| "New Order" Indonesian Forest Governance System, 1965-1998 | The government of Suharto from 1965-1998 drew on past governmental traditions, including the Dutch colonial state and Sukarno's government, but also developed new patterns of its own. Unlike Sukarno before him, Suharto encouraged various forms of foreign direct investment and private capital accumulation. He also increased the centralization of an already centralized post-colonial state, weakening local government and formally de-recognizing systems of customary rights for the adat (i.e. indigenous) communities. Forest governance was formally vested in a forestry ministry based in Jakarta, but with weak on the ground presence on the outer islands. Large concessions granted to members of the military and other allies of Suharto were essentially free to use forest resources as they saw fit, and could call on the military to help them deal with restive local populations. | |
|---|
| "Reformasi" Indonesian Forest Governance System, 1998-2012 | In 1998, power over forest management in Indonesia was reorganized as part of a broader process of democratization that followed the overthrow of Suharto. The resulting governance system was a complicated and multi-tiered system. Some authority to manage forests remained with the central government, which had authority over wildlife sanctuaries, the hiring of forest officials, and the granting of some forms of concessions (primarily large concessions). Authority over granting smaller concessions, as well as making decisions about other aspects of forests, were granted to District Authorities (the 3rd tier of government, after provinces which were granted little authority in the decentralization out of fear that they would encourage regional separatist movements). In addition, formal laws recognized the authority of traditional ("Adat") customary law, although this statute was left vague, and in practice higher level governments ignored adat laws (for example, by granting concessions for timber harvest, mining, or conversion to plantation agriculture (primarily oil palm). In 2004 a new forestry law shifted authority away from the district goverments and back towards the national forest authority, but de jure governance remained contested between these authorities. | |
|---|
| ICCAT Governance System | The ICCAT governance system was created in 1966 and began activities in 1969 to regulate use of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. The goal of ICCAT is to cooperatively maintain fish stocks “at levels which will permit the maximum sustainable catch for food and other purposes” (Preamble, ICCAT 2007). While ICCAT does not have regulatory or enforcing powers (Korman 2011), it is entrusted with collecting and compiling statistical data, generating scientific reports, proposing management recommendations based on its findings, and creating an arena for contracting parties to meet and discuss recommendations (ICCAT 2007). The commission meets annually at its headquarters in Madrid, Spain, to discuss statistical reports and recommend management measures (Wagner 1996). | |
|---|
| GMR governance system 1998-current | The Galapagos Special Law (GSL) (1998) and the GMR Management Plan (1999) govern the use of the GMR. | The Galapagos Special Law was established in 1998 and created the Galapagos Marine Reserve and GMR management plan, with an emphasis on a more participatory bottom-up approach (Heylings et al. 2002). The Special Law established the GMR’s overarching objective—the protection of the archipelago’s marine biodiversity, both in terms of its intrinsic (preservation) and utilitarian (fisheries and tourism) values. The main aim of the GMR is to ‘‘protect and conserve the coastal-marine ecosystems of the archipelago and their biological diversity for the benefit of humanity, the local population, science and education’’ (GNPS 1998). The Management Plan has 12 specific objectives, encompassing the long term conservation of marine and coastal habitats, endemic and vulnerable species, and resource species, including management actions for their recovery where necessary; and social objectives which include to: Support local fishers to maintain and improve their social and economic status, by ensuring fishing activities that are compatible with biodiversity conservation; Conserve marine-coastal ecosystems as the economic basis for controlled tourism, and to prevent and mitigate any impacts caused by tourism; Promote science aimed at understanding marine biodiversity and areas and sites affected by human activities. The precautionary principle and Adaptive Management, based on solid scientific basis and stakeholder participation are acknowledged in the Management Plan (GNPS 1998). The Galapagos Special Law is implemented through a two-tier governance framework: Participatory Management Board(PMB): decision making body comprised of local representatives of the tourism, naturalist guide and fishing sectors, GNPS and the Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF). The PMB’s role is to evaluate and attempt to reach a consensus on management proposals relating to the GMR. The PMB has mostly focused on fishing issues, which has generated opposition from local fishing groups, which claim there is undue attention to issues that directly affect their livelihoods. Inter-institutional Management Authority (IMA): executive decision making body of the GMR. It is presided over by Ecuador’s Minister of Environment, and com- posed of three additional ministries: Tourism, Fishing and Defence. Additional seats are occupied by the local fishing sector and the local tourism sector. Both the CDF and GNPS play advisory roles on the IMA. All decisions taken by the PMB must be reviewed by the IMA, which is charged with formulating legally binding resolutions. Normally decisions reached on a consensus basis by the PMB are ratified by the IMA, but when consensus is not reached at the PMB level, the IMA can decide by majority vote. (See Jones 2013 for excellent overview). |
|---|
| Montreal Protocol | The protocol, enacted on January 1, 1989, is a universally adopted treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by gradually reducing and, in some cases, eliminating the production of a variety of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) through restrictions on emissions by particular industries regulated by nation-states. The treaty was convened under the authority of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone and has been revised seven times. it is expected that the cumulative reductions in the emission of ODS will begin to have an impact on global ozone concentrations toward the middle of the twenty-first century (Ravishankara 2009). | |
|---|
| Pre-Montreal Protocol Ozone Governance | The Pre-Montreal Protocol Governance system is not a coherent system, but rather an uncoordinated amalgam of policies in nation states. It is not a polycentric system in the classic sense given that there are no overlapping spheres of authority. | |
|---|
| Rhine Chemicals Convention | In 1976 a series of deals were reached resulting in the Convention on the Protection of the Rhine against Pollution by Chlorides (Chlorides Convention) and the Convention for the Protection of the Rhine against Chemical Pollution (Chemical Convention). The lengthy procedure to decide which chemicals to regulate slowed down the implementation process of the Chemical Convention. Ratification of the Chlorides Convention took even longer. The convention set the path for the creation of a list of black and grey toxic substances that would need to be controlled by riparian nations. It also set minimal sanctioning and litigation formal procedures. | |
|---|
| Rhine Action Plan | | |
|---|
| GBR Marine Park Act 1975-1999 | | |
|---|
| GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current | And Act created specifically to manage this marine park | |
|---|
| Wakatobi National Park 2008-current | Collaborative management | A strategic partnership between involving various alliances between TNC/WWF, the PHKA (Ministry of Forestry), the district government of Wakatobi, and tour operators (Clifton 2013) |
|---|
| NWHI Monument Act 2006 | The Monument Act of 2006 | The Monument Act is the implementation of the national marine Monument for the NWHI. The co-trustees created and signed a Memorandum of Agreement that established the roles and responsibilities of the management groups and mechanisms for managing the Monument. The official management plan for the Monument was produced in 2008 and details these roles.
The management of the Monument has been described by Kittinger et al. (2011) as a “nested, quasiautonomous decision-making unit that operates at multiple scales and nurtures diversity for dynamic responses in the face of change.” |
|---|
| Magnuson-Stevens Act | Formal federal law governing US fisheries | |
|---|
| Raja Ampat Governance System | The legal basis is National Act No. 31, 2004, "with management plans for each MPA and an over-arching management plan for all MPAs in the network close to completion. The Raja Ampat MPAs were designated by indigenous communities and are collaboratively-managed in a partnership between local communities and the Raja Ampat regency government"=>nil, "with additional support from International NGOs (CI +TNC)"=>nil} | Raja Ampat MPAs come under the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (as apposed to the Ministry of Forestry for Wakatobi and Cendrawasih) - they tend to be less centralistic and have more local government and other stakeholders (Wiadnya et al. 2011).
The MPAs are under a co-management structure, building on the strong local management of marine resources that was in place before (sasi laut). Sasi laut incorporates a set of institutional roles with varying degrees of influence wielded by religious and government authorities (Zerner, 1994).
There is heavy inolvement from NGOs (TNC/CI) who are operating in Raja Ampat as part of the broader Birdshead Seascape. The MPAs are to some extent funded by COREMAP-CTI (World Bank funded) |
|---|
| Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System | Federal Management Plans for all 3 sanctuaries. In 2008 began a joint assessment of the three central California sanctuaries and a joint environmental impact statement (EIS). | National Marine Sanctuaries are designated by the US federal Sanctuaries Act of 1972. The National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) provides oversight and coordination of all US national marine sanctuaries. Specific Federal Management Plans are created for each sanctuary and these adhere to the standards set by NOAA and the sanctuary's unique conditions. The FMPs are divided into two broad categories. The first is programs, or action plans, carried out through research, education, and marine resource protection programs. The second is "regulations for controlling or restricting human behavior that is not compatible with resource protection". The Sanctuary has jurisdiction and enforcement authority over any activities which relate to its primary goals. With designation, the sanctuary is authorized to, "implement the designation, including managing, protecting and conserving the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, educational, and aesthetic resources and qualities of the Sanctuary" and to include prohibitions if any activity threatens such qualities, except for Department of Defense activities (Cordell Bank FMP). The sanctuary can impose regulations on foreign ships and foreign persons. Fishing is not regulated under this governance system. The management plans create a Sanctuary Advisory Council, to represent diverse stakeholders and provide expert advice to Sanctuary managers. The management plan specifies that the sanctuary staff are directed by the sanctuary manager and are directly responsible for implementing the management plan and also for coordinating efforts of the multiple program areas. |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery Management Plan | The toothfish fishery management plan adopts quotas, input controls (3 boat maximum at any one time) and gear restrictions to manage the fishery and limit environmental impacts. The plan is implemented primarily by the AFMA, with 2 observers aboard each boat. | |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan | The Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan is implemented by Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania who is responsible for governing the land area of Macquarie Island as well as marine areas out to 3 nautical miles; and coordinates with the Department of the Environment to ensure that regulations are consistent with those in place in the Marine Park.
The marine area out to 3 nautical miles is managed as a no-take zone
Terrestrial areas have been protected to some extent since 1933. In general the Nature Reserve Management Plan aims to reduce threats to and conserve biodiversity by concentrating human activity in one area of the reserve, while limiting access and impacts in other areas. They have also invested in a successful pest eradication program. | |
|---|
| Community D Governance System | Management Regime:
Village has their own i kanakana (subdivision of qoliqoli, not legally demarcated). There are other areas which are considered shared fishing ground with other villages. But this fishing area is rarely used. This village mostly confines their fishing efforts in their designated i kanakana.
For the respective villages in the District, they all have their own I kanakana which combined comes under the qoliqoli within the stewardship of the high chief. The high chief can make decisions about resource use in the whole qoliqoli. At the request of the high chief the tabu can be opened. The high chief does not reside in Nauouo.
Tabu establishment: Established it in 2010 by the elders (clan and tribe chiefs), with IAS-USP as the FLMMA co-management partner. The location was picked because it was believed to be a productive area and it is right in front of the village, so easy to monitor. It is unclear about whether the tabu was endorsed by the chief, but clear that most people in the village did not know about the boundaries and people in adjacent villages did not know of its existence (as reported to WCS staff doing HH surveys in neighbouring villages).
| |
|---|
| Community A Governance System | The District plan provides general management rules for the entire qoliqoli, including restrictions on fishing outside tabu areas. The plan was initially developed in 2009 and adapted in 2012. Decisions about the PHC are made by the village chief, advised through majority consensus.
Tabu establishment: 2005. This site was selected because it is a productive area, is close to the village hence easy to enforce, and boundaries are readily identifiable | |
|---|
| Community C Governance System | High chief and district resource management committee make rules for LMMA and PHC areas. In 2010, the Bose Vanua decided to set-up tabu areas along Nakorotubu Qoliqoli, with assistance from IAS-USP as FLMMA co-management partner. Entire reefs selected to make boundaries clear | |
|---|
| Community B Governance System | The District plan provides general management rules for the entire qoliqoli, including restrictions on fishing outside tabu areas. The plan was initially developed in 2009 and adapted in 2012
Decisions about the PHC are made by the High Chief of the district, who is also the chief in community, the chiefly village.
Tabu establishment: 2009. The location was suggested because it was thought to be a productive reef. [SJ: note my observation of this reef is that it is not particularly productive reef relative to all reefs in Fiji, with a fairly short reef wall and high rubble slope, but it is probably the most productive area immediately accessible to this village].
| |
|---|
| Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan | The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan describes how the Council develops decisions for management of the groundfish fishery. In some cases, it also contains specific, fixed fishery management designations. The plan has been amended several times. More than 90 species of bottom-dwelling marine finfish are included in the federal Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (GFMP). Species and species groups managed under the GFMP include all rockfishes (about 60 species), sablefish, thornyheads, lingcod, Dover sole and other flatfishes (not including halibut), Pacific whiting, and some sharks and skates. Since the FMP began, these species have been managed under the joint jurisdiction of the state and the federal government. The management plan is implemented by the Council, CDFW, and NMFS. | |
|---|
| Svalbard Environmental Protection Act | {"System of Laws"=>"Nature Reserves regulations (1973) and the Svalbard Environmental Act (2002)"} | the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act of 2001 (which came into effect in 2002) outlines a goal for Svalbard to be ‘one of the best managed wilderness areas in the world’. The Governance System has regulations specifically pertaining to the main actors on Svalbard and to the species of conservation interest. |
|---|
| Seaflower MPA Act 2005 | Local governance system | Even though the MPA Act was declared by the Ministry, its implementation and management is conducted by the regional body (CORALINA). |
|---|
| Community G Governance System | The qoliqoli is for the village only. Management decisions are ultimately made by the chief.
Tabu establishment: 2010. IAS-USP was the FLMMA co-management partner that assisted with LMMA planning. There was also an old tabu near another village which does not exist anymore due to poaching. When this old tabu was in existence, it was once harvested for the previous chief’s funeral. This tabu was removed after the tabu moved to the current site in 2010.
| |
|---|
| Community E Governance System | {"Management Regime"=>"The qolioli includes several. The high chief is the traditional leader of the Qoliqoli and makes ultimate decisions about resource use. Qoliqoli Management Committee established in 2003 with support from WWF as co-management partner. I kanakana (local fishing ground) boundary for Island considered to be within 5 mile perimeter around the island (this is not legally demarcated, but may appear as a restricted area on fishing licenses issues by Fisheries and approved by high chief). Local groups consider this area reserved exclusively for them only. No outsiders are allowed to fish in the kanakana.", "Residents have little land available for planting and are therefore heavily dependent on fishing for income. They fish heavily, sell a lot of fish, and put money back into fishing technology (boats and gear), plus other assets. [SJ"=>"observation of substantial change in material assets – e.g. water tanks, satellite TV, electricity – between visits in 2009 and subsequent visit in 2015)].", "Tabu establishment"=>"2002 (though there is some uncertainty around this date). Site selected because thought to be a known fish breeding/spawning location."} | |
|---|
| Community F Governance System | {"Management Regime"=>"PHC is managed collectively by all villages and settlements in District within a shared ikanakana, known as “kana-veicurumaki”. Bose Vanua (district council of chiefs) has the ultimate authority over the management of District’s fisheries resources.", "Tabu establishment"=>"Initiated by Bose Vanua in 2011 with assistance from Institute of Applied Science – University of the South Pacific (IAS-USP) as co-management partner. Location of tabu selected by Bose Vanua because it had easily recognizable boundaries and could easily be monitored by people from the majority of villages (e.g. centrally located). Not harvested to date, though communities expressed desire to open the tabu in 2014, but idea rejected by Bose Vanua. Another tabu in the qoliqoli, was harvested by some villages in District in 2015 because it had reached its 3 yr term of closure. However, this was “opened” without the approval of the Bose Vanua and then the fishers in this tabu were asked to refrain from fishing in it. So it was closed again."} | |
|---|
| Community H Governance System | {"Management Regime"=>"The qoliqoli is for the village only. Management decisions are ultimately made by the chief.", "Tabu establishment"=>"2005 through an agreement with Seacology so that the village could get development assistance – Seacology had informed them that from the establishment of this tabu, they will renovate the village hall & the church. This was followed up with a biological monitoring workshop organised by IAS-USP as the FLMMA co-management partner."} | |
|---|
| Galapagos Governance System 1998-current | The Galapagos Special Law (GSL) (1998) and the GMR Management Plan (1999) govern the use of the GMR. | The Galapagos Special Law was established in 1998 and created the Galapagos Marine Reserve and GMR management plan, with an emphasis on a more participatory bottom-up approach (Heylings et al. 2002). The Special Law established the GMR’s overarching objective—the protection of the archipelago’s marine biodiversity, both in terms of its intrinsic (preservation) and utilitarian (fisheries and tourism) values. The main aim of the GMR is to ‘‘protect and conserve the coastal-marine ecosystems of the archipelago and their biological diversity for the benefit of humanity, the local population, science and education’’ (GNPS 1998). The Management Plan has 12 specific objectives, encompassing the long term conservation of marine and coastal habitats, endemic and vulnerable species, and resource species, including management actions for their recovery where necessary; and social objectives which include to: Support local fishers to maintain and improve their social and economic status, by ensuring fishing activities that are compatible with biodiversity conservation; Conserve marine-coastal ecosystems as the economic basis for controlled tourism, and to prevent and mitigate any impacts caused by tourism; Promote science aimed at understanding marine biodiversity and areas and sites affected by human activities. The precautionary principle and Adaptive Management, based on solid scientific basis and stakeholder participation are acknowledged in the Management Plan (GNPS 1998). The Galapagos Special Law is implemented through a two-tier governance framework: Participatory Management Board(PMB): decision making body comprised of local representatives of the tourism, naturalist guide and fishing sectors, GNPS and the Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF). The PMB’s role is to evaluate and attempt to reach a consensus on management proposals relating to the GMR. The PMB has mostly focused on fishing issues, which has generated opposition from local fishing groups, which claim there is undue attention to issues that directly affect their livelihoods. Inter-institutional Management Authority (IMA): executive decision making body of the GMR. It is presided over by Ecuador’s Minister of Environment, and com- posed of three additional ministries: Tourism, Fishing and Defence. Additional seats are occupied by the local fishing sector and the local tourism sector. Both the CDF and GNPS play advisory roles on the IMA. All decisions taken by the PMB must be reviewed by the IMA, which is charged with formulating legally binding resolutions. Normally decisions reached on a consensus basis by the PMB are ratified by the IMA, but when consensus is not reached at the PMB level, the IMA can decide by majority vote. (See Jones 2013 for excellent overview). |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan | | |
|---|
| GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012 | Management Plans (2000-2005, and 2005-2012). | The administration, management and control of the GABMP are the function of the Director of National Parks, a corporation under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Director is responsible for preparing management plans for the reserve, which establish the framework to provide for the protection and conservation of the reserve, while describing how activities in the reserve will be managed. The management plan is an essential part of the regulation of the GABMP and it allows a range of uses of the Park that would otherwise be prohibited by the EPBC Act. Management Plans, once allowed by both Houses of Commonwealth Parliament, sets the prescriptions of what can and cannot happen within the MPA for a period of 5 - 7 years. The prescriptions are enforceable via relevant legislation. |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan | MPA Management Plan | The HIMI Marine Reserve Management Plan, implemented by the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, lays out the objectives, rules and guidelines for managing the HIMI Marine Reserve. |
|---|
| Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery Management Plan | Fisheries Management Plan | The Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery is managed according to the HIMI Toothfish Management Plan by AFMA (the Australian Fisheries Management Authority) under the Fisheries Management Act 1991. In addition, the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Act 1981, administered by the AAD (Australian Antarctic Division) implements Australia’s international obligations under Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). The HIMI Toothfish Fishery Management Plan provides the rules for setting catch limits, granting fishery quotas, and implementing other fisheries and environmental measures (e.g., gear restrictions, bycatch rules, etc.). The plan is implemented primarily by the AFMA, but in cooperation with the AAD and in accordance with CCAMLR Conservation Measures. There is a Sub-Antarctic Resource Assessment Group (SARAG) that acts a scientific advisory body for implementing the fisheries management plan and a Sub-Antarctic Management Advisory Committee (SouthMAC) which provides for fishery management consultation between industry, managers, scientists and other interests groups. SouthMAC is AFMA's main source of advice on management of fisheries at Heard and McDonald Islands and Macquarie Island. |
|---|
| Cenderwasih governance system | | |
|---|
| The Falkland Islands Government (FIG) Fisheries Department’s Falklands Interim Conservation and Management Zone (FICZ) | | The Falkland Islands are a British territory, but are also claimed by Argentina as the Malvinas. However, since the war of 1982, the British increased their control of the islands. Fisheries management began in 1986 with the FICZ and licenses, with an extension in 1990 and the FOCZ expanded the managed region. Prior to the FICZ becoming effective in 1987, the Falkland Islands had no control of fisheries resources beyond its 12 nautical miles. (Harte and Barton 2007a). Subsequent fisheries policy statements, culminating in the 1997 policy, promoted greater involvement by the private sector in fishing activities (Harte and Barton 2007a). A major new fisheries law was introduced in 2005; the Fisheries (Conservation and Management) Ordinance 2005, which introduced fishing rights and the FITQS This system provided for the allocation of quotas in each established fishery for up to 25 years, giving recipients (or shareholders) a major stake in the fishery and its future management and development. The ITQ in most fisheries has been allocated for 23–25 years. Companies were provided with a secure environment to make investment decisions and take long-term business views (Harte & Barton 2007, Arkhipkin et al. 2013b). |
|---|
| California Department of Fish and Wildlife Market Squid Fishery Management Plan | | The squid market was an open-access fishery before 1998. In 2004 a Restricted Access Program was created that became effective April 1, 2005. The Market Squid Fishery Management Plan establishes a management program for California’s market squid resource and procedures by which the Commission will manage the market squid fishery. The goals of the MSFMP are to manage the market squid resource to ensure long term resource conservation and sustainability, reduce the potential for overfishing, and institute a framework for management that will be responsive to environmental and socioeconomic changes. Market squid is often caught along other coastal pelagic species, and thus managers from squid advise the Pacific Marine Council. Market squid managers at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife manage both Highly Migratory Species and Coastal Pelagic Species. The MSFMP has been developed under the provisions set forth by California’s Marine Life Management Act (MLMA), which became law in 1999. The MLMA created state policies, goals, and objectives to govern the conservation, sustainable use, and restoration of California’s living marine resources such as the squid resource. CDFW's Marine Region works to maintain the sustainability of the fishery by monitoring commercial landings and collecting biological information such as weight, length, sex, maturity, and age. CDFW also collaborates with other researchers and institutions to gather information to increase our understanding of squid biology. California's Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) and Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Project staff collects, analyzes, and reports stock assessment data and develops management recommendations for CPS and HMS. |
|---|
| New Zealand Quota Management System | | ITQs in New Zealand are currently awarded as fixed percentages of Total Allowable Commercial Catches (TACCs). The New Zealand exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is split into fishery management areas (FMAs). There are four squid FMAs; SQUlJ and SQU1 T are the mainland jig and trawl areas respectively; SQU6T is the subantarctic trawl area and SQU1 OT is the Kermadec Islands fishery” (McKinnon 2007). The fishery primary takes place in SQU6T. The Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) is of most importance to commercial fishers as it is from this that individual quotas are assigned. This system was introduced in 1986. Before 1986, restricting vessel numbers controlled the jig catch. The trawl catch was controlled until 1983 by effort limitation, and after 1983, it was controlled by individual company quota. In 1986, the TACC was set at 90,000t, which was increased twice in 1988, first to 105,000t and then again to 121,010t. There were a number of appeals to the Quota Appeal Authority, which saw the TACC raised to 166,250t in 1989 (Gibson, 1995). In 1990, the TACC was reduced to 118,571t where it remained until 1992. In 1992, it was increased to 122,875t (Gibson, 1995). The squid TACC is currently set at 127,322t the TACC has been held at this level since the 1996-1997 season (NZ Ministry of Fisheries, 2001a). It should be noted that all catch data and quota values are for both species of squid (N sloanii and N gouldi) combined (Anon, 2002) (McKinnon 2007). The current Fisheries Act was introduced in 1996 and confirmed a system of ITQs in commercial fisheries as the core of New Zealand’s fisheries management system, providing for further expansion of the number of species included, and fine tuning many operational aspects. Squid management is two part. The first is to manage the TACC at a sustainable use level. This is a very hands off procedure. Landings are much lower than TACC. The realistic management of the system is managing for sea lion escape. This is the primary limitation of fishing activity. SLEDs receive discount and can fish more. |
|---|
| Caeté-Taperaçú Extractive Reserve (RESEX) in Brazil | Participatory co-management | The Caeté-Taperaçú RESEX was created in 2005 as a comanaged marine extractive reserve in which the rights to extract resources are given to an association of users to collectively develop rules. The comanagement rights apply exclusively within the RESEX boundaries. To address identified user conflicts relating to the local mangroves, local village residents were offered comanagement rights to address conflicts under the RESEX legal framework, then administered by the Conselho Nacional de Populacoes Tradicionais (National Council of Traditional Populations, CNPT), the predecessor of ICMBio. Since 1998, extensive diagnostic assessments have been conducted in the area by the local university, the rural farmers union, and CNPT/IBAMA. These contributed to the initiation of the RESEX in 2005. Despite these earlier efforts, the initial diagnostic phase to assess the status of the area or the current management plan is stated in the official document as not having begun until 2009. The final management plan was only published in 2012, stating the goal of “...conservation, preservation and sustainable use of natural resources...to improve the living conditions and enhancement of traditional culture for people...residing in and/or around [the RESEX]”. |
|---|
| Indonesian Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture | | |
|---|
| Self.organized rules and norms for SCUBA diving | Informal rules and norms for using coral reefs and island resources developed through self-organization of SCUBA diving businesses | |
|---|
| Marine Areas for Responsible Fishing (AMPRs) Costa Rica | Community-based co-management policy framework for small-scale fisheries | In Costa Rica, Marine Areas of Responsible Fishing (AMPRs) have been established as a community-based co-management model for SSF governance (Fargier et al. 2014; García Lozano and Heinen 2016a). The AMPR model was proposed and implemented by the Costa Rican National Institute of Fishing and Aquaculture (INCOPESCA), a Costa Rican government organization. The AMPR model reflects Costa Rica’s commitment to the implementation of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines (FAO 2015a,b; Jentoft et al. 2017) and the code of Conduct for responsible fisheries (FAO 1995). In addition, a national decree1
has approved
the ‘National Plan for the Development of Fisheries and Aquaculture’, which commits to implementing the codes of conduct from the FAO, implement and follow more AMPRs, along with other goals. Recently, resources have been assigned to INCOPESCA in the National Development Plan for 2015–2018 for the creation of more Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and AMPRs, to promote the participation of local communities and facilitate sustainable use (MIDEPLAN 2014). Sánchez (2018) has reported on achievements between 2014 and 2018 regarding more participation of local fishing communities and the support of government and non-governmental organizations in financing and/or capacity building, developing aquaculture projects, facilitating access to markets, and net- work promotion between the AMPRs. |
|---|
| Sasi in Tomolol, Misool | | |
|---|
