Introduction
Materials and methods
Literature review
Author | Method | Criteria | Region |
---|---|---|---|
(Spoors et al. 2021) | Survey with fishers | Economic, Environmental | Creel fisheries in Scotland |
(Pope et al. 2019) | Participatory Multi-criteria decision approach | Environmental, Economic, Institutional | North Sea fisheries |
(Nielsen et al. 2019) | Participatory decision support tool | Biological, Economic | West coast Scotland-Cod and whiting |
(Romeo and Marciano 2019) | Participatory Multi-criteria approach | Biological, Economic Social | Mediterranean |
(Williams et al. 2018) | Multi-attribute utility theory | Economic, Environmental, Biological, Logistics | English Chanel fisheries-European Seabass |
(Rindorf et al. 2017) | Participatory Multi-criteria approach | Economic, Ecosystem, Governance, Social | European fisheries |
(Morton et al. 2016) | semi-structured interviews with representative stakeholders | Social, Political | Scottish Wild Salmon fisheries |
(Kempf et al. 2016) | Participatory Multi-objective approach | Governance | North Sea |
(Rossetto et al. 2015) | Participatory Multi-criteria decision approach | Biological, Economic, Social | Mediterranean |
(Heen et al. 2014) | Participatory Multi-criteria decision approach | Socio-Economic, Environmental | Norway-Cod fisheries |
(Ross 2013) | In depth case study and interview with Fishermen | Social | North East Scotland |
(Innes and Pascoe 2010) | Participatory Multi-criteria decision approach | Bycatch, Habitat damage | European fisheries |
(Utne, 2008) | Participatory Multi-criteria decision approach | Socio-Economic Environmental | Norway-Cod fisheries |
(Nielsen and Mathiesen 2006) | Participatory Multi-criteria decision approach | Economic, Biological, Political | Norway and Denmark fisheries |
(Mardle et al. 2004) | Participatory Multi-criteria decision approach | Economic, Allocation, and Conservation | English Channel fisheries |
Definition of criteria
Socio-economic
Biological
Governance
Logistics
Environmental
Survey Design
-
The invitation: The invitation to participate in the survey was sent through email to respondents. In the invitation email, an introduction of the project and the purpose of the survey was explained and the survey URL was provided.
-
The introduction: The first page of the survey included explanation on the project and additional detail about the survey and how respondents may provide their answers.
-
Content modules: This item represented the survey which consisted of a number of criteria and a scale of importance related to each criterion. Five main criteria groups are defined each containing a number of sub criteria (Fig. 1).
-
The closing: After the content modules are completed the survey is ended with a feedback question from the respondents. Also agreement statement must have been checked by the respondents that they agree for their response to be used anonymously for research only purposes.
Question structure
Stakeholder groups
Data analysis
Results
Respondent | Gender | Experience | Sector |
---|---|---|---|
1 | M | Up to 5 years | Academia |
2 | M | 5–10 years | Academia |
3 | M | Up to 5 years | Academia |
4 | F | 10–15 years | Academia |
5 | M | More than 15 years | Scientific advisor |
6 | F | 5–10 years | Scientific advisor |
7 | F | Up to 5 years | Scientific advisor-government executive |
8 | F | Up to 5 years | Scientific advisor-public/private sector |
9 | M | 5–10 years | Scientific advisor |
10 | M | Up to 5 years | Industry representative |
11 | F | Up to 5 years | Marine policy advisory body |
12 | M | More than 15 years | Fishing association |
13 | M | 10–15 years | Fishing association |
14 | M | Up to 5 years | Producer |
15 | M | More than 15 years | Producer |
16 | M | More than 15 years | Skipper |
17 | M | More than 15 years | Skipper |
18 | M | 10–15 years | Skipper |
19 | M | More than 15 years | Vessel Owner |
20 | M | More than 15 years | Vessel owner |
Level of experience in the role | Sector |
---|---|
Up to 5 years = 35% | Scientific group = 45% |
5 to 10 years = 15% | |
10 To 15 years = 15% | Industry group = 55% |
more than 15 years = 35% |
Scientific group vs Industry group scores
Criteria | Scientific Group(Sk) | Industry group(Sk) | |
---|---|---|---|
Socio-economic | Increasing profit | 2.8 | 3.4 |
Increasing local employment | 2.6 | 3.5 | |
Increasing export | 2.3 | 3.2 | |
Biological | Reducing discards | 4.2 | 3.5 |
Reducing bycatch | 4.2 | 3.6 | |
Reducing overfishing | 4.3 | 4.2 | |
Governance | Inclusive governance | 4.2 | 3.8 |
Increasing transparency and simplicity of measures | 4.1 | 4.2 | |
Revision in TAC quota allocations | 3.6 | 3.7 | |
Revision in zonal attachments | 3.4 | 3.9 | |
Environmental | Reducing fishing impact on seafloor | 4.4 | 3.1 |
Reducing marine litter | 3.7 | 4.2 | |
Reducing CO2 emissions from fishing activity | 3.6 | 3.3 | |
Logistics | Increasing the size of fishing vessels | 1.7 | 2.3 |
Increasing the number of fishing vessels | 1.3 | 2.6 | |
Increasing the efficiency of fishing vessels | 3.9 | 4.1 |
Overall criteria scores
Criteria | Scores | Level of importance |
---|---|---|
Increasing the size of fishing vessels | 2 | Low |
Increasing the number of fishing vessels | 2.1 | Low |
Increasing exports | 2.8 | Low |
Increasing profits | 3.1 | Moderate |
Increasing local employment | 3.1 | Moderate |
Reducing CO2 emissions from fishing activity | 3.4 | Moderate |
Revision in TAC quota allocations | 3.7 | Moderate |
Revision in zonal attachments | 3.7 | Moderate |
Reducing fishing impact on seafloor | 3.7 | Moderate |
Reducing discards | 3.8 | Moderate |
Reducing bycatch | 3.9 | Moderate |
Increasing the efficiency of fishing vessels | 4 | High |
Inclusive governance | 4 | High |
Reducing marine litter | 4 | High |
Increasing transparency and simplicity of measures | 4.2 | High |
Reducing overfishing | 4.3 | High |
Analysis of open-ended questions
Socio-economic
Criteria | Industry Group | Scientific group |
---|---|---|
Profit | Fishing association (1): “The profitability of the business is the key to long-term success”. Producer (2): “Long term sustainability of stocks will flow from long term industry investment which provides customers with a stable supply of product Fishing association (2): “Everything is growing more expensive so profits going up, helps that”. Industry advisory (1): “Increasing profit and local employment serve the need of keeping the activities thriving and attract people into the sector. Fisheries are historically very important for coastal communities and helped to build them as they are now” so profits up would help that”. Skipper (1): “Not worth being here if operating at a loss”. Skipper (2): “All of the criteria just need improvement”. | Scientific advisory (1): “Each (profit, employment, export) are important criterion but should not individually be the main driver”. Scientific advisory (2): “Without real profitability and jobs the fishery cannot prosper. But that cannot come at the expense of the ecosystem, because that will reduce long term profitability of the fishery”. Academic (1): “The profit and employment criteria have to be balanced with each other to maintain overall economic and social sustainability”. Academic (2): “Profit ultimately sustains the operation of the fishery and an increase allows for longer term planning”. Scientific advisory (3): “None of these drive fisheries management decision making, the key issue is minimum sustainable whinge”. Scientific advisory (4): “Increasing profit does not often equate with sustainability”. |
Employment | Fishing association (1): “Employment strategy is the focus of government”. Producer (1): “The catching sector should be supporting the local fishing communities as they are temporary custodians of the fishery resources and they rely on the onshore sector to support their activities”. Fishing association (2): “Employment, attracts more people so less poverty so more jobs”. | Academic (2): “Increasing local employment maintains and strengthens the link between the fishery and the community which drives sustainability”. |
Export | Fishing association (1): “The export strategy of the company is created with an eye on profitability”. Producer (1): “We have no direct interest in exporting”. Fishing association (2): “The world’s demand for fish is growing increase exports are needed to meet this demand”. | Academic (1): “Increasing export is more problematical-e.g., many regional fisheries supply UK markets to varying degrees. There are substantial sub-regional variations in terms of species caught, technology (boat and gear), local and export markets, levels of direct employment, relationship with the shore industry, notably procession and transport, and overall location which reflects the inter-relationships of these factors”. Academic (2): “Increasing exports grows the market for produce but an overreliance brings its own problems”. |
Biological
Criteria | Industry | Academia |
---|---|---|
Reduction in overfishing | Fishing association (1): “Maintaining fishing mortality at or below maximum sustainable yield is important for the long-term prosperity of the stocks and the fishing business”. Industry advisory (1): “Reducing overfishing is high in everyone’s agenda since the fisheries rely on the presence of fish in the future and sustainability is paramount when looking into the future”. Owner/Skipper (1): “Lets think 25 years down the line for us and another for our next generation to make this a viable job with a viable future”. Producer (2): “overfishing leads to the breakdown of stocks, instability of supply, loss of market and thus loss of investment. That loss of investment exposes fisheries to short term profit drivers which act to hinder attempts at stock recovery”. | Academic (1): “Reduction of all three should be a high priority given the observable pressure on the fish stocks concerned”. Scientific advisory (2): “Without reducing overfishing, bycatch and discard the fishery cannot be sustainable”. Scientific advisory (4): “Measures to limit and reduce discard, bycatch, and overfishing lead to more sustainable fisheries and all three are playing a role in reducing MSY”. |
Reduction in discards and bycatch | Industry advisory (1): “The reduction of the discard is a priority because discarding fish does not benefit anyone, neither the fishermen wasting good fish and time spent at sea nor the stock that is affected. The reduction of bycatch depends on its definition. If we are talking about protected species then of course priority needs to be high, but in the definition of bycatch often other commercial, non-target species are included and in this case, assuming the quota is available for them, they could constitute an important component of the catch”. Fishing association (1): “Discarding is a symptom of unwanted catch or bycatch. The important issues are to avoid species or fish size you don’t want”. Producer (1):“Reductions in discards and unwanted by-catches in the demersal mixed fishery is important to us by has become something of a “holy grail”. We would judge that the elimination of discards and unwanted bycatch is impossible. There is no need to reduce by-catch if there is a quota allocation for it and a mixed demersal fishery comprises many bycatches”. Producer (2): “Reducing bycatch, overfishing and discards are all important for preserving biodiversity”. Skipper (2): “Discard is not a waste and is an important part of feeding the marine eco-systems”. | Scientific advisory (1): “Bycatch and discards are increasing and effective compliance and monitoring will reduce discarding more than biological management inputs”. Academic (2): “Discards are both unprofitable and distort the data on mortality and overfishing harms the long term sustainability of fisheries”. |
Governance
Criteria | Industry | Academia |
---|---|---|
Inclusive governance | Industry advisory (1): “Inclusive governance instead of top-down approaches, leads to writing policies which are more realistic and workable. Co-management provides a shared ownership of the regulations which makes it easier for the fishermen to comply and being accountable for their activities”. Fishing association (1): “Governance and transparency for me go hand in hand. The closer that those being managed are to the managers, preferable co-management, then the more positive response there will be with regard to legitimacy of regulation compliance”. Skipper (1): “We need governance otherwise it will fall down. Rules need to be universalised within reason. Stop the fat cat taking control or there’s no hope for future generations”. Skipper (2): “The system as it is needs overhauling as people making decisions have not a clue about how the job is or how it works”. Producer (1): “All sectors of the fishing industry must be part of the governance process in order for it to be successful”. Fishing association (2): “governance so that everyone is treated equally regardless of where they work”. | Academia (2): “Inclusive governance, increased transparency, and simplicity of measure are likely to lead to better adoption and compliance”. |
Revisions in TAC and zonal attachment | Fishing association (1): “Issues such as quota shares, zonal attachments etc should be kept under routine review”. Producer (2): “Revision of zonal attachment should reduce over quota discards as biologically sensible levels of quota will be available for all stocks caught in a mixed fishery. Other criteria are political and their desirability is determined by socio-economic objectives in fisheries policies”. Producer (1): “The way quotas are allocated must be constantly reviewed in order to take full account of change to fish stocks’ spatial distribution”; Fishing association (2): “Quota allocations should be reviewed since it is disproportionate in catch areas. Zonal attachment recognised as there needs to be a balance between maintaining biodiversity and livelihoods in the economy”. | .Academia (2) “TAC quota allocations are often based on outdated data and need be kept under review. Review of zonal attachments can help the function of the fishery but too much change can lead to conflict between nations and regions”. Academia (1): “All four governance criteria are high priority. Quota allocations and zonal attachments belong to the category of technical management measures upon which transparency and governance ultimately depends”. |
Transparency and simplicity of measures | Producer (1): “over the years measure have become complicated because they have been subjected to the “sticking plaster” approach whereas the core issues have not been tackled”. Fishing association (2): “Transparency is needed so it makes everything easier to understand”. | Scientific advisory (2): “Transparent and simple measures are important as are inclusive governance. If you can include fishers in the process of making decisions, they will follow the decisions”. Scientific advisory (4): “Transparency increases trust in measures and acceptance of solutions”. |
Environmental
Criteria | Industry | Academia |
---|---|---|
Reducing CO2 | Fishing association (1): “Reducing the emissions in fishing industry is less of an issue given the already low carbon footprint of the sector compared to other protein delivering sectors”. Fishing association (2): “CO2 emissions need to be reduced to combat global warming”. Producer (1): “All these issues are important to us but we must maintain a profitable catching sector if the industry and our fishing communities is to have a future”. Skipper (1): “The fishing industry emission is a very low impact, especially compared to other industries (the wind and oil have higher emissions). We will get there but need time for fleet to modernise because it is very expensive”. | Scientific advisory (2): “All of these criteria (reduction of CO2, impact on sea bed and marine litter) are important in their own right”. Academic (2): “Reducing CO2 is important but while global CO2 levels and their effects are important to the fishery, fishing itself is not a leading contributor”. |
Reducing marine litter | Fishing association (2): “Pollution is increasing so maritime litter would need to be reduced”. Producer (2):“All elements should feature in a fisheries policy. The importance of reducing fishing impact on sea floor varies with geography/substrate, the other two points (emissions and litter) are global in scope”. Owner/Skipper (1): “Litter is a no no, I’m now taking rubbish back to shore for 22 years and we are still catching rubbish but it is not that all fishermen dump rubbish!”. | Academic (1): “All three [criteria] are high priority, although solutions will require long-term application to become effective”. Academic (2): “Reducing marine litter are important but the direct impact of marine litter on the fishery is currently uncertain”. |
Reducing impact on seafloor | Fishing association (1): “It is important that we continue to improve our fishing techniques so that our disturbance of the seabed and seabed features is reduced to the minimum. It is also extremely important that we treat the sea as our own garden which we like to see in great condition (most of us anyhow)”. Fishing association (2): “Ocean needs to stay healthy since food chain in ocean relies on seafloor”. Owner/skipper (1): “The seabed is low impacted and where it is it does it good to turn it over like a farmer ploughing a field, it goes stagnant if not and the evidence is there”. Skipper (2): “The seafloor recovers extremely quickly due to the effects of wind and tide”. | Academic (2): “The seafloor habitat being considered as part of an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management is crucial, especially in a demersal fishery”. Scientific Advisory (3): “Impact [of fisheries] on seabed is increasing”. Scientific advisory (4): “Environmental protection measures are crucial to maintaining a healthy ecosystem and healthy abundant fish stock”. |
Logistics
Criteria | Industry | Academia |
---|---|---|
Increase in efficiency of fleet | Fishing association (1): “If a fishery is properly managed then the size or numbers of vessels is irrelevant and become a political decision based on social criteria. Efficiency of vessels is an important aspect in that technical creep can have a negative impact on mortality if the number and size of the vessels remains a constant”. “Efficiency increases profit and reduces effort”. Producer (2): “The most important criteria is to match fishing capacity with fishing opportunities. From a long term perspective, efficient harvesting would allow UK seafood to remain competitive on the global market. However, increasing efficiency in an effort based management system can lead to overfishing. Increase efficiency is desirable in a TAC and quota regime”. Producer (1): “Vessels need to be safe to withstand the increasing amount of storms being experiences and their strength. fishing vessels and their efficiency (the fishing capacity) should match the amount of fish that can be removed by fishing: because this will vary we must guard against creating over-capacity in the fleet”. Fishing association (2):“If you can fish efficiently, there is no need to increase the size of your vessel. There is plenty of vessels just now for what they are allowed to catch. Increasing efficiency means less time and energy is wasted”. Skipper(2):“Efficiency increases profit so reduces effort”. | Scientific advisory (1): “Efficiency is important in terms of targeted, selective fishing rather than volume”. Scientific advisory (4): “There need to analysis of the trade-offs between vessel size, number and efficiency in terms of contribution to environmental protection and fish stock sustainability. More vessels will lead to more catch, larger vessels lead to fewer jobs”. Academic (1): “While efficiency is related to both size and number of fishing vessels, it should still be high priority”. |
Increase in size and number of fleet | Industry advisory (1): “There are no absolute answers, the fleet segment and the various fishing activities around the coast of Scotland for example, require different classes of vessels and a variety of dimension and performances which cannot be easily simplified”. Owner/skipper (1): “The fleets are good size and supply can meet demand. The fleet does need modernising, but the whole Europe should ban multi-rig before it ruins the market”. Producer (2): “Increasing size or number of vessels very much depends upon whether one prioritises economic return or maintenance of employment in the catching sector (though not necessarily in the processing sector)”. | Academic (1): “Fisheries incorporate a number of different size categories which vary regionally and with regard to individual ports at which there are based. In general increasing size and number of vessels is low priority under present circumstances”. Scientific advisory (2): “More vessels will lead to more catch. Larger vessels lead to less jobs”. Academic (2): “Increasing the size and number of vessels should not be a goal. It should be monitored and any changes factored into decision making. Increasing the efficiency of the fleet should be a focus as it will improve the profitability but include measures to improve the efficiency with which catch species are targeted”. |