StepZero for MarineConservation:
Driving Factorsof VoluntaryFisheryClosuresinNewfoundlandandLabrador
By
©Kim Olson
A Thesissubmitted to the Schoo lof GraduateStudies inpartial fulfillmentof thc requirementsfor thc degree of
Masterof Arts
Department of Geography MemorialUniversityof ewfoundland
July, 201I
St.Johns ewfoundlandandLabrador
Abstract
Fisheryclosuresare a formof conserva tio n measur eemployedtoprot ectfish stoc ks.a key resour ce forman y coasta lcommunities. Duetothe socialandecono micim po rta nceof fisheries.
there arccha lle ngesassociatedwith lim iting access tomarine resources .Nonethe less. fish ery closuresare gaining popul arit yinthe pro vinc e of Newfo und landand Labrad or.part icul arl y as voluntary initiati ves.Voluntary fisher yclosu restake shapeascommun ity-b ased conservation initiat ivesdrivenbyfi shharvesters andfur ther includ ethefishharvester s 'union and thefed eral department of Fish er ies and Ocean s in their implement at ion and monit orin g.
Notall closur esdiscu ssedare impleme nted.and not all implement ed closuresarc success fulin meetingtheir conserva tio nobj ec tives. Researchon clo sur eshasfo cu sedprimar ily on outcom esor compliance.often excl uding thesteps. processe s. andinte ractions thateitherlead to or inhibit theirimplementati on.Thisthesis argues that knowin ghow a clos ure is co nce ived.
discu ssedand communicat ed . aswellaswhat thestate of thefisheries system isprior to its implementation help explainwhythey succeedor fail. Thiscan furtherour understandingof the role of voluntaryclosuresin fisherie smanagementand thefactorsthat generate theirsupport or oppos ition. Knowl edg eof whatdrives voluntary closure s can further provid einsighton what fa ctor sneedtobe in placeforfishharve ster sto supportor beengag ed in fisherie scon servat ion .
Rese archforthisthesis wasconductedin theBay ofIsland s.West ern New fo undland.
where a voluntarysnowcrab closur ewasdiscu ssedamon ginshore crab harv ester sin the spring 01'2010. butwasnot im pleme nted. Thirty sem i-s truc turedinte rviewswith fishharvesters.the fishharve ste rsunion . fis he ry manager s, scientists.andothe r commun itymember swere condu ctedto examinethestepzero offisher yclosu rediscu ssion sin the area. i.e. the drivers.
steps, processes andinterac tions lead ingtotheclo sur ediscu ssions.Questi on s explored the moti vati on.initiator s. support.opposi tion.andexpec tationsfor a voluntaryclosurein the area.
Furthe rmore, interviews sough tinfo rma tiononeachcompo ne ntofthe fishchai n(ma rine environme nt harvest processingand market ing)to enha nce the afore me ntio ned 'stcp zero understandin g.
Intervi ewsillu strat edthattheinitiati ve wasinfluen ced firstand for em ostbydecl ining crabstoc ks.andwas also driven by anexisti ngclosureinthenearb y area. as wellaslo wprices of snowcrab.The closur e was furtherconceiva ble becau se of alow economicrel ianceon the crabfisher yin that area.While conce rnsabo ut thestoc kwereshared.stake ho lder'ssuppo rtfor the clos urevaried.asdid the irexpec tationsof the clos ureand their roles in marine conse rvatio n.
Itisclearthroughthis study thatthe crabstocks in theBay of Island s arcdeplet ing and require attenti on :how everclosur ediscu ssion sdid notfully address theneed s and concern sraisedby all harvester sin thearea .Until theseissues arcadd ress edacon sen su s amo ngcrab harve ster sto closethe fisher yisunlikel y.as aresultit isimprobablethatavoluntarycrabclosurewill be implemented.
Acknow lcdgc mc nts
This proj ect wasmad epossibl e with the support frommanypeopl eto who m low e gratitude.
Iamsince rely thank fultomy superv isor, Dr. Ratan a Chuenpag dce, without whose helpIcould not have com pleted thisproj ect.Iam furtherindebt edtomycommitteemembersDr.Bob Hoop er and Dr.GabrielaSaba u for thei rguida nceandsuppo rt,andcolleag uesat the Internation al Coasta lNetwo rk fortheir enco urage mentandadvice.
I would liketo offe rfurthe r thank stoDonBall ,JohnLubar,andConrad Mullins,DFO ;Mont y Way and Jason Sping le,FFAW; She ldo n Peddle,ACAPHumberArm;to allinterv iew participantsand communitieswithin theBayofIslands.
Iamgratefu l toMemorialUn iversity 's DepartmentofGeog raphy,Harri s Centre,and InternationalCoas tal Network for their financi alsupport towardsthisproject.
Lastl y,I wouldlike tooffermyregard sto all ofthos e,there arc man y,whohavesupported me in anyrespect duringthe completion of thisproject.
Ta b le ofCon te n ts
Abstract 2
Ack n ow lcdgc mc n ts 3
List ofTab les 6
List ofFig u ..cs 7
ListofAcrony ms 8
Ch ap te r OncInt ..ed uc tion 9
1.1.Whatare voluntary fishe ryclosur es? ... .. 9
: " " 11
FishenesintheBayotIslands " 13
Organrzanonotlnests " 14
Cha pterTwo Liter atureRevi ew 16
2.1. Canadian fisheriesmanagement 16
2.2.Stakeh olderparti cip ation in fisherie smanagement ....21 2.2./.Co-managementandcommunitybasedmanagementinfishcries... ....24
Fishervclosureoverview..
2.4.Wickedprobl em sin fisheriesmana gement .
2.5.Pre-implementationstudies .
. 28
.. 35
... ... 36
Ch a p tc .. 3 Methodol ogy 411
3.1. Selec tio nofcase study 40
3.2.Keyinformant meetin gs " .
3.3.11ll<oIIV'<o',V" " " ..
3.4.Dataanal ysis ... ...46
Ch a p te rFou rFish ingActiv it)'in theBa yof Isl and s 49
4.1.Genera l descripti on oftheBay ofIsland s... .. 49
4.2.TheBay ofIslandsmarine environment .. 52
4.2./.Snowcrab characteristics.: .54
4.3.2.Seasons.: .. 60
4.3.3.Quotasandlandings,.. . 6/
4.4.Fishprocessin g and marketingin theBay oflslan ds. . 63
4.4./.Fishprocessingplnnts,., .. 63
4.4.2.Prices 65
Cha pterFiveSte pZeroofVolu nta ryFis he ryClos u re Discu ssionsin theBay ofIslands 72
5.1. Interviewresp ondents . 74
5.2.Initiators.discussion and participation . 76
5.3.Drivers andconditions . 82
5.6.Clos ureben efits 5.7. Prospect iveclosure .
... ...88 ...88
Cha p te r6Discu ssi on 91
6.1.Voluntaryclosuresand fisheriesmanagementpriorities 91
6.2.Voluntaryfisheryclosures asa conserv ation tool. . 96
6.3.Implicat ionsof avoluntaryclosure in the BayofIslands . 98 6.4.Diversit y.complexity. and dynami csin theBay ofIslands 100
Cha p te r 7Co nclus ions I()4
7.1.Drivingfactors of crabclosurediscussions . 104
7.2.Stakeholder particip ationinclos ure discussions . . 107
7.3.Futureofvoluntaryclosuresin theBay ofIslands 108
7.4. Policy implica tions... . 109
7.5.Future research.. . 109
Refer en ces 112
Appe n d ixA 118
Table3. ] Table3.2 Table4. 1 Table 4.2 TableS . 1 Table5.2
Listof Tab les List ofkey informa nts
Interview codi ng: mainthem es coded for inte rview data Em ploym entin theBay ofIsl ands
Fish ing seasons by spec ies in theBay of Island s
Profil e of surveyrespo nde nts: number ofrespond ent sby fis hingoccupation Profil e offi shharvester respo nde nts: number offishharve stersby spec ies harvested
Figure 4.1 Figure4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure4.7 Figure 4.8
List of Figu res
Map oftheBay ofIslands showingstudycommunities MapfeaturingBay of Islands crab fishing areas l2E and l2F Map ofcrab fishing areas inNewfoundlandand Labrador Snowcrab harvestedin the Bay ofIslands
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization(NAFO) fishing areas Conical traps employed in thecrabfishery
Snowcrab quotaandlandingsin theBayof Islands Changesin provincialfishpricesfrom 1998-2009
ACAP ASP BOI CBM CBRM CFA CMA DFA DFO EI FFAW GOSLIM IQ LOMA MPA NAFO NL SPON L TAC
ListofAcronyms
AtlanticCoastalAction Program Associationof SeafoodProducers Bay ofIslands
CommunityBasedManagement CommunityBased ResourceManagement Crab FishingArea
CoastalManagementArea Department of FisheriesandAquaculture Department of FisheriesandOceans Employment Insurance Fish,Food,andAlliedWorkers GulfofSt.Lawrence Integrated Management Individual Quota
Large OceanManagementArea Marine ProtectedArea
NorthwestAtlanticFisheriesOrganization NewfoundlandandLabrador
SeafoodProcessors of NewfoundlandandLabrador TotalAllowableCatch
Cha pter One Introduction
Thischapter provides anintrod uctionandoverview ofthepre- impl em ent at io n process of voluntary fi sh er y clos ureswith part icul ar emphas ison the8ay ofIsland s (801). ewfoundland.
Settingcontex tfor the research. a general introductionto voluntary fish eryclosur es isprovided.
Thisisfollow ed with back groundinfo rma tio nonstepzero. partnered withanintrod uctiontothe centralresearchquestions andsubseq uentobj ectives.Next,anoverviewoffisherie s intheBay ofIslandsispresented to set theframework forthe studyand tooff er an introductiontothe study area.Lastly, anoutlineof the ens uingchapters isusedtoprovid e a snapshotofcontentswith in thisthesis.
1.1.What arevoluntaryfisheryclosures?
Fisheryclosuresare atype of conserva tion measure commonlyem ployedto protec tcommercia l and non-comm ercial fishstocks. enda ngere dand threaten ed species.uniq ue habitats.marine biodiversity (DFO. 1999 ), and historicalfi sh ing traditio ns(Andersonetal.. 2000).Closurestake man ydiffe ren t shapesandforms,Thcycanbe differentiated by area, species.orgearrestriction s:
they varytemp orall y; and moreover can be initiated byfishharvesters.fish eriesmanagers or conserva tiongroups.In thisthesis fis hharvester-initiated closures arcfurt hersubd ividedinto twocategories:thoseinitiatedbyfish harvestersfrominsid ethetargetedfishery.and those initiatedbyfi shharvesters outsideof the targetedfish ery.Thetannerarcreferr edtohereinas voluntaryfisheryclosuressince they are initiatedbyharvester swhoparticip atein thefishery targetedtoclose.i.e. theyarcvoluntarily pursu ed.Thelatter. however,arc notreferredto as
voluntary becau sethey areinitia ted by fis h harv est er swho seekto closeafish ery inwhic h the y donotpa rticip at e.In bot h cases.these closures differ from thoseinitiat edby fishe ries man age rs asthcy arcconce ive datthe com m uni tylevel and driven by fish har vest er s whereasthe latterarc de rived from mor e centralized manage ment andmayor maynotinclude stake ho lders.
Fish harvest e r-in itiat ed closuresha vehad aprese nce inNewfound la ndandLabra dor(L) sinee the earlyI960·s.when a groupofhand-lineharv ester s in PettyHarb ou r-M ad do x Cove work edto clos e the gillne t fish er ytoprote cthist oric alfishin gpracti ces. Since then . a varietyof harvest er-in itiat ed clos ures have em e rged. man yfollowingthesameobje ctiveofprot ectin g traditionalfishin g activ ity.More recentl y.however,voluntary clos ures have gaine d popularit y.
Exa m ples can befound throu gh outtheprovince,including sma ll area-b asedlob st erclosur esin the com m unitiesof St, Brend an ' s and TroutRive r. a shrim p- tra w lclosure inNorthernLabrador.
anda sno wcrabclosurein Bonne Bay (Ande rso net al..2000).These local initia tives havebro ad impl ication s.reachi ng beyondtheclosure athand.In light of threa te ned fi sh stocks and the correlating loss of fishery- rela tedlivelihoods.they cont rib ute tothebigge rpicture ofmarine conservat ion.
Thcfocusof thisthesisisonvoluntaryfishe ryc1osurcs.Voluntaryclosuresareuniqu e as the ir origi n lies within the com m uni ty . Rath e rthan opposi ngtheconse rva tio n measu re. asis ofte nexpec ted.fishhar veste rsthem sel ves craftthepol icy and take collec tive resp on sib ilityover fish er y resources , Bear in g resem blance to a1'01111of co-ma nag e me nt.volunta ry fi sh eryclosur es demonstrat eagove rna nce processwhereb yfishharv est er s,fisheriesmanagement,and the fish eri esunionworktogeth ertodesi gn ,implement, and monit or a specif icclosure(Wi lso nC!Ial., 2003) .
10
1.2. Why'step ze ro '?
Exami n ing thepre-implem entation of volu ntar yclosuresrevealsthelikely environ me n tal, so cia l.
and econ om icoutcomesaclosure mayhaveuponthefishcha in,aswell asthe com m un ity at large.Moreover,lik e othermanagement to ol s.closureisnot aquick-fixsolutio n(Degnbol('1111..
2006),andunde rstanding the pre-imp lementati onproce ssmayhelp todetermi newhen and wherethis ap p ro ac h ma ybeap pro priate ,and willhelpidentifythefactor sthatmayfo steror prohib itthe ir im p le me ntati on.Volu ntaryclo sure sexe m p lifyresponsible fishe riesmanagement (Krishn a,2002),em p loytheprec auti on ar yprincipl e,and rega rdl e ss ofthefactor sdriv ingthe ir implem entationtheypro vid e directecosy ste m ben efi ts,Nevertheless, underst andin gthese clo suresmayreve al condi tio nsotherwiseunsee n.Theyma ybe aco st-efficient op tion for fish eri e sman agement orlead toincrea sedbarg ainingpo w erto rfishharv e sters . On the other hand ,a clo surema y re-d ire ct pressur e ontootherfishstoc ks , reduce emp lo ymentin pro ce ssin g plants, orhaveunanti c ipated impactstorthecom m un itysuchasdecr e ased foodsecurityor increased outm ig ra tio n.In this co ntex titisnec essar ytounderst andthe proc essof voluntary fishery closures.
Thepur po se of thisresearchistounderst and theclo sur eproces sthrougha'st ep zero' approac h.Stepzero ,orpre-impl ementati on , studi esseek tounderst andthe ste ps, proce s se s.
conditi ons anddriver sth atleadto anevent:in theca se of this research.volu ntary closures.The term "ste pzero"refe rstoeveryt h ing that occu rsbefor e anactio n takespla ce (i.e.a closure is im p le me nte d)or,inothe r words,everyt hingthattransp irespriorto theofficia ldecision to impl em ent. Stepze roaimstounde rst andtheenv iro nm en ta l. pol icy, andsocia lim p lic atio nsthat occurwhe nacon s erv ati onmea sur e is initiallyconce iv edand comm unicated .thepol icyis
II
formed.andadecisionto impleme ntismade (Chue npag dceand Jcnto ft ,:W07).
In thcBay ofIsland s. wester n L.a fis hcha instudy has been builtinto thc stepzero ana lysis todevelop amo rethoro ugh unde rsta nd ingof thc process offi sher y closurediscussions.
enco mpassi ngeach clem ent of thefishcha in.The fish cha ininc ludes the entire fi sh eries system and theinteracti on sthrou gh out .i.e.themarine enviro nme nt, as wellasfishe ries capture.
processin g and mark etin g (Koo ima n('1al..2005).Byusing ste pzeroin conjun ct io n withafi sh chainana lysis , thisresearchhas establishedafoundati onforunderstand ing voluntary fisher y closure s, and thc fish cha in comp on ent sthat contribut eto or hinder their implement ation.
In employingaste pzeroapproach to voluntary fisher yclosur es,thc keyresearch quest ionistounderstandthedrivers,factor s,andcond itions that contrib ute todiscu ssion s and subse q uent implem ent at ion (or not ) of volunta ryclos ures.From this centra l resear ch goal.four subs eque ntobje ctives have eme rge d:
I) Unders ta ndthesteps andprocessesthatIcdtothe discussio nabo utvoluntary crab closureinthe Bay ofIsland s.
2) Describe thefishchainandide ntifyfactorstha tarc cond uciveto fis heryc1osurc.
3) Exami ne the levelofpart ici pat ion andinteract ionofkey sta keho ldergroupsinthe closur ediscu ssion s.
4) Identifytheimport an ce ofcommunity suppo rt for clos ure implem ent at ion .
These goals havebeenreal izedprimar ilythroughtheuse of qual itat ivedatain theform of sem i- structured interv iews. key info rma nt meetin gs,archi valresearch . andarevi ew of literatu re.
12
1.3.Fisheriesin theBay ofIsl an d s
This research ha s taken asing le case studyapproach to examine theste pzero of voluntarysnow crab(Chiono ccet csopilio)closurediscussio ns intheBayofIsl and s. L. L is Cana da's easternmost pro v inc e.lo cat ed ontheAtla ntic Oce an. The pro v in ce.dueto itsstro nghisto rica l tics tothefishe ry. is oft e nassocia ted with richfishin g gro undsandarichfish in g cu lture,Despite thelar gedeclinein groundlishspec iesexpe rie nce d in thepro v in ce.leadin gtotheclo sur eof the cod(Gadu smorhuai fisheryin the early1990·s. andsubs eq ue nt mo ratoria(trigg erin glarge employmentcutsin thefishingindustry) ,NL remain srelativelydependent on thefishing indust ryboth economi call y andsocia lly.In200 5 thcfishharve st in g and proces sin g secto rs in NLcom p rised20.63 5ind ivi d ua ls, providin gemploymenttoroughl y 8percent of theworking popul ati on ,inadd itio n to other fishery-relat edjob s suchastran sp ort ati on.man a gem ent,and sales (Govern me ntofll.,200 6 ).The high em p loy me ntconnec ted tothefi sh in g ind ustry remainspo ssib leduetoash ift inthe fisher y'sfocusfromgrou nd lis h to crustaceans,partic u lar ly threekeyspec ies:sh rim p, lobste r.andsno w crab(DFO.2010b).
The rearc265 fish harv est e rsresid ingin theBay of Isl and s. eachwiththe irownsuiteof lic en se s,tar g et edspe cies , vessels,andgear (Govern me ntof ewfo und la ndandLabra dor.2006).
Harvestersin the area holdmultiplelic en sesfo rspecies including snow crab ,lob stertHomaru s americunus ) , cod. halibut.capelin,mack erel and herring.Be ginningin the198 0·s.thesnowcrab fishery isrelati vel ynewtothe Ba yof Island s,and is sm a ll in comparisontothe crabfishery on the ca stcoa stof thepro vince.In20 09,crabfisherie sin westernNL (NAPO divi sion4R3PN) acco unted forrou ghl ytwoper centof thelandin g s in east ernNLs NAFO divi sion s 3Land3K (sec Fig ure 4.5) (DF O,201Og). None theless,thisfisherypla ysan import ant rolein the
13
livelihoodsofselectfish harvestersinwestern L.Inthe spring01'20 IO.discu ssionsregarding the imple men tatio nof a voluntary snow crab closurearosein theBay ofIslands. Closure discussionswere drivenbyfactorsincluding declining local crabstocks and alow provincial market value. Ho wever unlike the voluntary snow crab closurein neigh bouringBonne Bay.it wasnot implemente d.Thisresearch examinestheprocess. interactio ns.andeventsbehind closure discussionsin the Bay ofIslands.incl udi ngfactors that led to the decision not to proceed with theclosu re.
104.Orga niz ationofThes is
Th is thesisis orga nize dintosevencha pters.The fir st chap ter provid es an introdu ct ionto volunta ryfish er y closures. statesthe needfo rpre-impl em ent ati on studies.andide ntifiesthe researchobjectives.Theseco nd chapter present s areview ofpert inen tliterature and explores variou stopicsincluding conser vationmeasure s,fisheryclosure .wicked problems.fisheries governance. andparticipationin fisherie smanagementin addi tion to a general overviewof fisheriesin L. Theterm "wicked problem" re fe rsto a complex problem whichisdifficultto so lve (Rit teland Webber, 1973). asfoundinthe studyof fisheries(JentoftandChuenpagdcc, 2009). Com plex ity.diversityanddynamicsas factorsof "governability,"i.e..the overall governa nce qual itiesof the syste ms(Kooi ma nandChue npag dee,2005). arefurt herexami nedin thereviewofl itera ture.Unde rsta ndi ngwicke d probl em s req uirescompre he ns ionoftheirhuman natur eas well asthenatur e of the ecologica lsystem itsel f. These problemsare.accord ing to Jent oft andChue npagdee, issues of governa nceandcan be a resultof govcrnab ility(Je ntoftand Chuenpagdee, 2009).Thethirdchapteroutlinesthemeth odology emp loyedinthisstepzero study.includi ngadetailed descriptio nofthe interviewstyleand process.the case study.key-
14
info rm antmeetin gs, and theliteratur ereview.The f()U11h chapte r describ esthe socialand physical charac teris ticsofthe Bay of Island s andanoverviewoffishing activi ty in the area. The fi sh cha inis employe d in this cha pter to augme ntthe understandin g of boththe studysiteand fish eri es system.The fift hcha pte rexplores the findingsfrom intervi ew s andkeyinfor ma nt meetin gs.This isdon ethrou gh explori nga seriesof stepzeroquesti onswhic hseek torespondto thepred efinedresearch object iveandgoals.Thesixthcha pter discu ssesthe resu ltsfromthedata collectionand literatu re reviewprocess, whi le the seventhandfi na lcha pte r concludes withkey resear ch fi nd ingsand implicati ons ofthe study .
15
Chapter Two Literature Review
Thischa pte rreviewstheliter atu re relevant tothepre-impl em e ntat ion of volunta ryfishery closures,First.a generaloverview of Canadian fisheriesmanagementisprovided.A brief syno ps is of how fisheriesmanagementhasevolved over time is followed by a sum m a ryofs el cc t policiesand Icgislatio ns thatguide modemfisheriesmanagement. ext. sta ke holder participation in natu ralresou rce manage me nt is explo red,includi ngapproacheswh ich ha vebeen de velop ed to enha ncestakeho lde r partici pa tio ninCanadia n fish er iesman agem ent. Thisexamina tion is essentia l.as volunta ryclosuresare a form ofstakeho lde rpa rticip atio n. Morespecifi cally. they sho wcas e participationby fishharvester s-a key stakeho ld er inthefishery.Subsequ entl y.
community-ba sedandco-man agementarc explored. and their institutional advancement sfor stakeho lderparticipation.Thesearedefined. andthe n discussedas forum sfor enhancing sta ke ho lder part ic ipati on , andadiffer enti ati onbet weenthetw o ispro vid ed . Thisis followedby a sectio nexam ini ngfishe ryclosuresand their roleinmar ine conservatio nand resou rce management.paired with discussionson mandatory andvolun taryfisheryclosure s.Finall y.pre- implementationisexploredwithaparticular emphasi s on the benefitsit canprovideto rese arch inresourcemanagement.
Prio r to.during.andfollowi ng fi el d workliter aturewas reviewedpertaining to the Ba yof Isl and s.fish eri es conservatio n. fish e ry clos ures.and parti cip ati on in fish eri esman agem ent. To addressthe inte rd iscip linarynatu re of fishe ries,the review ofliteratu re examinesmater ial from boththenatural andsoc ialscie nces.In addition to publishedwork,includingjoumalarticles and book chapters.a varietyof websites and greyliteraturewasreviewedsuch asnewsletters.
16
research reports.and fish eries sta tis ticsspeci fic tothe Bay of Island s.Info rm ation onfis he ries landin gs in the area was oftenunavailabl e onwebs itesor throu gh other publishedliteratur e.As a res ult.muchofthis info rma tionwasreceived direc tlyfrom theDep artm ent of Fisheriesand Ocea ns.orfromothe rresearchrepo rtsif accessib le.A lackof availableresearchonfis heries in theBay of Island sis. in part. attrib uted tothe stro ng presence oflogging and pulp and pap er product ionin the area.Pulpand paperhasbeenthema inindustryin theBay of Island s since 1925,withthe openingof Corne r BrookPulpand PaperLimited. Asa resultthemajorit y of researchin theareahasfocused on the fore str y.parti cularl ythe pulpand paper. industr y.
2.1.Canad ian fisher iesman agement
Canad ian fisheries arevaluedatover CDN$5 billion annually . provide emp loy me nt tomore than130 .000 Canadia ns .andaretheeconom icmainstay of roughly 1,500rural coasta l commun ities (AgricultureandAgri-FoodCana da. 2009 ).Capture fish eri esmakeup76 percent of Canadia nseafoo d produ ct ion. of whic h lob ster. crabandshri m preprese nt67percent of its land ed value(AgricultureandAgri-Foo dCanada .2009).
The186 7 Constitutio nAct providedthe fede ra lgovernme ntwithexc lusiveauthori tyover Canadia nfishe ries man agem ent (Gough.2007).TheDepartment ofFishe riesandOceans(DFO) isthefederal agency resp on sibl efor ad ministra tingfis her ies management .andis guided bythe Fish erie s Act whichprovide s aframew orkfor Canad ian fishe riesmanagemen t.Duetothe diversit yofCanada ' smarine environmentand coastalcommunities.DFO is subd ivided intosix region s(Pacific. Centra landArctic. Quebec .Maritime s. Gulfand Newfoundl and and Lab rad or ) and.as such. fishin gregul ati ons varyacco rd ing ly(D FO.20 IOc).
17
TheFis he riesAct hasbeen in place sinc e 186 8.when it wasfirstenactedtoman age and protec tfishresourc esinCana da 's fish in g zones. territori al seas .and inland waters .Follo w ing the implementati on of the Ac t.aperi od ofearl y grow thin fisheri es set thc found at ionforfisheries managementin Can ad a (Go ug h.2007).From1945to196 8 Cana d ian fish e ries went throu gh heavyindustri al expa ns io n. encour agedbythefederal gove rnme nt.Tec hno log ica ladva nce me nts led to inercasedboat sizesand moreintensivefishinggear suc haslargepurse seinesand trawl s.
Thistriggered decliningstoc ks, and acc ordingl y,the desireforan improvedapproa chto mar ine conservation.Consequently,from 1968to 1984fisheriesmanagement evolved to include time, area,gear,andfishsiz e regulationsasthe main meansof m anagcm ent. in addition tolicensin g, which wasalreadyin place.Several decade slater,theseremainthe main control measure s em p loy edin fisheriesmanagement(Gou gh , 2007).
Theground fisheri es 'collap sein the 198 0sgeneratedincreased conce rn lor fis hsto c ks andcalled fish e rie sman agem ent stra teg ies intoquesti on.Thistriggeredincre ase sin fishe ries res ea rc h.enforcem ent , and dock sid emon ito rin g, in additi ontothcimplement at ion ofne w legi sl at ion and poli cies (Goug h,2007).including arevisi on ofthe agingFisher iesActin2007to moderni zeand updat ethedocum ent. The prop osedAct aime d topro vid e a fis he ries man agement syste mwith improv edtran sp ar en c y. sta b ilityandsta keho lderparticipation(OFO ,2007 ).
Inadditio n toregi on all y spec ifi creg ulatio ns andcons e rva tio n measure s,OFOhas esta blis hed three national overarchin gprioritiesfor fisheriesmanagement :environmental sus tainab ility, economic viability,and theinclusio n of stakeholdersin dcei sionmaking (OFO, 2009a ). These goals arc, inpart , so ug ht through the FisheriesAct. and further involvethe devel opmentof fisheri esprog ram s. ini tiatives , and managementpolicies at both the federaland regi on allevel.Due tothediver si ty ofcoast al andocean user s.these arc not govern cd byOFO
18
alone,but extendto include Transport Canada. Environment Canada.Parks Canada Agency,and Indian andNorthernAffairs(DFO, 2009a).
Whilethe FisheriesAct isthccoreIcgislationfor Canadianfisheriesmanage ment,oceans management is guidedby separate legislation andstrategiesaligningwith the specificobjec tives setfor fisheriesmanagement.TheOcean Strategy. OceansActionPlan.andHealth ofthc OceansInitiative arckeypolicies stemmingfrom thc Oceans Act(DFO.20 IOd).Other major marinelegislation in Canada includes the Canadia nEnvironmental Protection Act, Canada NationalMarineConserva tionAreasAct, and the Spec iesat Risk Act. Together,thesestrategies and piecesofIcgislation seekto addressshortfa llsof past ocean managementarrangements that have resultedin environmenta landsocialimpactssuchasdeclining fis hstocks.invasive species.
marine habitatloss, declining biodiversity. growing user conflicts,and lost or delayed inves tments(DFO,2010d).
TheOceansAct.passedin 1996. represe ntsalcgal commitmentto "conserve. protectand developthe oceansina sustainable manner" (DFO. 20 1Od,para. 9).TheAct is guide dbythree key principles:sustai nab ledevelopment,integra tedmanageme nt,andthe precautionary approac h.
Moreover, the Actlegally defines Canada'soceanboundaries,encouragesgovernment-wide collaboration. and engages stakeholders in decision making (Governmentof Canada. 1996).The Oceans Act was followed by the releaseofCanada's Ocean Strategy in 2002 which outlinedthe governmen t'sdirectio nfor oceansgovernance.reaffirming theprinciples outlinedin theAct.
Subsequently, the OceanActio n Plan was implemented to coord inateand implement oceans governancearrangements,particularly thosewhich.inaccorda ncewith the OceansAct. focuse d on integrated management and ecosystem science(DFO.2010d).In2007.thefederal government announcedtheHealth of the Oceans Initiative,buildingontheOceanAction Plan to
19
improveocean health thro ughthe NationalWater Stra tegy.Itaims toprotectsensitivemarine enviro nme nts and redu cepoll utionthou gh strengthe ning polluti onprevent ion atsource, increasin gprotection ofecolog ica llysigni fica nt areas,and investinginscienti fic resear ch (DFO, 2010d).
Sustai nabledevelopment,integrated management.and theprecaut ion ary approachare recu rring objectivesin theafo rementio nedlegislation s and alig nwith the key prioritiesfor Canadian fish eriesman agem ent. Togethe r. they acknow ledgetheshortfa llsof past fisheries manage mentstra teg iesandseektoaddressissues ofsta keho lde r inclu sion,econom icviab ility, andenv iro nme nta lsusta inabilityi n fi sh erie s.Within this,ther ehasbeen a shift fromthe sta nd- aloneapplicat ionofto p-downfi sh eries management. to an eme rge nceof fisheriesgoverna nce.In fisheries,thisshift to an emphasis onfisheriesgovernance versus managementhas evolvedasan attempt to institutio na lize sustainab ility (Memon andKirk, 2010). Governance encompassesthe who leofinteraction s betwee n those governingandthose governed(Kooi manet al.,2005).The re is anem phas ison the impo rta nceof actorsother thanthe state ingovern ingatthe local,nati on al, andinte rna tiona l level andadd itionallyafo cusoncollec tiveactio nandsocial learn ingthat exten dsto inde penden t users. authori tyandcommu nityinterests(Menton and Kirk,20I0).
Governancereachesbeyondgovernmentor management.andisaprocessin whichactors incl udi ng the state,market.and civilsocietyeach playacrucialrole(Kooimanet al..20( 5).
Withi nCanadianfisheriesmanage me nt,unde r the auspiceofthe Ocean'sStrategy,a nation alapproachto oceansgoverna nce hasIcadtocommitm ent s of collabo rativework within andamo ng fed eral governme ntagencies,share drespo ns ibi lityandstake ho lderengage me nt.This includ estheadva ncementof oceansgovernance in three key areas.First .the establi shmentof institutio na l mechanismsto enha ncecollaborativeoceansmanagement;seco nd ly. the
20
impleme ntationof integratedmanagement planningwhichincludesdecision makingstructures:
and third ly,the promotionofstewardship and public engagementin ocean resource s(DFO, 2002).These will be discu ssedfurther in thesubs eq uentsectio ns which examine participation and conser vati onin fisheriesmana gement.
2.2.Stake ho lderparticipation in fisheriesmanagement
Sta keho lder partic ipatio nhas been wide lyrecognizedas essentialinresourcemanage me nt decisionmak ingpro cesses (Kearneyet al..2007).Ingene ra l,sta ke ho lde rparticipationrefe rsto the invo lve me ntof individu als whohol d a 'stake 'in the resourceathand andarcimpingedby poli cydeci sion s.Withinthis defin ition,however,two centra l questionsarcraised.First,who constituteasstakeholders?Secondly,what consti tutesparticipat ion?
Participatio nin resour cemanagementencompasse smany titlesin addition totheuse of
"stakeho lderparticipation",and extend stoincludeuser ,public, and citizenparticipation,terms often usedinterchangeably.Who isconsid eredtobe holding astake, howevervaries, and this canrestrict the term to includeonly individualswithinaparticular geographi calpro ximit ytothe resourceor withaparticul arrelation shipto theresource, andsometimes excludesgovernment (Baker,2006:GreyandHatchard,2(08).Advocate sfor an inclusive stakeholdervisio n enco urage the representationof individ ua lsthat rangebeyondresource usersindecisionmaking processes,e.g.comm unity mem be rsandconsume rs(Mika lse nand Jen toft.200 I).This broad view recogni zesthatthe scopeof impact sfromnatur alresou rceman agem entreach beyond the confi nesof industryanddirect users, and moreoverthat anar rowusc of the termwillincrease the likelihood thatmeaningf ulinterestsandinterest gro upswillgo unrepresented(Mikalsenand Jen to ft ,200I).However, withinprocesses of stakeholderparticipation,not allstakeho lde rsarc
21
engage d in decisionmakin g and the comm unityis oftenexcluded(Jentoft.2000).Moreover.
dep end ing on theprocess emp loye d.stake ho lder particip ati on canfurt herreinforce loca l elite pow er (Be rkes.2009).
Whenmaking decisionsregardinga partic ular resour ce.the ide ntificationof stake ho lders is oneofthe firststeps(Towns ley. 1998).However. as exhibi ted by Grey and Hatch ard .not everyo newitha sta keorinterestina reso urce is alwaysregarde das a stake ho lde r.andwho constitutesas a sta ke ho lder may vary from onesituation tothe next (2008 ).To facilita te the process of definin g sta ke ho lde rs in resourcemanagement.theycanbe furtherdivid edintotwo gro ups:primary andseco nda rystakeho lde rs. Primar yrefersto thosewithadirectintere stina resour cebecausethey either(a)dep end on it forthei rlivelih ood or(b)arc invol vedin its exploita tio n(e.g.fishharvester s orprocessing worke rs).Thes e differ fromseconda ry stakeho lderswhoare invo lve din either managing institutio nsor are inpart dependant on wealth orbusiness from the respectiveresource(e.g.fisheries man agers or transportoperators).Primary andsecondarystake ho lde rgroupings require furt herclassificationas theythemselvesarenot hom ogen o us groups.Moreover. thissystemof group ingexcludes those withnon-economicor managem entinterests suchas conservationgroups. Furt her iden tifi cation of key stakeho lders concernedwithaparticul ar fisheryor issue is neede d,andwill largel ydepend on theleg islative contex tin their respec tive part ic ipator y arra nge ments (Town sle y.1998).
Inthe man agem ent of natur alresourc es,part icip at ion occursalonga continuum,rangi ng from the simplesha ringof inform ationtothetran sferofpowerand respon sibil ity (Joha nnes, 19 78). Atoneendofthe spec trum. parti cip ationisemployedthrou gh atop-d own approac h whe rebythegovern me ntactsunilaterall y.This can berest ricti ve andoffers limited one-way commu nica tio n, i.e. governme nt talks andfish har vesterslisten. At the othe rend itinvo lvesa
')')
systemwherebyfis h har vester s andlorcomm unities have fullcontro l.owningandope rati ngtheir own man agement syste m.asisthe case withcomm unity basedman agem en t. otall com mun ities, however,havethe capac ityorinteresttobeinvol ved at thislevel. Arns tein(1969) cons truc tedatypology ofparti cipat ion .known astheladd er ofcitize n partic ipation . in which each rung of theladd ercorr espond sto oneof eight level s of part icipation.The rungs arc further catego rized intothree groups: thebott omrungs (ma nipulation and therap y)repr esentnon particip ati on;the centrerungs (info rmi ng . con sult ation , and placati on) represe nt tokeni sm : and the toprungs(partnership,delegatedpower ,and citizencontrol)representcitizenpow er (Arnstein ,1969).Thosecharact eri zed ascitizenpowerarrangementsrecogni zeparticip ation as animportantpart ofthe formulati on .implementation,andevaluatio nof polic yproc esses,thus reachin gbeyondthe narr o wunilateral systemofone waycommuni cation(Bake r. 2006).
Sta keho lder particip ati onhasbeenidentifi ed as apriorit yinCanadia nfisheries man agemen t, a com pre he nsive de fin ition of thetermhow everhasnotbeenprovided (DFO.
20IOc).Several approaches have been develop edtoenhance stake ho lde r part ieipation in Canad ian resou reeman agement.In1992. Enviro nmen tCanada laun ch edthe AtlanticCoastal Action Progr am (ACAP) tohelp restorewaters hedsandadjace nteoasta lareas inAtlantic Canada. Withinthisprogram. objec tiveswereset tobuildsta keho ldercapac ityandenco urage theirleader shipin ident ify ing andadd ress ing local env iro nmenta l issues. Spec ific to fis heries, the1996Ocean sAct includesIntegratedManagementasa priorit y.formul atedto balanc e eco sy stemconservation andreso urce use,and to providetheopportunity forstakeho lder participati on,IntegratedMan agem entpromote s sta keho lderparticipationin variou s capa cities.
including approa chessuc has com m unity- base d man agement (CBM)andco-ma nag eme nt. both emphasizin gtheinclu sionof wha tArns te inwould referto as citizencontro lin fi sh eries
23
ma nagem ent (Natio na l Rou nd tab le on thc Environmen tandthcEconomy.1998 ).None the less, the re remainfew examplesof CBMprocesses supportedbyInteg rated Management in Canada and stakeholderscan have limited controlofIntegr ated Managementprocesses (Kearney1'1al..
2007).
2.2.1.Co-managementand communityhasI'd 1I/1lI1l1gl'II/I'Il1infisheries
Co-ma nage me ntandcom m uni tybased man agem ent areins titutio ns thathelp buildandenhance sta ke ho lder part ic ip ati on.Some ti mes referr edto ascoll ab or at iveman agem en t. co-ma nage me nt represent s apower sha ri ngarra nge me nt between gove m rn c ntand user groups.Itisanalte rna tive approac h toresour ceman agem en tthatrecogni zesthelinkbetweennatur al andsocialsystems, andackno w ledgesthe requ isit e ofa stakeho lde rfocus.Co-managementinCana da has grown fromaneedtoaddresscrisesand cha llengesfaced bynatu ralresources.Berk es (1989) hasnot ed thc 19 75Jam esBay and orthern QuebecAgreement.workingtowards Aboriginal land claim.
as Canada's fi rstco-managemen tarrangement(Berkes,1989 ).The sameyear also saw thefirst push infisheries for co-management from Fisheries MinisterRomeo LeBlanc.whosawneed for fish ha rveste rs tohol dpo w er infundamen ta ldecisions regardingfisheriesmanagement.and advocatedfor fulldisclosureof infannation uscd as the basis for fisheriesdecisionmaking (Goug h.2007). Thelate resta b lish me ntofthcFishe ries Resou rce ConservationCouncilin 1993.
ho wever,wasDFO' sfirst attc mp t toopen up plan nin g anddecision -m akingprocesses in fisheri esmanagementtofishharv est e rs, seafood proc essor s,acad emi cs,governme ntscie ntis ts andothe rinte res te d memb e rs of thepublic.
Co-ma nage men treprese ntsa shift from centra lized. top -d o wnman agem en tto an arrange me nt invol vingpa rtn e rsh ip and po we r-sh a ring betwee ngovernme ntanduser groups
24
(Jent o ft.1989: Chucnpag dccet al .. 2004: Kearn eyet al..2007).This arra ngeme nt includ esthe sha ri ngof decision-m ak ingpo wer.respon sibilit y and risk.Itcan extend beyo nd resource usersto com munity memb ers,andseeks tomaintain theeco logica l integrity ofthe resourceat hand (Nationa l Roundt abl e on the Env iro nmen tandEcono my, 1998).Parall elshave been drawn betweenthe goalsof co-ma nage mentand decentr alizati on . Accord ing toPom eroy and Berk es (199 7),bothseek tomobili ze andstre ngthe n particip ation,parti cul arl ytoward amor e equitab le distributionof power and resour cestolocal orga nizations and communities.
Similar to Arnstein' sladder, co-m anagementis oft en describedashav ing awide spectrum of collaborativedecision -m akin g arrangements or partnership sbetweenuser sand gove rnme nt. Thisisexemplilied by Senand Niel sen's(1996) co- ma nag ementcontinuum, describin gthe process ashavin g oneofthe following fivedegr ees ofpower sha ring: instru ct ive, consult ati ve ,co-oper ati ve,advisor y, orinfo rma tive. Pom ero y and Berke s (1997) have also not ed ahierarch yin co-m anagem ent arrange m ents,rangingfromcaseswhereb y governme nt merel y cons ult with fish harvest erspriortothe intro d uctionofregul at ion s,to arra nge me ntswhereby fish harvester sdesign .implem ent and enfo rceregulatio ns withassistance from govern me nt,Thisis sim ilar toPinkert on and Wein stei n' s (1995) placem ent of co-ma nage me nt betweentwo and nine, onacontinuum fromone toten ,whereb y one repr esent s fullcommunity managem ent and ten represent scomplete govern me nt man agement,
Thc degreeof pow er sharing inaco-m an agementinitiative,in additiontothestage in which user sbecomeinvolvedin management (i.e,planning,implementationoreva luation), differ sli'OI11 onesituatio n tothe next andcaninfluence thesuccess ofa co-m anagementinitiativc (SenandNielsen, 1996).Ifusc rs arenotinvitedtocoll ab orateuntillatcinamana gementprocess, the time andcostsassoc iatedwithimpleme ntation, enforcem ent.and monitorin gare subj ec t to
25
increase andmay become more challengingifthe design isnot understoodorsupported by user s.
if theywere excluded during the designphase.or givenlittlepower or input in the process(Sen and ielsen.1996).Jentoft(1989) considersflexibilityan immensebenefit toco-management processes.assertingthat governmental organizationsare lessflexible than fish harvester organizations.whichare more capableof reacting to a situation in a timely manner.
Community-based management(CBM), also know nas comm uni ty-b asedreso urce managem en t (CBRM),refersto the comm unityorganizationof social processes tha t leadto comp letecomm unitycontro loverresource man agem ent ora partic ularaspectthereof(Senand Nielse n. 1996 ; Chuenpag deeet al..2004).While some definiti on s state that CBMdiff er sfrom co-ma nage me ntin that governme ntisnot invo lve d in the decision making process (Senand Nielsen, 1996). othe rsplaceCBM onthe co-managementcontinuu m,wherebyCBM existson its own,or governmen tdelegatesauthorityto communitygroupsthougha processof decentralization(Pomeroy and Rivera-Guieb, 2006).
While there are manyparallelsbetween CBM and co-management,Pomeroy and Rivera- Guieb (2006) differentiatethe two strateg ies bythe degree and timing of government participation therein. CBM isdescribedasbeing primarilycommunity-centeredand isasel f- governingsystemwhichengagesthose livingclosest to the resourcein the design, imp leme nta tio n.andmonitoringof theman agement measure(Kearneyet al..2007).Co- man agem ent , whileenco m passing thelocal commu nity;plaeesadd itiona lfocus onthe develo pm en t ofpartn ersh ipsbetween governme ntandstake ho lde rs in thelocal area.Co- manageme nt is, forthatreason . said tohave alarger scope withafo cu s beyondthe local comm unity(Po meroyand Rivera-G uieb , 2006).
26
The term"commun ity basedco-management"hasbeen esta b lished to identifyeo- man a gem entpro cesseswhereby organ izations atthe com m un ityle velarc involved "as themo st basicunitofthemanagementsyste m'(Jcntoft .200 0.p.5).Pom eroyand Rivera-Guieb(20 06) also re fe rtothis astraditio na lorcustomaryco-man ageme ntsta tingthatsuchsystemsinvolve a fo rm al recogn itio nofinformal ,trad it ion alsystemsused,Theseinstit utio nsfacilita teapro ces s thatma yprotect and leg allyrecognizetrad it ion alfisher ies systems.andfurt he rmorecreate pow er sh aringarra nge me ntsbetw e en govern me ntandcom m un ity .
Whilepart icip at or ymana gem entsystemssuchas CBMandco-ma nage me nt holdman y ad va ntages.suc h asimprovedtran spar en c y.increa sed ste w a rds h ipamo ng fishharvest e rs , lo cali zedsolutions. and impro ved costeffic ie ncy(Po me ryand Riv era- Gui eb,20 06).they arenot witho ut challen g es.Loc al resourcecharacte risticsma ymak eit diffi cult forcom m u ni tiesto man ag e theirresources.ince nt ivesmaynotexist. socialcapi talorlo cal leadershi p ma ybe lac k ing. and it maynotbeecon omi c allyfeasible and financia lcapita l maybe lacking.As aresult . theseop tionsmaynotbesuitableforever ycomm unity andshou ld not be reg arded asapanac ea.
Thisis sup po rted byPom eroy andRive ra-Gu ieb(2 00 6 ) whostate the foll owing :
"[ne ither]shouldbe viewedas a singlestrategy to solveall problemsoff is heriesmanagernent.
butratheras aprocess ofresollrcclll anagclllent ,llI aturing.adjllsting andadapti ngto changing cond itions overtime.Ahealthyco-ma nagementprocesswill changeovertimeiu responseto changes in thelevelof trust.credibility.legitimacyandsuccess of thepartnersand thewhole co- managem entarrangem ent...[It]involvcsaspccts ofdcllI ocrati zati on,socialcllIpow erlllcnt.powcr sharingand decentralizntion...[and ] atlcllIptsto overcolllcthcdi strusl.COlTIlption.fraglllcntation and ineffici ency ofex istingfisheriesmanagementarrangem ent sthrough collaboratio n.Co-
27
management is adaptive: that is. through a learning process. information is shared among partners.
leading to continuous modi fi cationsandimprove mentsinmanngemcntTl' omeroy nnd Rivera- Guicb.2 .2).
Jent o ft (1989) furth er asserts tha tin the case of co-ma nage me nt. which canalsocarryover to CB M. the successofthe arrange me ntas adem ocrat icpro cess invo lvi ngeq u ityandfairness arc largel ydep endent on thepa rtic ip ator ypro cess em ploye d.These pro cessesha ve show nto foster inc reasedresp on sibilit yandconserv a tio neth ic,and mob il ize ste wa rds hip in therespe cti ve area (NationalRoundtable on theEnv iro nm e ntand theEco no my. 199 8).Moreov er.the yinvolv e negoti ati on ,knowl ed ge gene ratio nandjoint learn ing, and themost successfu lexam plesarcofte n ada ptive. flexibleproc essesthatexhib it alearnin g-b y-d oin g approach(Ber kes.2009).
2.3.Fishery closur es
Thissectio nwillexplore conservation tool sused in fisheriesmanage me nt.particularlyfishery closures. in additionto globalexamples of bottom-upinitiativesemployedby fishha rv este rs.
First.abrie f overview of conservation measur es and man agem ent tools will be provided.
followed by adefi nition and mor e detaile d description of fishe ryclosures.Second lyfishery clos ureswill be exami ne d.andexam plesofmand at o ry.harv est e r initia ted.andvoluntary clo su res will bepro vid ed .
2.3./.Fisheryclosureoverview
Conse rva tio n and man agem enttool s arcem ploye dglo ba lly to assist thereco ver y of fishstocks (Joha nnes. 19 78 )by genera lly lim iting free-e ntry intothefish er y.Theytakea varietyof sha pes andforms .andcanbe catego rizedas eithe rinputor out pu tcontro ls.Inp ut contro lsarethc
28
restri cti on splac ed on the inte nsi tyof fis hi ngeffort.andincl ude licensing.limit ed entry.seasona l closu res. aswell as vesselandgearres tric tio ns(Cochra ne.2002). Theyfurtherincl udespa tia l conserva tio n tools suchas Marine Prot ected Areas (M PA).MPA offervarioustyp esof protecti on,while someare designat ed as 'no-takezones'(rese mblinga spatial fishe ryclosu re).
others pennit multipleuses within the resp ecti ve area whichcan includefi sh ing with design ated gearsor withindesignated areas. tour ismand recre ation al activ ities(To ropovactal..20 I0).
Output control sdifferastheydirectlylimit theamountof fishthatcan beremovedfromthe waterand include quotarestricti on s such astotal allowable catch(T AC) .dail ycatch limits.
bycatchlimits.aswellasindividual andvess el quotas(Cochrane.2( 02).
Fisher yclosur escanbe classifiedas either inputor outputcontro ls dependin gon their obje ctive. Seasonalorgear closur es.for example. are input cont rol s astheyreducethe intensit y of fishin geffort.whereas clos uresbased onapart icul ar spec iescan beconsider edoutp ut contro lsastheyreduce theamo untoffi shbeingharv ested.Cochra neandGarcia.however . regardareaand timeclo su resdifferentl ythaninputandoutputcontro ls.arguing thatthey achievewide robj ec tivesof conserva tionandequ ity(2009).Regardl ess ofthe contro l.fis heries clos uresare acommo n tool employe d in fish eri esmana gem ent . andareim pleme nted by various govern me nt agenci es.non-governmentalorgani zation s,and fisheri esinterest groupsworld wide (Cochrane.20(2 ).
Fisher yclosur esholdmanybenefits as atoolin marinecon serv ati on . Theysafeg ua rd bycatch species that are difficult to protect using other measure s:they are an effective tool to protectsens itive benthie habitats;theycanprotectreproductivecapacity:they are well-suit ed for stoc k protection inareas wheredat aispoor orasyste m iscomplex; and,furtherm or e.
they can provid eanenv iro nme nt forresearch ersto increase their knowled ge of the 29
ecologica lsystem(Cochraneand Garcia. 2009).However.with adva ntagescome drawb acks suchas red ucedeconomicefficie ncyofharvest (e.g.if fish harvesters have to travel greater distancesto fis h).foregonefishingopport uni tiesforselect harvesters. andincreased competitio nwith localized fish harvesters in otherareas due todisplacem ent of harvesters impacted by a closedarea(Murawski('Ial.. 2000).Moreover. the imp leme ntation process for closurescan betimeconsum ing,If objec tivesinterfere with stakeho ldersor instit utions outs ideof thefishin g ind ustry. theyneedtobe involvedin thenegot iationprocess whichcan betimeintensi ve(Cochran e andGarcia.2009).
Fishin g seasonsareoneofthe oldes t and mostcomm ontypes of fisheryclosur e emplo yedinCanada .They restri ctthe harvestof spec ies to adesi gnatedperiod oftime. ofte n establishedaroundspaw ning.migration.andseasonalicepattern s,andvarybylocation and speciesharvested .Beyond seasons.fishery closures are widelyemp loye das ameansto safeguard themarine enviro nmen tfrom fishingpress ureand to assist thereco very of fishstocks (Charles . 1997). Clos uresvary in their len gth. canbe specificto aparticular species. gear. or locat ion . and can be imp leme ntedby both fisheries managers andfish harvesters.Inadditio nto those mentionedabove,closurescanbe implemen tedin orde r toprevent fishharvestduringa particular life cycle stage.protectdepletingstocksand habitats. resolveissuesof gear eontlictor protecttraditi on al fishing practices (Anderso n('Ial.. 2000). Anumber of factorscontribute tothe levelof protecti onrend eredto vario us fish stoc ks fi'OI11thedesignation of closed areas including theproporti on of the stockcircumsc ribed bythe closure ,the extentofmo vem ent of fis houtside thebound aries ofthe closedarea.and thelevel of fishin geffo rtand thecapacit y ofreg ulations in adjace ntareas(Muraws kietal..2000).
30
In thisthesi s,fisher yclo sure shave been divided into twobroad categor ies: mandator y andvoluntary.Mand atoryclosu resrefe rtothoseinitiatedbyfishe riesman agers as a con ser v ationtool. and includefishing seasons. closure sforcontaminatedwaters.closure sto protect endangeredor threatened species , and closure sto address issue s ofstoc k decl ine . Volunt aryclosure sdiffer asthey are initiated byfishharve ster s and origin ate at the communit y level. They canbe bothimplementedbyharvestersoutside and insideof the targetedfishery , and insomecasesextend to incl udethecomm unity-at -large,researchersand non-govern menta l organizations.In the Canadiancontext.however,for a closure tobe supportedandmonitoredby governme nt, it must firstbe forma lly implem en tedbyfish eriesman agers.In this respec t,even thevolunta ryclos uresment ionedwithinthisthesishave beenimpleme ntedbygovernme nt ofticials(unlessotherwiseindicated) .Mandatoryandvo luntary fisheryclo sure soccur invario us capacities worldwide.and differ sign ifi ca ntlyin bothdes ignand objective.Drawingfrom examplesin the PacificIslands,Mexico, andCanada . brief illustrationsofclosuretypes are provided.
,Hal/{la l0n' c!O.l'ure.l'
Mandatoryclosureswill refer hereinto thoseinitiated,administeredand enforcedbyDFO or othergovernmen talagencies.Theycan varysignifi cantly and include temporary closuresdue to poo r weathercondition s,restrictionsonthe harvest of apart icul arspecies lor conservation purposes.or restrict ionsonthe harvest ofbival vesdueto contam inatedwaters(Goug h.2(07).
Thegroundfis hmoratoria im plem en ted inAtlan ticCanada in thcearly1990 ·s. forcon servation purpose sin responsetoground fisheriescollapse,are one examp leof this.Theclosureswere
31
originallyset for atwo year per iod .but remainlargel yin placedue tolow stockrecov ery(Gough.
:W07).Othermand ator y clos ures inclu de seasonalgroundfishclosur esin the Georges Ban k (loca ted betw een Massachusetts .US and ova Scotia.CA )implem ent edin the1960' sto addressoverfis hingfrom dist ant-waterfleets. and closed areasfor the protectio nof yellow tai l flound er insouthernNew Eng land in 1986. impleme nted toredu cefishin gmortality and protect spawningstoc k (Murawski etal.,2000).
Fishlwl"I'csl eJ"-il/ilialedclosuJ"es
Fishharve sterinitiatedclosure s are thoseimplemented byharve ster s outsideof the fisher y targetedto close.They are typicall yimplemented forone of two reason s:to restrict theharvest of onespecies forthe protectionof anoth er. ortoreduc e confl ictsover the timin g or meth od of harvest.In thePacific Islandsclosed fishin g areasandseasonal closur eshavebeentrad ition all y em ploye d byfishharvestersto protectspaw ningfishand helpcon serve stoc ks .Addi tio nally.
short-termclos ureshavebeen employe dfor ceremo nial purposes or to ensurealarge catchfor a period of cele brationor feast(Joha nnes. 1978 ).
Other harvesterinitiatedclosur es can befoundin British Columbiaand L.Canada. In the Fraser Valle y.Be. severalFirstNations band s voluntarily agre edto zero allocatio nsof Coho salmo n throughoutthemid-1990' s (Inter iorFrase rCoho Recover y Team.2006).Similarly.
hand-linecod harveste rsin thecommunity of PettyHarbour-M addo x Co ve. NL. collec tive ly agreed to closethe gillnet fisher y.Thisclos ure wasestabli shedin 1961toprotecttraditional fishin gpractice sin the area,and remain sin effecttoday(Ander son . etal..2000). A compar able initiati ve wasimplement ed in2002 inFunk IslandDeep.Labrador (NA FODivision 3K). where
32
alarge vessel shrim pfleet has voluntarystopped fish ingin a designatedarea to protectcrab stocks.Thisclosurewas initiated by crab harvesters in the area. and was accepted by fleet of large shrimp vessels (OFO. 2010c).
Harvester-initiated andvoluntaryclosures followthe same general im plementatio n framework. First.fish harvestersput forththe idea ofa closureandifcommunitiesarc in favour the fish harvesters unionis consulted. Here the union workswith the fishharvesters to determine if a closureis suitableforthe area (intheBay ofIsl and s thiswasdon ethrou gh a consensus- basedprocess).Ifthe clos ureis accepta ble. theOFOdepartm entof Resour ce Manage me ntwill implementtheclosur e with the appro pria teconditions.Anoti ce will thenbemadetofi sh harvestersto anno unce the closureandthe closurecan be inco rpo rate das alicen se conditio nfor the foll ow ing year(s).Oncea closureis impleme ntedthe OFOdep artm en t of Conservatio nand Protect ion will mon itor for complia nce(Tho me. pers.com).
VOhlll(arvc!oslIres
As mentioned above. voluntaryclosures arc those implemen tedbyharvesters from inside the targetedfishery.They areunique. as harvesters forgo a portionof theirlivel ihood or make direct cha ngesto theirfishingmethods for the greatergood of marineconservat ion.In Baja California Sur.Mexico.fis h harvesters volun tar ily implem ented a 'FishersTurtle Rese rve ' in2006to prot ectloggerheadturtles accide nta llycaug htasby-catch . This closu re wastriggeredby research on loggerh eadby-catchin thelocal area thatwas acco mpan ied by anaware nesscam paig nonthe statusoftheturtles. Efforts tolegall y declare this anofficia l reser ve are curre ntly unde rway (Pec kham.et al..2007).
33
In the Fraser Valley, Be.fishhar vesters voluntarilyagreed torelease Cohosalmo n caug ht by gillnet.Unlike theabov eme ntioned closur e,this one isfully voluntary and not enfo rced bymanagem ent offic ia ls,i.e.if har vesterschoosetofishthere arenoform al repercu ssion s(Interio rFraser Coho Recover y Team, 2006).In2002ano thervolunta ry closure wasimplement edinBritish Columb ia, whereb ybott omtrawlers volunta rilysto pped fishin gin areas knowntohave glassspo nge reefs .Follo win gthe vo luntaryagree me nt tohaltharvestin the specified areas,the closurewasenforced byDFO asa resultof increasedfishing pressureon the spo ngereefs.The increasein fishingpressure, accord ing to theCan adianParksandWild life Society,canbe attributedto'fear fishing '(CPAWS, 2009), aphenom en a repo rtedto "[occ ur]
whenfishermenfish anarea moreaggressivelythannorm al becausetheyarcafra id it willsoo n be closed"(Ardron,1.pp.1O.200 5) .
Add itio nal examples of volunt aryfish er yclosures can be foundthrou ghout cwfoundl and,In the commun ities of Eastpo rtand TroutRiver .lob sterhar vestershave voluntarily closed sma ll areastoprovid e a safe havenforlob sterin 199 7 and2002resp ecti vely.
Thevoluntaryarea- base d closu res in thecommun ity ofEastpo rt have since beenconverte dintoa MPA. while the othe rarea rem ains voluntari ly closed (Anderso n,I'{ill..2000 ).Differin gfrom thesma ll area-basedlob sterclosur es, crab harve ster sin the BonneBay areavoluntarily clo sed theentiresnow crab fisher yin 2009tohelprejuvenate stoc ks,and thefisher yre-opened in the spring 01'201 I(DFO,2010f) .
Stake ho lder prefe rence for closure sisbasedon a varietyof factorsincludi ngrealor perceivedcosts,culture,education.occupatio n. and historyof interac tionswith resources(Baker, 2006) . Voluntar yand fishharve sterinitiatedclosur es are nota panace a and maynotbesuitab le foreveryfishingcommunity. Notallcom munities are willingor ableto tak e onsuch an initiative .
34
risks maybetoohigh forsome harvester s. governme ntsupport muybeluck ing. andresource characteristics may not be suitablefor the prop osed action(Po meroyandRivera-G uieb,2006).
Thiscanbe seenin the attem pte dvolunta rytrawlclosurein British Colum bia,whic hresultedin increasedfi sh ingpressu re (Ardro n. pp.l O. 2005).
Com m unity-base dinitiatives.suc has volun tary closu res.have beensuccessfully implement ed and haverece ived stro ngsupportamo ng fishharvester sworld w ide. as is sho wcase dabov e. However, asisdem on stratedbythe spo ngecora lexample. not every implementedvolunt aryclosureiseffecti ve.Their success , in part,can be attributed tothe benefit s ofvo luntary closur esthatreachbeyondthe marineenvironment tofishharvester s. in add itio n tothepersistence of traditional lis hing method s.While notsuitablefor allsituations.
volunta ryclos urescan help createamore auto no mo us man agem ent approac h withimpro ved tran sparen cy. costefficie ncy.and local stewa rds hi p, inadd itionto increase dsocialcap ita l. usc of loca l know ledge.andhigh levelsof compliance(PomeroyandRivera- Guieb . 2006).
2.4. Wick edprobl em s infisheries managem ent
Fisheries are inherentlyecologicalandsocial.and this socialcontex tis arguably themost im po rta ntaspec toffish eriesman agement and marine conserva tion(Kareiva. 2006).Probl em s in resour cemana gem ent. suchas with fisheri es.that occur ina socially-o rie ntedcontex tare inhe rently compl ex. asboththe ecolog ica landsocia lsystems needtobetakenintocon siderati on (JcntoftandChuenpa gdec,2009).Thiscomplexi ty makesit difficult to determin e aclear managem ent solutionasit becom esimpossibl etodelin eat ethe natur al andsocialissues.Rittel and Webb er (1973) haveterm edthese as'wicked 'probl em s. Theyarccom plex. multi-layer ed.
35
andcanno t be sepa rate d from others. Wickedprob lem srequi re an understand ing ofboththe natur e ofthe ecologica lsyste mand thehuman natureofthe problem(Rittc landWebber,1973).
"Wickedproblemshaveno technica lsolutio n, itisnot clea rwhenthey are solved,and theyhavenoright or wrongsolutio n that canbe detc nni ncdscienti fica lly"(Jentoftand Chue npag dee,2009, p.l), According ly,fisher iesare wicke dproblems .Thcyare diverse, comp lexand dynami c, and theproblemitsel f cannot bedetach edfrom othe rs(Jen toftand Chue npag dee,2009) ,asisthe case with the ground fish er y colla pse inAtlanticCanada. Diversity, complexi ty,and dyn amic s areconce pts thatcanbe employed to assist in understandin gthe govcrnability of a resourc e,i.e.theoverallcapacity for afisher ytoachieve its govern inggoals.
In brief,diver sityrefer stothevari ab ilit y ofsyste m clem ent s;compl ex ityreferstolink ages, interac tio ns,andinterde pe nde nc iesof syste mcleme nts ;and dyn am ics refers totemp or al cha nges tha toccur to syste mcleme nts(Chue npagdceC!Ial .. 2008).If a syste m hashighdiversit y, com plexi ty,ordyn am ics, according to Chuenpag deeC!Ial. (2008), itis genera llyexpecte d to be less governab le ,Thisis similar to what Rittl e andWebber(1973) havetitled 'wicked'.
Unders ta ndi ngthediversity. comp lexityanddynamicsofthe social. naturalandgovernance structuresofa particular system can hel p identifyneeds withi nthesystemthatmustbe addressed tobestman agethe resourceat hand.
2.5. Pre-implement ati on studies
Thcconceptofgo vernance hasmanyinterpret ation s.Thelimitsof itsunderstandin g asastate- domin ated governme nt howeverhavebeen widely recogni zed ,lead ingto theconce ptof governa nceasthe who leof inte rac tio ns betweenthose governi ngand those governe d(Koo ima n et al.. 2005). Governa nce theory emphasizes thcimport ance of acto rsothe rthan the state in
36
governingat thelocal ,nat ion al. andinte rna tiona l level. Accord ing ly,governa nce reaches beyond governme ntand managem en t, and is aprocess inwhic hactorsincludi ngthestate,market , and civilsociety each play a crucialrole(Kooi manet al..2005).Infi sh eries. thegovernance approac happ lies to everylevel inthe fish chain(pre- ca pture.capture.and po st-harvest) andthe link agesbetween all parts (Kooi ma nl'{al.,2005).
Inte ract ive governa nce theoryplaces emp hasison the interac tio nsof governi ng processes and,accor d ing toKooim anct al.. (2005) isdesc rib edas ..thewhole ofpublic aswellasprivate interacti on stakento solvesocieta l problem s and create societaloppo rtunities.Itincludesthe formulationandapplica tion ofprinciple sguidingthoseinteraction sandcare forinstitut ion sthat ena ble them " (p.17).A governa nce approa ch ,ther efor e.prom ot estheunderst and ing ofprocesses ateverylevel.includingthepre-impl em ent at ion.
Implem ent ati on resea rch has grown from Politi cal Scienceinrecognitionoftheneed to unde rstan d the process of policyformatio n. Impl em entat ion studieshave acknowledged alack of understand ing ofthe inte ractionswithi npolicyprocesses,andemphasized the effects of the imp leme nta tion process upon pol icy outcomes .Ithasbeen noted that imple mentationnotonly shapes.but insomecircu mstancesdeterminespolicyoutco mes(PalumboandCalis ta.1990).
Theimp leme ntationof a policyor processhasthree keyphases:thebegin nin g (pre- implem ent ati on ).implem en tat ion. andpost- imp leme ntatio n.The pre-impl em entat ion phase invol vesprobl emrecognition.prelimin ar yplannin g.idea formul at ion ,meetin gs, and the weighin g andselec tio nofoptions; theimplementationphaseinvolve scontinu edmeetin gsand dialogue.therefin em ent ofaplan , and theproj ectimplem entati on ; and thefo cu s ofthepost- implem ent at ionphase is evalua tionand mon itor ing (Po meroy and Rivera-Gui eb, 2006).These
37
threephases arccycl ica l. rath erthanlinear . aspolic yproce ssesevol ve andada pt.As aresult .the phases overlapandarcnotdistinct.
Early implem ent at ion studies have arg ued thatimplement ati onisthemissinglinkin poli cyprocesses:howe ver.mor erecently,theneedtounderstandthepre-impl ement ation stage has also beenrecogni zed (Hill and Hupe,:W02).Jentoft andChuenpagdee(2007)argue thatthe pre-implementation orste pzero phase of a processis asimportant astheprocessitself A step zerostudy seeksan understandin g of the steps. processe sand interactionsthat lead toan event.
Thisisbased. in part.on thetheoryof pathdependency. whichasserts thatearl ydecision scan impact outcomesand.more over .that the directionaprocesstakesisdeterminedinpart bythose earl ydecision s(Mahone y. 2000).Stepzeroseeks tounderstandpre-implementationby inve stigatin gthe drivers and conditionsbehind the policy.includingtheconce ptio n and development ofthe idea.the contributio nsof parti cipant sin initialdiscu ssion s. and thesta tusof the stoc ks . market s andcomm unitiesin quest ion at the time discu ssion s arose.These inves tiga tions helpdeterm inewhat prep arat or ymeasure smaybenecessarybefore im pleme ntatio n(Chuenpag dccand Jent o ft, 2007).
In fisheri esresearch.pre-impl em ent at ion studies havebeenemploy edinco-ma nage me nt co ntex ts.Chuenpag deeand Jentoft (2007)assert theimportan ce of suc hresear ch.and have con sequentl yexamin ed globalco-ma nag ement initiati ve sbyinvestig atin gthe conce ptionof co- managementarrangementsincludingthe idea formulation. participationin initialdiscu ssion s.
and necessarypre-implementation preparation s.Theirstudysho ws that co-management arrang ements may be conceptuali zedfrom existingresear chbutcanalso evolvefrom inform al.
localpracti ces.More over.thestudy revealsthat co-managementinitiati ves arc lar gel ydriven by a crisis in managem ent . andofte nhaveexpe ctat ion s ofrapidcha nge.At the same time.the study
38
reveal sthat co-m anagementinitiativesdo notoffe r rapid change. rather involve a timelyprocess which includesthe pre-implementation phase(Chuenpagdeeand Jentoft, 2007 ). A co- managementhandbookbyPomery and Rivcra-Guieb(2006)placesfurther emphasison pre- implementation ,including itas an integral componentforthesuccess fu l implementati on of co- ma nagem en t. Boththestudy byChuenpagdeeandJe ntoft, and theco-m an agementhandbook.
sha re a com mo n understa nding of the importance of astepze rounde rstand ing in fisheries manage me nt pro cesses.em phasi zingthe need tounderstan d the mot iva tio n. interactions.and pro cesses tha t leadto anevent.Bothexamp lesshowcase ho wthis know ledgeassistsin under sta ndin gtheint e ra ct ionsthattak eplaceduringthepre-implem ent ation ofa policy .identify thcstumbling blocksfacedby fishharves te rsand fis hingcom mun ities.recognizethe originsof the idea.und e rstand the conditionsunderwhichitwas accepted.and hel p avoid unrealistic expectationsin policyformation ,
39
Chapter 3 Methodology
Thischapterprovide san over vie wof themethodolog yemployedin thisresearch .Itis subdivided into foursections , each describinga componentof the methodologyused.First.the casestudyandselectionapproach usedto chooseasite for research are discu ssed.Next,theuse of informal keyinforma ntmeetingsand the ir roleandtim ing inthisresearchis explored.Thisis foll owedbya descr ipti on ofsemi-structuredintervie ws ,incl udi ng theinterv iewdesign , sample, and process employe d.Lastly,an overview ofdat a ana lysisisprovided , incl udi ngthe coding processused to analyzethe interviewdata.
3.1. Selectionof casestudy
A case study isan empirical inves tigation ofaphenomenon in itsreal-lifecontext (Mohd 2008 ),and aimsto generatean inclusi vepictureof asituatio n or processfrom the perspectives of allacto rs (Hakim,1987).Theyprovidearich portraitofan identified phenomenon,allowingthe resear cherto retain the holi sticattributesofaparticular process(Yin, 2009 ): in the caseof this research ,the implementa tionof voluntary fisher yclosures.
Critic ismsof case studies typicallyquestiontheirabilitylorgenera lization,aswellasthe amountoftime andresourcesthcyrequire.Althoug hcase studiesarcnot alwaysgenera lizab le to popul ations,they canbe gene ralizedtotheoret ical propositio ns. Mo reover,they arc wellsuited lor contempo raryresearchthatseeksto answer'how ' or'why' questions(Rowley,2002 ). This makescasestudiesappropriatetorthisresearch,which examine sthe drivers and processof
40
volunta ryclosures.andexam ines how andwhy they are impleme nted(Yi n.2009).TheBay of Isl and s wasselec tedasthe studysite for thisresearchforanumber of reasons.Therecent emergenceofthe closure discussionsin thearea provided a casestudythatwasstillfresh and relevanttostakeholders inthearea.Second.the presenceof voluntaryclosuresin neighbouring com mu nities provided theopportu nitytounderstand ifthere wereany linkagesbetween the occurre ncesof volunta ryclosures.Thi rd, the closure discussionsin thcBay ofIslands.unli ke in otherareas . didnot result in the impleme ntatio nof a closure.Thisprovidedthe oppo rtunityto Icarnnotonlyfac torscontr ib uting toclosur ediscu ssion s.butalso thosethat hinderedthe clos ures implement ation.
3.2. Keyinform antmeetin gs
A seriesofkey informant meetings wereheldduring the earlyfieldstagesto provide backgro und infor ma tionbefore enteringthe interviewphase and augmentthe understandingof fisheries and fisheryclosure discussionsinthe Bay ofIsland s.They provided a platformto introduce the researchto thecommunity. and todevelopinitial recomme ndationsof individualsto interview.
Keyinformants incl udedfisheriesmanagersandscientists with DFO.representativesof theFish.
Food andAlliedWorkersunion (FF AW).the regional directo r of the Departm en t of Fisheries andAquac ulture(DFA).andtheexecutivedirectorof the ACAPHumber Ann (seetable3.1).
Keyinfo rmant s were ident ifiedbykeyinst itut ion sworkin g withfis her iesandinvo lvedin fish ery closur ediscu ssion sin theBay of Island s.Individu als were then selec te d duetotheir expe rtisein fisheriesorcoasta lactivityin theBay ofIsland s,andareshow nin thetabl ebelow . Th is expert ise has been inco rporated into this research throu ghtwomain avenues:(I) pap ers
41
recomme nded(andinsome cases written) by key informantshave been citedand. (2) personal communication from keyinformant meetingshas been incorporated intothe research.
Table3.1List of keyinformants KeyInform ant OceanManage ment Bio log ist, DFO
Fill-inCh iefofResource Manage me nt, DFO Chiefof Reso urce Manag eme nt, DFO Staff Represent ati ve, FF AW Scienti fie Coordi na to r.FF AW Region alDirector.DFA Represent ative, Barry Group Executive Directo r. ACAP HumberAnn SnowCrab Scientist, DFO
3.3.Intervi ews
Subject Meeting Location
Fisheryclosuredisc ussio nsin Corner Brook. L the BO I
Fisheriessystemin theBOI Corner Brook. NL Pro cess ofvolunta ryclosures Corne r Broo k, NL inNL
Snowcrabclos ure discu ssion s Corne r Brook , NL in theBOI
Snowcrabclos ure discussion s Corne r Brook . NL in the BOI
Rol e ofDFAin fish eries CornerBrook. NL man agem en t
Fishprocessing in the BOI CornerBrook.NL Rol e of ACAPandthe Coastal CornerBrook. IL managementAreaintheBOI
Crab stocks in theBOI , impact St. John's.NL ofa temporary closure on
stocks
Interv iews are a commo n method emp loye dinbothqua litativeandquant ita tiveresearch.used eitheronthe ir own or inconj unctio nwithothe r meth ods.This meth od aimsto improve the understandin g ofa situatio norevent,and is oftenapplied to abod y of kno wl edge with theor eti calimport an ce (Seidma n.2006; Warne rand Karn er. 2005).Th is research emp loys qualitative,semi-s tructuredinterviews targeted prima rilyatfishharvester s.but alsoextendi ngto
42
includekey com munity mem bers (e.g.councillo rsand ind ividu alsheavil yinvol ved with local organizations).and fishprocessors.
Semi -struc turedinterviews drawupon theadva ntag eo uscharac te risticsof both struc tured and unstru ctur ed inte rv iews.Theyallowtheresearcher to followapred eterm inedquesti onn aire.
reta ining theintervie w's lo cu s. a typicalcha llengein unstructur ed interv iews(Hay.2005).
Furthermore. add ress ing the critiq ue that structured interview s are less orga nic thantheir unstructured co unte rparts. the sem i-s tr ucture d interview doesnotforcethe resear cher stofollow the questionnaireinseq uence.and ratheroffers them flexibilit yduringtheinterview.Thishelps create a more natural relati on shipwith the interviewees. afrequent challenge instruct ured interviews(Burgess.1984).Intervi ew shave fourmainuseswhichben efi ttherese archer: first.
theyfill a knowl edge gap thatother method s are unableto address.Seco nd. theyinvesti gatethe compl exity of beh avio r and moti vati on.Third .theypro vid e ins ightonthe consen su s and diversity ofopinionswithina group. Lastl y. inte rvi ewi ngshows resp ecttothe info rma nts.as theirinfo rm ationis valuedandapprecia ted(Hay.2005).
Toensu retheinterv iew wasnonthreaten ingtoinform ant s, afunnel struct urewas em ploye d(Hay .2005).Funne lling placesinitial focusongene ral.easy-to-a nswerques tio ns.and grad ua lly progr essestow ardmorefo cu sedquesti on s speci fic totheresearch. This proc ess aims tomitigatethepotenti aldiscomf ortthatresearcher sor inform ant smay enco unte r in an inte rview thatbeginswith detail edquestion s.Moreover .tunnellinghelpsto devel opa rapportbetweenthe researcher and informant, allowing aninterview to be more culturallyandsoci allysens itive whiledecreasin gthe likelihoodof anintervi ew 's discontinuation(Hay. 2005).
Theintervie w guide wasdivided into five sections:pre-har vest(marineenvir onm ent) . harvest(fishin gactivit y ).post-harvest (pro cess ingand mark etin g ). gove rna nce.andsnowcrab
43
