for directed engagement. We also detail potential approaches to clarify expectations and develop avenues for iterative communication and engagement to sustain collaborative efforts over time. The intent is to improve and expand data streams and contextual understanding of ecosystem processes, stock assessment, and socio-economic dynamics to the benefits of science and industry alike

Towards transdisciplinary decision-support processes in fisheries: experiences and recommendations from a multidisciplinary collective of researchers

The shifting policy focus towards Ecosystem Based Management in Fisheries (EBFM) requires the integration of knowledge and disciplines and the engagement of stakeholders to support decision-making processes. Scientists contribute to this through (i) participatory research projects, (ii) stakeholder partnerships and (iii) institutional scientific advice processes. Understanding the role of scientists in such processes, the nature of the interactions between scientists, stakeholders and managers in knowledge integration and the link between science and policy is an emerging field of research addressing transdisciplinary challenges. In 2018, Ifremer-UMR AMURE organized the workshop ‘Science, Partnership and Decision-support in Fisheries’ bringing together international scientists from natural and social sciences to conduct a review based on twenty concrete case studies. Findings indicate that science-stakeholder-manager partnerships for decision-support in fisheries can play an essential role in the transition to EBFM. To foster this transition, eight recommendations are presented that cover the roles of the different participants, the expectations of partnerships, capacity building, the integration of the social sciences, and funding structures. Further, it is recommended that future research and innovation framework programmes into sustainable fisheries and other ocean uses should explicitly include mechanisms to foster transdisciplinary approaches and the development of best practices. Building-up networks and developing reflexive approaches to review experiences and practices for transdisciplinary approaches in EFBM decision-support will contribute to design the next generation transdisciplinary platforms and generating actionable knowledge towards EBFM

Workshop on accounting for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice (WKAFPA)

The objective of the Workshop on accounting for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice (WKAFPA) was to identify where and how stake- holder information could be incorporated in the ICES fisheries advice process. It adopted an operational definition of the concept of perception, where perceptions result from observations, interpreted in light of experience, that can be supported by data, information and knowledge to generate evidence about them. Stakeholder information can be either structured (e.g. routinely collected information in a standardized format) or unstructured (e.g. experiential information) and either of those can inform decisions made during the production of ICES advice. Most notably, the group identified there was a need to engage with stakeholders earlier in the process, i.e. before benchmarks meetings take place and before preliminary assessment results are used as the basis to predict total allowable catches for upcoming advice (Figure 4.2). It was therefore recommended to include in the ICES process the organisation of pre-bench- mark/roadmap workshops where science and data needs of upcoming benchmarks can be iden- tified, followed by making arrangements how scientists and stakeholders can collaborate to ac- cess, prepare for use (where relevant) and document the structured and unstructured infor- mation well ahead of the benchmark meetings. It was also recommended to organise ‘sense-checking’ sessions with stakeholders when prelim- inary assessments are available but not yet used as the basis for advisory production. This would allow stakeholders and assessment scientists to verify available knowledge and data against stock perceptions and provide additional considerations relevant for the production of TAC ad- vice. Next to these two additional activities, it is recommended that communication on differ- ences in stakeholder perception or data derived perceptions are communicated within the ICES assessment reports as well as in the ICES advice in a transparent manner. Not only should dif- ferences or similarities be documented and communicated, in those cases where there are differ- ences in perception between ICES stock assessments and stakeholders, a working group, external to the assessment working groups, should evaluate these differences and describe whether these differences can be logically explained or require further investigation. This outcome of this pro- cess may potentially lead to new data collection or additional analyses suitable for input to benchmarks. Essential in this entire process is making sure the same language is spoken between scientists and stakeholders, that there are clear and transparent processes in place on how to deal with stakeholder information and communicate clearly how this information is used in the prepara- tion of ICES advice.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Workshop on accounting for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice (WKAFPA)

The objective of the Workshop on accounting for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice (WKAFPA) was to identify where and how stakeholder information could be incorporated in the ICES fisheries advice process. It adopted an operational definition of the concept of perception, where perceptions result from observations, interpreted in light of experience, that can be supported by data, information and knowledge to generate evidence about them. Stakeholder information can be either structured (e.g. routinely collected information in a standardized format) or unstructured (e.g. experiential information) and either of those can inform decisions made during the production of ICES advice. Most notably, the group identified there was a need to engage with stakeholders earlier in the process, i.e. before benchmarks meetings take place and before preliminary assessment results are used as the basis to predict total allowable catches for upcoming advice (Figure 4.2). It was therefore recommended to include in the ICES process the organisation of pre-benchmark/roadmap workshops where science and data needs of upcoming benchmarks can be identified, followed by making arrangements how scientists and stakeholders can collaborate to access, prepare for use (where relevant) and document the structured and unstructured information well ahead of the benchmark meetings. It was also recommended to organise ‘sense-checking’ sessions with stakeholders when preliminary assessments are available but not yet used as the basis for advisory production. This would allow stakeholders and assessment scientists to verify available knowledge and data against stock perceptions and provide additional considerations relevant for the production of TAC advice. Next to these two additional activities, it is recommended that communication on differences in stakeholder perception or data derived perceptions are communicated within the ICES assessment reports as well as in the ICES advice in a transparent manner. Not only should differences or similarities be documented and communicated, in those cases where there are differences in perception between ICES stock assessments and stakeholders, a working group, external to the assessment working groups, should evaluate these differences and describe whether these differences can be logically explained or require further investigation. This outcome of this process may potentially lead to new data collection or additional analyses suitable for input to benchmarks. Essential in this entire process is making sure the same language is spoken between scientists and stakeholders, that there are clear and transparent processes in place on how to deal with stakeholder information and communicate clearly how this information is used in the preparation of ICES advice.Peer reviewe

Multi-Use Conflicts in Inshore Waters

Until only quite recently, human activity in Europe’s inshore waters made little impact on marine resources and one activity scarcely interfered with any other. But long term developments such as demographic growth, urbanisation, expanding demand for food and natural resources, the integration of resources into markets, technological innovation, the development of marine transport and the rise of tourism have all increased the level of human impact on coastal areas and resources. Once a domain where only fishers and sailors ventured, the sea is now being used for many other purposes, particularly in the inshore zone. In addition to their continuing importance for fisheries, inshore waters are now commonly used quite intensively for other potentially intrusive activities. The public’s growing demand for entry to the inshore zone has brought about competition and conflicts between various claimants over access to, allocation of and control over coastal space and resources. In addition to multiple use conflicts, intensified use of the coastal zone can also exacerbate resource management problems. Human activities unrelated to fisheries affect marine ecosystems: mineral exploration and development, water based recreation, navigation, dredging, land reclamation, industrial and agricultural waste disposal including the discharge of effluents and the dumping of toxic chemical and nuclear waste, thermal pollution from coastal power stations etc