| Forests in Indonesia | Governance | "New Order" Indonesian Forest Governance System, 1965-1998 | Low (1) | Although we do not have direct evidence of trust, we believe based on accounts of constant conflict between actors groups, that trust levels were low. |
|---|
| Forests in Indonesia | Governance | "Reformasi" Indonesian Forest Governance System, 1998-2012 | | don't know? |
|---|
| Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT) | Governance | ICCAT Governance System | Missing | |
|---|
| Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT) | Governance | ICCAT Governance System | Missing | |
|---|
| Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT) | Governance | ICCAT Governance System | Missing | |
|---|
| Montreal Protocol | Governance | Montreal Protocol | Missing | |
|---|
| International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) | Governance | Rhine Chemicals Convention | Medium (2) | |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR Marine Park Act 1975-1999 | Medium (2) | Not sure about this |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR Marine Park Act 1975-1999 | Medium (2) | |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current | Medium (2) | |
|---|
| Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument | Governance | NWHI Monument Act 2006 | Medium (2) | At the start of the time period trust was low, but now (2015) it is considerably better so coded as medium
|
|---|
| Community A (Fiji fisheries) | Governance | Community A Governance System | Medium (2) | 3.47/5: This value indicates that on average levels of trust in individuals from other communities falls somewhere between neither trust nor distrust (3) and Trust more than distrust (4). |
|---|
| Community B (Fiji Fisheries) | Governance | Community B Governance System | Low (1) | 2.91/5: This value indicates that levels of trust in others falls somewhere between distrust more than trust (2) and neither trust nor distrust (3). |
|---|
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Environmental Protection Act | Medium (2) | In general, the relationship between Tourism and Managers is believed to be quite good. However, the development of a new management plan in 2013 showed underlying differences in opinion. The Tourism group was vocally against the regulations to become any stricter than they already are. Tourism also questioned the Resource Managers’ decision to introduce special regions for scientific research (where tourism would be excluded). |
|---|
| Seaflower MPA | Governance | Seaflower MPA Act 2005 | Medium (2) | Between CORALINA and fishers there seems to be some. Otherwise, participatory process wold not be that successful. |
|---|
| Caete-Teperacu Extractive Reserve (RESEX) in Braganca, Brazil | Governance | Caeté-Taperaçú Extractive Reserve (RESEX) in Brazil | Medium (2) | |
|---|
| Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica fisheries governance | Governance | Marine Areas for Responsible Fishing (AMPRs) Costa Rica | Medium (2) | |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current | Medium (2) | Not sure about this. |
|---|
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi National Park 2008-current | Low (1) | Management actors don't trust Bajau and vice versa. |
|---|
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi National Park 2008-current | Low (1) | Management actors don't trust Bajau and vice versa (Clifton 2013) |
|---|
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi National Park 2008-current | Low (1) | Management actors don't trust Bajau and vice versa. |
|---|
| Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument | Governance | NWHI Monument Act 2006 | Medium (2) | At the start of the time period trust was low, but now (2015) it is considerably better so coded as medium |
|---|
| Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument | Governance | NWHI Monument Act 2006 | Medium (2) | At the start of the time period trust was low, but now (2015) it is considerably better so coded as medium |
|---|
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System | High (3) | The peer-review process increases trust between researchers, managers, and recreational users, but with a number of competing researchers and various institutions, trust is not always high. While groundfish fishermen are not included in this interaction, but have low trust levels with managers. |
|---|
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System | High (3) | The peer-review process increases trust, but with a number of competing researchers and various institutions, trust is not always high. Sanctuary users e.g. tourists walking along the coastal path have trust of the managers. The level of trust between managers and fishers is low but this is not relevant here. |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan | Missing | |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery Management Plan | Missing | |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan | Missing | |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery Management Plan | Missing | |
|---|
| Community C (Fiji Fisheries) | Governance | Community C Governance System | Medium (2) | 3.23/5: This value indicates that levels of trust in individuals from other villages falls somewhere between neither trust nor distrust (3) and trust more than distrust (4). |
|---|
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Governance System | High (3) | |
|---|
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Governance System | High (3) | set up as a collaboration from the outset so trust is high (M.Erdmann pers comm.) |
|---|
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Governance System | High (3) | |
|---|
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan | Low (1) | Managers are essentially seeking to satisfy the same goals under the same guidelines. Best practices might be debated, but trust is common and peer-reviewed science adds to that trust. However, between fishermen and managers, trust is quite low. |
|---|
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Environmental Protection Act | Medium (2) | In general, the relationship between Tourism and Managers is believed to be quite good. However, the development of a new management plan in 2013 showed underlying differences in opinion. The Tourism group was vocally against the regulations to become any stricter than they already are. Tourism also questioned the Resource Managers’ decision to introduce special regions for scientific research (where tourism would be excluded). |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | Galapagos Governance System 1998-current | Medium (2) | Would have been low at the start of the time period being coded, but appears to have improved by the end as there appears to be a lot less conflict occurring now and the PMB has been able to reach consensus for all management decision in the last few years (the IMA have not needed to meet) - so coded as medium |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | Galapagos Governance System 1998-current | Medium (2) | Trust was certainly low at the start of this case - evidenced by protests and violence. However, consensus has been reached for most recent decisions (IMA have not needed to meet) - either trust has improved or external pressure for consensus has increased (political influence from mainland Ecuador - Alex Hearn pers comm), - the collapse of the fishery has certainly helped in this respect. Coded as medium. |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | Galapagos Governance System 1998-current | Medium (2) | Would have been low at the start of the time period being coded, but appears to have improved by the end as there appears to be a lot less conflict occurring now and the PMB has been able to reach consensus for all management decision in the last few years (the IMA have not needed to meet) - so coded as medium |
|---|
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012 | High (3) | Stakeholder confidence in management rose with the establishment of a Consultative Committee of stakeholders that contributed effectively to management planning (National Parks 2005). During the time period of the first Management Plan discussions with industry resulted in increased compliance by the trawl fishery. Achievements and progress made in management the Park's resources, biodiversity and habitats during the time period of the first Management Plan were attributed to having effective working relations between the Australian and South Australian governments allowing for a successful cooperative management enterprise between the two governments through a Service Level Agreement. The different actor’s work together as part of the GABMP Steering and Consultative Committees to help in the development of the Management Plans and these Committees (which include representatives from the Commercial fishing sector) advise the Director on GABMP (CW) management. |
|---|
| Community F (Fiji Fisheries) | Governance | Community F Governance System | Medium (2) | 1.23/5: This value indicates that levels of trust in others falls somewhere between entirely distrust (1) and distrust more than trust (2). |
|---|
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012 | High (3) | Stakeholder confidence in management rose with the establishment of a Consultative Committee of stakeholders that contributed effectively to management planning (National Parks 2005). During the time period of the first Management Plan discussions with industry resulted in increased compliance by the trawl fishery. Achievements and progress made in management the Park's resources, biodiversity and habitats during the time period of the first Management Plan were attributed to having effective working relations between the Australian and South Australian governments allowing for a successful cooperative management enterprise between the two governments through a Service Level Agreement. The different actor’s work together as part of the GABMP Steering and Consultative Committees to help in the development of the Management Plans and these Committees (which include representatives from the Commercial fishing sector) advise the Director on GABMP (CW) management. |
|---|
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Environmental Protection Act | High (3) | Although about fishing more generally (not specifically about the shrimp fishery), Honneland (2000) found that there was a high degree of trust between fishermen and the Coast Guard (a Resource Manager). Fishermen had less trust of the marine scientists/researchers (who would be associated with the Institute of Marine Research or maybe the Directorate of Fisheries – both part of the Resource Managers), and a few fishermen even complained that the researchers were often setting quotas too high, resulting in large fluctuations of the stock and quotas each year. |
|---|
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012 | High (3) | As mentioned in the second Management Plan, stakeholder confidence in management rose with the establishment of a Consultative Committee of stakeholders that contributed effectively to management planning (National Parks 2005). During the time period of the first Management Plan discussions with industry resulted in increased compliance by the trawl fishery. Achievements and progress made in management the Park's resources, biodiversity and habitats during the time period of the first Management Plan were attributed to having effective working relations between the Australian and South Australian governments allowing for a successful cooperative management enterprise between the two governments through a Service Level Agreement. The different actor’s work together as part of the GABMP Steering and Consultative Committees to help in the development of the Management Plans and these Committees (which include representatives from the Commercial fishing sector) advise the Director on GABMP (CW) management. |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan | Missing | |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan | Missing | |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan | Missing | |
|---|
| Seaflower MPA | Governance | Seaflower MPA Act 2005 | Not Applicable | |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan | Missing | |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current | Medium (2) | The VMS allows near real-time monitoring of the location of commercial fishing vessels, which helps determine if boats are adhering to the zoning regulations. |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery Management Plan | Missing | |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan | Missing | |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan | Missing | |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery Management Plan | Missing | |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan | Missing | |
|---|
| Community D (Fiji Fisheries) | Governance | Community D Governance System | Missing | |
|---|
| Community E (Fiji Fisheries) | Governance | Community E Governance System | Medium (2) | 3.08/5: This value indicates that on average levels of trust in individuals from other communities falls somewhere between neither trust nor distrust (3) and Trust more than distrust (4). |
|---|
| Community G (Fiji Fisheries) | Governance | Community G Governance System | Low (1) | 2.59/5: This value indicates that levels of trust in others falls somewhere between distrust more than trust (2) and neither trust nor distrust (3). |
|---|
| Community H (Fiji Fisheries) | Governance | Community H Governance System | Medium (2) | 3/5: This value indicates that on average members of the community neither trust nor distrust people from other villages (3). |
|---|
| Cenderwasih National Park | Governance | Cenderwasih governance system | Low (1) | It was designated by central governement in Jakarta without involvement of local communities who have sea tenure. This has led to conflicts and unhappiness. There is lack of trust between communities and governement and confusion/frustration between local government and central governement (e.g. local governement issuing commerical fishing permits in MPA when central have designated it a MPA) |
|---|
| Cenderwasih National Park | Governance | Cenderwasih governance system | Low (1) | It was designated by central governement in Jakarta without involvement of local communities who have sea tenure. This has led to conflicts and unhappiness. There is lack of trust between communities and governement and confusion/frustration between local government and central governement (e.g. local governement issuing commerical fishing permits in MPA when central have designated it a MPA) |
|---|
| Falkland Islands squid | Governance | The Falkland Islands Government (FIG) Fisheries Department’s Falklands Interim Conservation and Management Zone (FICZ) | High (3) | No definite reason to distrust parties. When fishery is closed, clear why. No competing interests (managers working together to keep economic viability stable). Such high trust is attributed to success of fishery in Arkhipkin et al. 2013 |
|---|
| New Zealand squid | Governance | New Zealand Quota Management System | High (3) | Depends on personalities, but generally professional and communicate frequently. |
|---|
| California squid | Governance | California Department of Fish and Wildlife Market Squid Fishery Management Plan | Medium (2) | Historically distrustful, but understand and communicate with each other. Depends on personalities. |
|---|
| Pond aquaculture on Lombok, Indonesia | Governance | Indonesian Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture | | |
|---|
| Pond aquaculture on Lombok, Indonesia | Governance | Indonesian Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture | | |
|---|
| Gili Trawangan Coastal Tourism | Governance | Self.organized rules and norms for SCUBA diving | Medium (2) | |
|---|
