Evaluating Consensus-based Fisheries Management Planning:
A Case Study from Canada’s Pacific Groundfish Fisheries
Neil DavisM.Sc. CandidateUniversity of British Columbia
Setting the Stage
• 2006 - integrated fishing begins– Comprehensive reforms to 7
groundfish fisheries
• A somewhat unique collaborative planning model– Industry-led, consensus-based,
multi-sectoral negotiations
• How well did this model work?– A systematic process evaluation– Participants’ perspectives Image: BC Business Magazine 2007
Outline
• Background– The fisheries & the planning process
• Methods– A framework for evaluation
• Results– Strengths & weaknesses of the process
• Practical Implications
Pacific Groundfish fisheries
Pacific OceanPacific Ocean
Sablefish Trap Catch Schedule II Catch (Lingcod & Dogfish)
British Columbia British Columbia
Vancouver Vancouver
Data from 1996 - 2004 Data from 1996 - 2004Maps: DFO Mapster 2007
Pacific Groundfish fisheries
Pacific OceanPacific Ocean
Rockfish Catch (directed) Trawl Catch
British Columbia British Columbia
Vancouver Vancouver
Data from 1993 - 2004 Data from 1996 - 2004Maps: DFO Mapster 2007
2005 Landed ValuesSalmon,
10%
Groundfish, 45%Pelagics,
11%
Shellfish, 34%
Pacific Groundfish Fisheries
2005 Grand Total: $326 000 000
(DFO 2005)
Groundfish Sectors (Pre-integration)
FisheryPrimary Limited Individual Annual Value Active
Gear Licenses Quotas (millions)* Licenses*
Dogfish Longline No No $1.5 44
Lingcod Hook & Line No No $1.6 66
Inside Rockfish Hook & Line Yes No $2.3
25
Outside Rockfish Hook & Line Yes No 77
Trawl Trawl Yes Yes $56.4 78
Halibut Longline Yes Yes $50.1 221
Sablefish Trap, longline Yes Yes $23.7 30
•Numbers are averages of 2002 – 2005
(DFO Regional Data Unit 2007)
Advisory Process Structure
DFO agenda:– Conserve rockfish– Accountability & monitoring as principles for reform
2 advisory committees:– Commercial Groundfish Integrated Advisory Committee
• Broad stakeholder representation• Provide overarching policy direction & advice
– Commercial Industry Caucus (CIC)• Commercial fishery & processor representatives• Develop a strategy that addresses DFO’s criteria
Evaluation Framework
1. Clear Purpose
2. Incentive to Participate
3. Representation
4. Procedural Framework
5. Continuous Involvement
6. Scope
7. Facilitation
8. Equal Opportunity
9. Freedom to Explore
10. Transparency
11. Information
12. Financial & human resources
13. Time
15. Commitment
16. Personal Conduct
Fairness & Effectiveness
Process Structure Decision-making Support Participant Conduct
Methods• Semi-structured interviews
– 16 of 20 primary participants – all 7 commercial sectors
• Questions:– Performance on criteria– Additional elements– Strengths and weaknesses
• Analysis:– Coding transcripts– Aggregating & summing
responsesImage: Canadian Sablefish Association
Results
Participants' Process Evaluations
0 25 50 75 100
Commitment
Resources
Representation
Personal conduct
Information
Scope
Time
Continuous involvement
Procedural framework
Freedom to explore
Transparency
Facilitation
Purpose
Flexibility
Incentive
Equal opportunity
Cri
teri
a
Percent Agreement (%)
Strengths of the Process
Strength Mentionsa Functions
Consensus 14 Equalises influence on decisions, forces participants past positioning
Independent facilitation 12 Guides & teaches process, enforces rules, counteracts power imbalances
Incentive 11 Undesirable consequences of non-agreement motivates commitment and compromise
aNumber of respondents that volunteered this element as a strength
Weaknesses of the Process
Weakness Mentionsa Suggested improvements
Code of conduct 6 CIC should create more detailed rules/agreements addressing conflicts of interest and conduct outside process
Representative selection process
6 DFO should create and enforces a formalised, consistent, and transparent representative selection process
Government support 4 DFO should provide greater political support, financial support, and human resources
a Number of respondents that volunteered this element as a weakness
Influential Elements Outside the Framework
• High quality individuals– Lead by example– Innovate & cooperate– Non confrontational
• Prior experience– Positive & negative experiences are
both motivators
Image: US Environmental Protection Agency
Prior Experiences
“I went through the salmon fiasco in the 90s…I watched every fishery I’d ever been involved with disappear, and tried every organisational framework I could think of to try and stop it from happening and failed at every one of them. And we're all in the same boat. We’re all sitting there seeing public pressure, environmental concerns, you name it. International treaty issues, aboriginal issues…if you don't organise and work together you're definitely going to be wiped out.”
» Lou, CIC member
Implications for Practice
• “The hammer”…and a seat cushion
• Success is not achieved through design alone– Individuals & experiences
• Government’s multiple roles– Support vs. manipulation
• Limitations of study– Legitimacy beyond CIC?
Image: DFO Pacific
Thank youQuestions?
Neil DavisM.Sc. CandidateUniversity of British Columbia
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
BC Ministry of EnvironmentUBC University Graduate Fellowship programDonald S. McPhee Fellowship programOMRN National SecretariatDr. Paul Wood, UBC
Top Related