Marine Protected Areas, Small-Scale Commercial Versus Recreational Fishers: Governability Challenges in the Canary Islands, Spain

  1. José J. Pascual-Fernández 1
  2. Raquel De la Cruz-Modino 1
  3. Chinea-Mederos, Inés 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Laguna
    info

    Universidad de La Laguna

    San Cristobal de La Laguna, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01r9z8p25

Livre:
Interactive Governance for Small-Scale Fisheries Global Reflections

ISSN: 2212-6260

ISBN: 9783319170336

Année de publication: 2015

Pages: 397-412

Type: Chapitre d'ouvrage

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-17034-3_21 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccès ouvert editor

Résumé

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are promoted as an effective model for the management of marine areas worldwide. They are not only a technical management measure but also a social institution that interacts with existing use rights. In the Canary Islands, several marine reserves have already been created, while others have been proposed. Some of the already created protected areas were promoted and supported by small-scale fi sher organizations. Newly proposed areas are to be backed by different institutions and small-scale fi shers. For small-scale fi shers marine reserves have some advantages in terms of co-governance and increased involvement in rule making and surveillance. However, increasingly, other stakeholders like recreational fi shers are demanding inclusion in the governing process. It is recreational fi shers who are usually the most unsupportive of MPAs and thus pose governability challenges. Involving them, therefore, in discussion about MPAs may help improve governability although it will require institution building on their side. We conclude that MPAs’ inception processes are both a challenge and an opportunity for governability, as they promote new patterns of interactions between stakeholder groups.

Références bibliographiques

  • Alegret, J. L. (1996). Ancient institutions confronting change: The Catalan fi shermen’s confradies. In K. Crean & D. Symes (Eds.), Fisheries management in crisis (pp. 92–98). Oxford: Fishing New Books/Blackwell.
  • Bacallado, J. J., Cruz, T., Brito, A., Barquín, J., & Carrillo, M. (1989). Reservas marinas de Canarias . Canarias: Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca de Canarias Secretaría General Técnica.
  • Brito Hernández, A., Hernández Pérez, J. C., Clemente Martín, M. S., & Dorta Morales, C. (2013). Estado actual de la biodiversidad y los recursos marinos costeros en la Reserva Marina de La Restinga-Mar de las Calmas (El Hierro) . La Laguna: Universidad de La Laguna- Viceconsejería de Pesca y Aguas del Gobierno de Canarias. Unpublished.
  • Chuenpagdee, R., & Jentoft, S. (2007). Step zero for fi sheries co-management: What precedes implementation. Marine Policy, 31 (6), 657–668.
  • Chuenpagdee, R., & Jentoft, S. (2013). Assessing governability – what’s next. In M. Bavinck, R. Chuenpagdee, S. Jentoft, & J. Kooiman (Eds.), Governability of fi sheries and aquaculture: Theory and applications (pp. 335–349). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Chuenpagdee, R., Pascual-Fernández, J. J., Szeliánszky, E., Luis Alegret, J., Fraga, J., & Jentoft, S. (2013). Marine protected areas: Re-thinking their inception. Marine Policy, 39 (0), 234–240.
  • De la Cruz Modino, R., & Pascual-Fernández, J. J. (2013). Marine protected areas in the Canary Islands: Improving their governability. In M. Bavinck, R. Chuenpagdee, S. Jentoft, & J. Kooiman (Eds.), Governability of fi sheries and aquaculture: Theory and applications (pp. 219–240). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Erkoreka Gervasio, J. (1991). Análisis histórico institucional de las cofradías de mareantes del país vasco . Vitoria: Gobierno Vasco.
  • García Allut, A., & Jesús, A. (2009). Becoming proactive agents. Samudra Report, 53 , 15–18.
  • Hattam, C. E., Mangi, S. C., Gall, S. C., & Rodwell, L. D. (2014). Social impacts of a temperate fi sheries closure: Understanding stakeholders’ views. Marine Policy, 45 (0), 269–278.
  • Heck, N., Dearden, P., McDonald, A., & Carver, S. (2011). Stakeholder opinions on the assessment of MPA effectiveness and their interests to participate at Pacifi c Rim National Park Reserve, Canada. Environmental Management, 47 (4), 603–616.
  • Hickley, P., & Tompkins, H. (1998). Recreational fi sheries: Social, economic, and management aspects . Oxford: Fishing News Books.
  • Hind, E. J., Hiponia, M. C., & Gray, T. S. (2010). From community-based to centralised national management–A wrong turning for the governance of the marine protected area in Apo Island, Philippines? Marine Policy, 34 (1), 54–62.
  • Hogg, K., Noguera-Méndez, P., Semitiel-García, M., & Giménez-Casalduero, M. (2013). Marine protected area governance: Prospects for co-management in the European Mediterranean. Advances in Oceanography and Limnology, 4 (2), 241–259.
  • ICES. (2013). Report of the ICES Working Group on Recreational Fisheries Surveys 2013 (WGRFS), 22–26 April 2013, Esporles, Spain . Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:23. Retrieved September 13, 2014, from http://goo.gl/6HazRA
  • Jentoft, S., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2009). Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Marine Policy, 33 (4), 553–560.
  • Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., & Pascual-Fernandez, J. J. (2011). What are MPAs for: On goal formation and displacement. Ocean and Coastal Management, 54 , 75–83.
  • Jentoft, S., Pascual-Fernandez, J., De la Cruz Modino, R., Gonzalez-Ramallal, M., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2012). What stakeholders think about marine protected areas: Case studies from Spain. Human Ecology, 40 (2), 185–197.
  • Kalikoski, D., & Vasconcellos, M. (2008). Marine protected areas and reconciling fi sheries with conservation: Insights from the common property theory. In J. L. Nielsen, J. J. Dodson, K. Friedland, T. R. Hamon, J. Musick, & E. Verspoor (Eds.), Reconciling fi sheries with conservation. Proceedings of the Fourth World Fisheries Congress (pp. 1211–1219). Bethesda: American Fisheries Society.
  • Kooiman, J., & Bavinck, M. (2005). The governance perspective. In J. Kooiman, M. Bavinck, S. Jentoft, & R. Pullin (Eds.), Fish for life: Interactive governance for fi sheries (pp. 11–24). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  • Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., & Pullin, R. (Eds.). (2005). Fish for life: Interactive governance for fi sheries . Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  • Macfadyen, G., Salz, P., & Cappell, R. (2011). Characteristics of small-scale coastal fi sheries in Europe (IP/B/PECH/IC/2010-158 PE 460.059). Brussels: Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies, European Parliament, Fisheries.
  • Mikalsen, K. H., & Jentoft, S. (2001). From user-groups to stakeholders? The public interest in fi sheries management. Marine Policy, 25 (4), 281–292.
  • Mikalsen, K. H., & Jentoft, S. (2008). Participatory practices in fi sheries across Europe: Making stakeholders more responsible. Marine Policy, 32 (2), 169–177.
  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identifi cation and salience: Defi ning the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), 853–886.
  • Pascual-Fernández, J. (1999). Participative management of artisanal fi sheries in the Canary Islands. In D. Symes (Ed.), Southern waters: Issues of management and practice (pp. 66–77). London: Blackwell’s Science/Fishing New Books.
  • Pascual Fernández, J. J., & De la Cruz Modino, R. (2008). Los espacios marinos protegidos en España: ¿nuevas formas institucionales para las estrategias de apropiación? In O. Beltrán Costa, J. Pascual Fernández, & I. Vaccaro (Eds.), Patrimonialización de la naturaleza: el marco social de las políticas ambientales (pp. 199–221). Donosti: Ankulegi Antropologia Elkartea.
  • Pascual-Fernandez, J. J., & De la Cruz Modino, R. (2011). Confl icting gears, contested territories: MPAs as a solution? In R. Chuenpagdee (Ed.), World small-scale fi sheries contemporary visions (pp. 205–220). Delft: Eburon.
  • Pascual Fernández, J. J., Chinea Mederos, I., Santana Talavera, A., Martín-Sosa Rodríguez, P., Moreira Gregori, P. E., & Rodríguez Darias, A. J. (2012). Análisis de los resultados fi nales y elaboración de conclusiones sobre los resultados de las encuestas presenciales y de la encuesta telefónica sobre pesca recreativa a la población de la isla de Tenerife (Proyecto GESMAR MAC/2/C68). Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Instituto Universitario de CC. Políticas y Sociales (Univ. de La Laguna) – Cabildo de Tenerife. Unpublished.
  • Pascual Fernández, J. J., Chinea Mederos, I., Santana Talavera, A., Martín-Sosa Rodríguez, P., Rodríguez Darias, A. J., & Moreira Gregori, P. E. (2012). La pesca recreativa en Tenerife y su regulación . Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Cabildo Insular de Tenerife.
  • Pawson, M. G., Glenn, H., & Padda, G. (2008). The defi nition of marine recreational fi shing in Europe. Marine Policy, 32 (3), 339–350.
  • Pitcher, T. J., & Hollingworth, C. E. (Eds.). (2002). Recreational fi sheries: Ecological, economic and social evaluation . Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Pomeroy, R. S., Watson, L. M., Parks, J. E., & Cid, G. A. (2005). How is your MPA doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas. Ocean and Coastal Management, 48 (7–8), 485–502.
  • Pomeroy, R. S., Mascia, M. B., & Pollnac, R. B. (2007). Marine protected areas: The social dimension. In Report and documentation of the expert workshop on marine protected areas and fi sheries management: Review of issues and considerations. Rome, 12–14 June 2006 . FAO Fisheries Report No. 825 (pp. 149–181). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  • Suárez de Vivero, J. L., & Frieyro de Lara, M. (1994). Spanish marine policy – Role of marine protected areas. Marine Policy, 18 (4), 345–352.
  • Suárez de Vivero, J. L., Frieyro de Lara, M., & Jurado Estevez, J. (1997). Decentralization, regionalization and co-management: A critical view on the viability of the alternative management models for fi sheries in Spain. Marine Policy, 21 (3), 197–206.
  • Thorpe, A., Bavinck, M., & Coulthard, S. (2011). Tracking the debate around marine protected areas: Key issues and the BEG framework. Environmental Management, 47 (4), 546–563.
  • Wade, R. (1987). The management of common property resources – Collective action as an alternative to privatisation or state-regulation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 11 (2), 95–106.