The dynamics of institutional innovation: Crafting co-management in small-scale fisheries through action research.

This paper investigates the dynamics of institutional development and co-management performance in small-scale fisheries. The study covers different contexts and spatial and temporal scales, for nine case studies in the South Pacific. In these cases, new co-management institutions were intentionally set up from 2008 to 2016 through fishery policy intervention to address over-exploitation problems of sea cucumber resources. This was carried out in a process of adaptive experimentation, based on a collaborative and problem-solving approach to governance, and a context-based vision of sustainability issues. In order to quantitatively and empirically assess change in governance within and between cases, a multidimensional analytical framework of governance performance is developed. A set of governance performance criteria is defined and the criteria are scored using data from an institutional diagnosis of the cases, throughout the research period. Ten out of eleven criteria were positively impacted by the co-management interventions. Three institutional development trajectories can be identified for the fishery co-management building process, involving a range of gradual and abrupt changes. Consolidation of the institutional changes achieved by the interventions is required to successfully develop the resilience of the fishing systems to multiple stresses. This empirical study provides a methodology for systematically assessing institutional dynamics in fisheries, and in particular the crafting and sustaining of co-management regimes in small-scale fisheries. The approach could potentially be applied to other complex social-ecological systems.

The role of technical protocols and partnership engagement in developing a decision support framework for fisheries management.

In the context of the Common Fisheries Policy Reform, the implementation of multiannual management plans for fisheries and the annual quota negotiations between EU member states has generated a growing demand from stakeholders and managers for integrated advice that goes beyond the usual biological advice. This has led to the emergence of bio-economic tools and methods for the comparison of the biological, economic and social tradeoffs associated with alternative options for fisheries management. A Decision Support Framework (DSF) has been developed in this context, with the objective to tackle technical and methodological challenges to be able to provide bio-economic advices to support decision at national and European level. It is based on a partnership approach involving the fishing industry, managers and scientists and on technical protocols. We present the development of a partnership DSF within three local case studies, highlighting key challenges and lessons learnt regarding appropriateness and application of a DSF. The data processing methods and collaborative platform were pivotal for scoping out objectives and management options, and for aligning DSF outcomes with decision makers' needs and agendas. Definition of common standards and institutionalization of the use of partnership DSF are still required to operationalize the integrated advice process at national and European levels.

Is economic valuation of ecosystem services useful to decision-makers? Lessons learned from Australian coastal and marine management.

Economic valuation of ecosystem services is widely advocated as being useful to support ecosystem management decision-making. However, the extent to which it is actually used or considered useful in decision-making is poorly documented. This literature blindspot is explored with an application to coastal and marine ecosystems management in Australia. Based on a nation-wide survey of eighty-eight decision-makers representing a diversity of management organizations, the perceived usefulness and level of use of economic valuation of ecosystem services, in support of coastal and marine management, are examined. A large majority of decision-makers are found to be familiar with economic valuation and consider it useful - even necessary - in decision-making, although this varies across groups of decision-makers. However, most decision-makers never or rarely use economic valuation. The perceived level of importance and trust in estimated dollar values differ across ecosystem services, and are especially high for values that relate to commercial activities. A number of factors are also found to influence respondent's use of economic valuation. Such findings concur with conclusions from other studies on the usefulness and use of ESV in environmental management decision-making. They also demonstrate the strength of the survey-based approach developed in this application to examine this issue in a variety of contexts.

Information preferences for the evaluation of coastal development impacts on ecosystem services: A multi-criteria assessment in the Australian context.

Ecosystem based management requires the integration of various types of assessment indicators. Understanding stakeholders' information preferences is important, in selecting those indicators that best support management and policy. Both the preferences of decision-makers and the general public may matter, in democratic participatory management institutions. This paper presents a multi-criteria analysis aimed at quantifying the relative importance to these groups of economic, ecological and socio-economic indicators usually considered when managing ecosystem services in a coastal development context. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is applied within two nationwide surveys in Australia, and preferences of both the general public and decision-makers for these indicators are elicited and compared. Results show that, on average across both groups, the priority in assessing a generic coastal development project is for the ecological assessment of its impacts on marine biodiversity. Ecological assessment indicators are globally preferred to both economic and socio-economic indicators regardless of the nature of the impacts studied. These results are observed for a significantly larger proportion of decision-maker than general public respondents, questioning the extent to which the general public's preferences are well reflected in decision-making processes.

A quantitative metric to identify critical elements within seafood supply networks.

A theoretical basis is required for comparing key features and critical elements in wild fisheries and aquaculture supply chains under a changing climate. Here we develop a new quantitative metric that is analogous to indices used to analyse food-webs and identify key species. The Supply Chain Index (SCI) identifies critical elements as those elements with large throughput rates, as well as greater connectivity. The sum of the scores for a supply chain provides a single metric that roughly captures both the resilience and connectedness of a supply chain. Standardised scores can facilitate cross-comparisons both under current conditions as well as under a changing climate. Identification of key elements along the supply chain may assist in informing adaptation strategies to reduce anticipated future risks posed by climate change. The SCI also provides information on the relative stability of different supply chains based on whether there is a fairly even spread in the individual scores of the top few key elements, compared with a more critical dependence on a few key individual supply chain elements. We use as a case study the Australian southern rock lobster Jasus edwardsii fishery, which is challenged by a number of climate change drivers such as impacts on recruitment and growth due to changes in large-scale and local oceanographic features. The SCI identifies airports, processors and Chinese consumers as the key elements in the lobster supply chain that merit attention to enhance stability and potentially enable growth. We also apply the index to an additional four real-world Australian commercial fishery and two aquaculture industry supply chains to highlight the utility of a systematic method for describing supply chains. Overall, our simple methodological approach to empirically-based supply chain research provides an objective method for comparing the resilience of supply chains and highlighting components that may be critical.