Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

ISSN: 2330-8249 (Print) 2330-8257 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/brfs21

From Unsustainability to MSC Certification: A Case

Study of the Artisanal Chilean South Pacific Hake
Fishery

Emma Plotnek, Felipe Paredes, Mauricio Galvez & Mónica Pérez-Ramírez

To cite this article: Emma Plotnek, Felipe Paredes, Mauricio Galvez & Mónica Pérez-Ramírez
(2016) From Unsustainability to MSC Certification: A Case Study of the Artisanal Chilean
South Pacific Hake Fishery, Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 24:3, 230-243, DOI:
10.1080/23308249.2016.1161003

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2016.1161003

Published online: 30 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=brfs21

Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 01 April 2016, At: 07:04
 REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE
2016, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 230–243
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2016.1161003

From Unsustainability to MSC Certification: A Case Study of the Artisanal Chilean

South Pacific Hake Fishery

nica P
erez-Ram
ıreze
Emma Plotneka, Felipe Paredesb,c, Mauricio Galvezc,d, and Mo
a
National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK; bCenter for Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES), Pontificia Universidad Cat
olica de
Chile, Santiago, Chile; cWorld Wildlife Fund for Nature, Valdivia, Chile; dSubsecretar
ıa de Pesca y Acuicultura (SUBPESCA), Valparaiso, Chile;
e
CONACYT Research Fellow—Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnolog
ıa, Mexico City, Mexico

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification is a market-based incentive program that artisanal fisheries; seafood
recognizes sustainable fisheries through a third-party assessment. This study considers a potential ecolabeling; fisheries
project to MSC-certify the small-scale sector of the South Pacific hake (Merluccius gayi gayi) fishery certification; market-based
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 07:04 01 April 2016

in Chile. Using semi-structured interviews with fishery stakeholders and bibliographic review, the measures; Latin America
study surveys the technical, stakeholder, and market barriers to certification. Barriers included an
over-exploited stock, lack of information about the ecosystem, and the currently-evolving
management system. In addition, noncompliance of existing norms and social arrangements within
the fishery are leading to a situation where illegal fishing occurs. Even though MSC certification is
positively perceived by most stakeholders, it is considered to be neither achievable by the status of
the fishery nor desirable, since it cannot offer economic benefits due to the domestic market
features. At present, the most constructive actions for the fishery would be to implement strong
management and effective enforcement, and break-down the currently unregulated market
structure, as well as empower the fishermen. Long-term efforts in these areas may be executed
using the MSC Standard as a diagnostic tool to identify the improvements required to move the
fishery toward better performance.

Introduction
Market-based incentives such as certification schemes are
becoming instruments used worldwide alongside tradi-
tional regulatory and economic policies in fisheries. The
idea is that fishing pressure on stocks is reduced though
changing consumer preference, shifting demand, and
simultaneously encouraging good practices in the industry
through certifying and labeling sustainable fisheries prod-
ucts (Parkes et al., 2010). The Marine Stewardship Council
(MSC) is considered to be the leading certification pro-
gram for wild capture fisheries and one of the most robust
in terms of performance (Parkes et al., 2010; Martin et al.,
2012). In spite of this, the MSC certification has not
proved as a suitable option for artisanal small-scale and
developing world fisheries because of the associated costs,
the rigorous standards involved and the lack of scientific
data (P
erez-Ram
ırez et al., 2012; Stratoudakis et al., 2015).
The MSC Standard involves three principles concerned
with: (1) sustainability of the target fish stock; (2) impacts
on the ecosystem, and (3) management. Each principle
includes a set of Performance Indicators (PIs) and Scoring
Guidelines (SGs) that are addressed during the assessment
procedure for MSC certification (MSC, 2014a). Fisheries
that meet the MSC Standard become certified for five
years and are subject to annual audits; after then the fish-
ery may enter recertification. Achieving MSC certification
involves a scoring system. All PIs must achieve a score of
at least 60 and on average at least 80 for each of the three
Principles. Scores above 60 but below 80 must be raised,
almost always over the course of the certificate period, to
80. The objective is for the fishery to increase its perfor-
mance by achieving improvements over time.
Accounting for »3% of the global fish catch, Chile is
starting to promote sustainably sourced fisheries prod-
ucts as a part of their supply to the global market, this
includes two small-scale MSC-certified fisheries (the
mussel fishery and suspended culture and the Juan Fer-
nandez artisanal rock lobster fishery) (www.subpesca.cl).
Fishery management is based on the Fisheries and Aqua-
culture Law (F&AL) (Law No 20.657, 2012) which estab-
lishes scientific-based management committees and
management plans to closed-access fisheries. The

CONTACT M
onica P
erez-Ram
ırez myperezra@conacyt.mx CONACYT Insurgentes Sur 1582, 03940, Mexico.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/brfs.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 07:04 01 April 2016
Figure 1. Schematic representation of seventeen caletas over study area in Chile. Roman numerals indicate administrative regions.
MR D metropolitan region.
Governmental Undersecretary of Fisheries and Aquacul-
ture (Subsecretar
ıa de Pesca y Acuicultura, SUBPESCA)
is responsible for decision-making and planning and the
National Fisheries Service (Servicio Nacional de Pesca,
SERNAPESCA) is the enforcement authority. Imple-
mentation of research projects are carried out by the
publicly funded Fisheries Development Institute (Insti-
tuto de Fomento Pesquero, IFOP). Complementary stud-
ies are done by Universities and the Eighth Region
Fishery Research Institute (Instituto de Investigaci
on Pes-
quera Octava Regi
on, INPESCA) a private entity funded
by the fishing industry. Although there is no official pub-
lic policy on fisheries certification, governmental agen-
cies have been involved in the certification of current
MSC-certified fisheries in Chile.
The South Pacific hake (Merluccius gayi gayi Guichenot,
1848) inhabits the shallow to the upper continental slope
REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 231
between 50–400 m depth from 29 S to 42 S (San Martin
et al., 2011) (Figure 1). The South Pacific hake fishery
(SPHF) supports two fleets operating between the IV-VIII
regions, stretching approximately 900 km along the coast,
where the first five nautical miles are almost exclusively
reserved for the artisanal sector. The industrial fleet uses
bottom trawls and the artisanal fleet handlines and gillnets
(Queirolo et al., 2013). There are »400 artisanal boats
active throughout all the regions; most <12 m length and
some between 12–16 m length (Queirolo et al., 2013).
SPHF management committee is formed by members
from SUBPESCA, SERNAPESCA, three representatives of
industrial sector, seven from the artisanal sector and one
from the processing sector. The SPHF management com-
mittee is responsible for designing the fishery management
plan, but at time of writing the terms of the plan were still
under development. For the 2014–2015 fishing season the
 232 E. PLOTNEK ET AL.

Total Allowable Catch (TAC) was set between 15,000 and
19,000 tons; both sectors have taken a reduction in quota
comparing with previous TAC in 2013: 40,000 tons, with
the artisanal sector being granted 40% of it (SUBPESCA,
2013). The fishery is closed in September for the spawning
season. The 2013 amendment of the F&AL (Law No
20.567, 2013) included the requirement for fisheries to be
managed under management plans, proposed by Fishery
Management Committees (FMC), in coordination with
Fishery Technical Committees (FTC). Today many fish
and benthic resources are managed with this scheme. The
FMC of the SPHF is working to establish a Management
Plan that considers the key issues for the fishery, including
illegal fishing, mesh size on fishing gear, and the realloca-
tion of unfished quotas. They are currently developing
clear objectives and defining goals, as well as clarifying
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 07:04 01 April 2016
to the MSC definition of a sustainable fishery in
terms of the Component Groupings (CGs), which are
high level sub-divisions of each Principle defined in
the default assessment tree (MSC, 2014a). The main
CGs were defined as follows: (1) CGs in Principle 1
include stock-specific issues and harvest strategy. (2)
CGs in Principle 2 include retained, bycatch and
endangered, threatened or protected species (ETP), as
well as ecosystem issues. (3) CGs in Principle 3
include governance and the specific management sys-
tem of a fishery (MSC, 2014a). Each CG includes Per-
formance Indicators (PIs). The analysis was based on
the MSC Benchmark and Tracking Tool (MSC,
2014b), bibliographic review, information from gov-
ernment agencies, and semi-structured interviews
with stakeholders. The artisanal fishery was focused

access to shared fishing grounds.
Previously, the industrial sector underwent full assess-
ment for MSC certification but in 2013 it withdrew
because it could not meet the MSC requirements related
to stock status, poorly understood ecosystem dynamics
and the lack of a management plan. This paper considers
a project to assess the sustainability status towards the
MSC certification of the artisanal sector and identifies all
the potential technical, stakeholder and market barriers
to certification in order to design a suitable plan to
implement an appropriate project to improve the fishery.
This is achieved by using three approaches: (1) reviewing
the technical barriers from the SPHF to pursue MSC cer-
tification; (2) analyzing stakeholders’ attitudes with
regards to certification and (3) assessing market condi-
tions and fishermen arrangements.
Methodology
The technical barriers to MSC certification were
defined by comparing the current status of the SPHF
upon with the intention to exclusively consider this
sector as if it was being assessed for certification.
The attitudes of stakeholders regarding the SPHF and
MSC certification were acquired through semi-struc-
tured interviews conducted in July 2014. Semi-structured
interviews and the details of data collected were
recorded, summarized and transcribed in a field note-
book and a detailed account was written up afterwards
in a fieldwork diary following the approach recom-
mended by Bryman (2012). The barriers to certification
were identified and frequencies of references were
recorded. Suggestions to overcome barriers were also
recognized. Thirty four Chilean stakeholders involved in
the fishery were interviewed, including six government
representatives, ten academics, nine environmental
NGOs, two representatives of social organizations,
and seven representatives of private organizations, such
as intermediaries and consultants. Stakeholders were
classified by level of interest and influence (categorized
as high or low) for both the fishery and for MSC
(Table 1). These data were used to assign the

Table 1. Definitions of relative levels (high, medium, and low) for interest, influence and knowledge in terms of the artisanal South
Pacific hake fishery (SPHF) and the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).
SPHF MSC

Interest High Investigates or promotes the long-term sustainability of the hake stock
and/or
Concerned with the artisanal fishing community and/or Directly
affected by how the fishery is managed and /or
Deeper understanding of issues facing the fishery
Low Not specifically interested in the hake fishery
Not specifically interested in the artisanal fishing community
Not affected by how the fishery is managed
Is not aware of issues facing the fishery
Influence High Able to influence the fishery in one or more of the sectors: governance,
management, fishermen aggrupation Has resources to campaign,
organize and fund activities within the fishery
Low Actions are of very little consequence
Does not actively work within the fishery
Works for MSC, and NGO or a company that promotes
certification and/or
Interested in certifying the hake fishery and/or
Directly affected if the fishery is certified and/or
Deeper understanding of certification is, MSC functions and
potential benefits of certification
No deeper understanding of certification or
Not currently involved in supporting certification or
Against certification
May play a key role in the certification (providing data,
scientific recommendation, control, funding) or
May play a key role against certification
Does not have the influence to affect decisions about
certification

stakeholders into four categories (defender, promoter,
apathetic, latent) in order to draw up an influence/inter-
est matrix (Newcombe, 2003).
Since the artisanal SPHF has an informal market
structure and little information readily available, data on
traders, market channels, trade flows, distribution routes,
and the marketing process (including fisher-trader and
trader-trader relationships) were collected through inter-
views with previously mentioned stakeholders. A defini-
tion analysis was carried out, from producer to
consumer, via the construction of distribution channels
and institutional (traders) agreements. The definition
analysis identifies the organizational characteristics of
the market that may influence competition and price
behavior. This can be determined through direct obser-
vation of the market and its participants (buyer concen-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 07:04 01 April 2016
tration, barriers to entry, and product differentiation)
(Jacinto and Pomeroy, 2011).
To assess artisanal fishermen arrangements quantita-
tive and qualitative data were collected through partici-
pant observation (Wolcott, 2002); questionnaires carried
out with fishermen and structured interviews with key
actors (i.e., presidents of local fishing cooperatives). This
approach, known as triangulation, allowed both valida-
tion and maximization of the data (Denzin, 1970). The
elements of analysis were caletas defined as fishing ports
and settlements within the previously designated regions
of Chile (Figure 1) which contain boats that are dedi-
cated to the catching of South Pacific hake. Only the cale-
tas with a minimum total annual landings accounting to
one tonne were considered in the study. Sampling was
through multi-stage cluster sampling (Bryman, 2012):
each region was elected as a sampling area, and then cale-
tas that met the specific requirements for sampling
within each region were randomly selected. Within each
region a minimum of 20% of these pre-defined caletas
were visited, and questionnaires were randomly com-
pleted with a minimum of 1% of the registered fishermen
within each caleta (total n D 64). Considering this, it is
alleged that the number of registered fishermen may be
overestimated since many fishermen/boats registered for
hake may work in other trades, such as building, logging,
and salmon farms. But, there are no official records.
Logistical constraints, such as high number of caletas to
visit and unwillingness of some fishermen to engage in
the survey, made it difficult to reach a high number of
fishermen during the visit; therefore the study attempted
to collect data which covers the entire fishery geographi-
cally rather than focus on surveying the same caletas to
seek a high number of stakeholders. The analysis focused
on (1) stakeholder perceptions and interviews, including
interviews with presidents of syndicates and (2) data on
perceptions of MSC certification. The caletas were
REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 233
contacted beforehand to ask permission to visit, describ-
ing the nature of the project.
The face-to-face voluntary and anonymous partici-
pation questionnaire consisted of thirty nine ques-
tions in Spanish. The questionnaire was designed to
capture information on three topics: (1) socioeco-
nomic situation of the fishermen households; (2) atti-
tudes on recent government policies and fishery
management and of other stakeholders involved; and
(3) opinions about certification (benefits and barriers).
The questionnaire was administered as a standardized
formal interview which included open and closed for-
mat, Likert scale, and rank order questions. Rank
order statements (i.e., from most to least important)
were prepared on separate flashcards, so the fisher-
men could physically order the importance. To reduce
bias all interviewers followed Oppenheim’s (1998)
guidelines (maintain rapport; do not rephrase attitude
questions; use standard method to present flashcard).
Before carrying out questionnaires, fishermen were
given a basic explanation of MSC certification: (1) if
the fishery is operating in a sustainable way (i.e., not
overfishing, not fishing illegally, not harming the
environment like corals or marine mammals) then
the fishery would be able to be assessed for sustain-
able certification. (2) If a fishery is able to be certified,
they may be able to receive certain benefits (i.e., stock
status improvement, management measures, better
price, access to new markets, recognition from the
government or businesses). (3) Being certified may
not be a straightforward process and will probably
include both an effort and a cost on behalf of the
fishermen to become certified.
Technical barriers
The identified barriers to pursue certification taking into
account the nested structure defined by the MSC (2014a)
were related with stock and ecosystem issues (Table 2).
Since the SPHF started in the 1930s, landings show
decadal fluctuations with two collapsed periods in the
late 1960s and in 2004. The most recent decline has been
attributed to overfishing and ecosystem conditions, such
as predation by Humboldt squid (Alarc
on-Mu~ noz et al.,
2008; Arancibia and Neira, 2008; Neira and Arancibia,
2013). Currently, the stock consists of a low biomass
with a high proportion of juveniles (San Mart
ın et al.,
2011), reduced length at age and incorporation of young
mature individuals into the spawning process (Cerna
and Oyarz
un, 2011). Thus, the fishery has been consid-
ered as over-exploited and depleted (Arancibia and
Neira, 2008; San Mart
ın et al., 2011; SUBPESCA, 2014).
Even though MSC certification is not being carried out
 234 E. PLOTNEK ET AL.

Table 2. Summary of the MSC components groupings compared to the current status of the artisanal South Pacific hake fishery.
Performance
Principle Component Indicator (PI) Description of PI (MSC, 2014b) Comments to SPHF

1 Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status The stock is at a level which maintains high Technically no, as if illegal fishing and
productivity and has a low probability of discards are considered it is likely
recruitment overfishing that the landings exceed the
scientifically recommended level
1.1.2 Stock Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of Need to implement a management plan
rebuilding stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe
Harvest strategy 1.2.1 Harvest There is a robust and precautionary harvest Recovery plan must have timeframes
strategy strategy in place and follow precautionary approach
2 Secondary species 2.2.1 Outcome The fishery aims to maintain secondary species Not enough information
status above a biological based limit and does not
hinder recovery of secondary species if they
are below a biological based limit
ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome The fishery meets national and international Not enough information. Need to assess
status requirements for the protection of ETP ETP species in the bycatch
species. The fishery does not hinder recovery
of ETP species
Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible Not enough information
status harm to the key elements of ecosystem
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 07:04 01 April 2016

structure and function

3 Governance 3.1.1 Legal and The management system exists within an Should be achievable once management
and policy customary appropriate and effective legal and/or committee is in action
framework customary framework which ensures that it: Is
capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in
accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2 and
Incorporates an appropriate dispute
resolution framework
3.1.2 Consultation, The management system has effective Should be achievable once management
roles and consultation processes that are open to committee is in action
responsibilities interested and affected parties. The roles and
responsibilities of organizations and
individuals who are involved in the
management process are clear and
understood by all relevant parties
Fishery specific 3.2.3 Compliance Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms Not enough information, no
management system and ensure the management measures in the management plan, no timeframes or
enforcement fishery are enforced and complied with levels set yet

ETP D Endangered, Threatened and Protected species.

in the SPHF, some actions have been taken to overcome-
thenon-attainment of the Performance Indicators (PIs).
Specifically related to PI 1.1.1 stock status; following a
robust stock assessment a quota was set following scien-
tific-advice to attain MSY. But, it is possible that the rec-
ommended catch levels have been exceeded due to
underreported landings in the artisanal fishery and dis-
cards in the industrial fishery (SUBPESCA, 2013).
PI 1.1.2 (concerned with stock rebuilding), requires
implementing a fishery management plan that consid-
ers suitable recovery strategies consistent with the pre-
cautionary approach and following a specific
timeframe. In addition, PI 1.2.1, (Table 2) requires a
formalized harvest strategy; which includes harvest
control rules (HCR). The setting of catch quotas to
rebuild the stock to MSY is an important part of any
fisheries management plan but the strategy does not
incorporate and formal harvest control rules. This is
further hindered by the reduction in mesh sizes within
the artisanal sector (Queirolo et al., 2013). Queirolo
et al. (2013) recommended a minimum mesh size of
7.6 cm (3 inches) to reduce the proportion of catch
below the size at first sexual maturity (SSM50% D
37 cm), but it was found that the majority (63%) of
the fishermen surveyed claim they were using mesh
sizes of below 7.6 cm.
The CGs in Principle 2 require the assessment of
retained species (including non-targeted retained and
bait), bycatch species, endangered, threatened, and pro-
tected species (ETPs), habitats and ecosystems. Within
the SPHF all of these components are lacking informa-
tion, but some efforts have been made to gather data.
Recent research on species composition of artisanal gill-
nets identified 24 taxa as by-catch (4 showed high-fre-
quency of occurrence) and suggested the development of
a net that avoided contact with the seafloor to reduce
these (Queirolo et al., 2014). In addition, there is an
ongoing discards investigation programme conducted by
IFOP that will make recommendations for the SPHF at
the end of 2015. Bellchambers et al. (2014) recommend
that ideally Principle 2 should be thoroughly addressed
prior to pursuing certification, with at least a robust sci-
entifically defensible based-risk assessment, in order to
increase assurance of certification and reduce
 REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 235

timeframes. Since Principle 2 is usually difficult to
address, especially for assessing elements of data-poor
fisheries, it is possible to use the MSC risk-based analysis
framework (RBF) to assess fisheries against the Standard
(MSC, 2010). There are previous examples of MSC-certi-
fied fisheries in developing countries using the RBF suc-
cessfully to assess the status of the non-target stocks.
The failure of the SPFH to attain the requisites of
Principles 1 and 2 match closely with previously
described patterns for MSC-certified fisheries in Latin
America and the Caribbean (P
erez-Ram
ırez et al.,
2015), and both certified and non-certified fisheries in
other developing regions (Andrew et al., 2007; Mac-
fadyen and Huntington, 2007; Eklof, 2008; Agnew et al.,
2013). P
erez-Ram
ırez et al. (2015) associate an
increased frequency of low CG scores in certified fisher-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 07:04 01 April 2016
these requirements would depend on the effectiveness
and the actions of the management committee and gov-
ernment to control and ensure compliance. The fishery
needs to primarily recover the stock biomass and ensure
that the ages and size composition of the stock is not
impairing reproductive capacity. This requires the
implementation of a robust recovery and rebuilding
plan that includes timeframes, monitoring and limits.
The activity of the management committee, once it
assembles, must be accountable and assessed, for exam-
ple by an independent body or local stewardship to
ensure it is achieving these standards. Even though the
artisanal SPHF is not available for certification, the use
of the MSC Standard as a diagnostic tool allows the
identification of necessary improvements required to
move the fishery towards a better performance. This

ies defined by the stock status (PI 1.1.1) and harvest
strategy (PI 1.2.1) to the absence of both a quantitative
stock assessment framework as well as HCR at the time
of certification. As a result, in most cases the low CG
scores within the PIs led to the implementation of asso-
ciated conditions and recommendations to achieve and
maintain certification (see Mexican red rock lobster
case in Bellchambers et al., 2014).
Principle 3 would need to be addressed in two dis-
tinct areas; governance and policy (i.e., PIs 3.1.1, 3.1.2)
and specific management system (i.e., PI 3.2.3). Meeting
approach may promote the use of the MSC Standard
not only to assess the certifiable fisheries, but other fish-
eries that are important from a socioeconomic point of
view (P
erez-Ram
ırez et al., 2015).
Stakeholders’ attitudes
After conducting semi-structured interviews a stake-
holder influence/interest matrix was compiled (Figure 2).
The analysis identified that there are currently no stake-
holders in the promoter role for MSC certification for

Figure 2. Stakeholder analysis in the form of interest-influence matrix adapted from Newcombe (2003). Boxes indicate a “mover”, with
the direction of movement indicated by the arrow; a “mover” is a stakeholder that could potentially be transitioned to another category
to support the MSC certification of the artisanal South Pacific hake fishery. The position of stakeholders within compartments of the
graph does not represent a difference in relative levels of influence/interest.  D nongovernmental organizations; DIRECTEMAR D Chil-
ean Navy—Direction of Maritime Territory and Merchant Marine; IFOP D Fisheries Development Institute; INPESCA D Eighth Region
Fishery Research Institute; SUBPESCA D Undersecretary of Fisheries and Aquaculture; SERNAPESCA D National Fisheries Service; SONA-
PESCA D National Society of Fisheries. Acronyms in Spanish.
 236 E. PLOTNEK ET AL.
the artisanal SPHF. Promoters would be defined as “key
players” since they would attach high interest and influ-
ence to initiate and negotiate the implementation of the
project. Therefore it is important to have a united group
of promoters who reach agreement on strategies to
encourage the project (Newcombe, 2003; Field et al.,
2013). In order to carry out such a project it might be
necessary to reposition several stakeholders to a pro-
moter role. These include the fishermen and fishermen-
organizations (syndicates or unions) who would be
required to support the project, and the governmental
agencies (SUBPESCA), who may be required to co-man-
age the project.
A latent stakeholder attaches low interest to the
project, but their actions can affect its implementation
by actively supporting or rejecting the initiative (New-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 07:04 01 April 2016
combe, 2003). They are a key stakeholder group to
engage (Figure 2) as they have the ability to directly
affect the fishery through promoting management ini-
tiatives and by carrying out projects within the fish-
ery. Furthermore, conflicts of interest may emerge
during the implementation of the project. In some
cases the latent stakeholders, who belong to advocacy
groups such as environmental and social NGOs, have
potentially influential positions within the fishery, for
example WWF, Oceana and Ecoceanos work directly
with the fishermen. Occasionally, some individuals or
organizations have revealed opposition or apathy to
MSC certification of this fishery, and it is likely that
during the open process of certification objections on
both scientific and social grounds may be expressed.
To avoid scientific criticism the fishery must ensure it
is well prepared to enter the certification process.
Social objections would be more complicated to han-
dle, as the influential position of these stakeholders
may sway opinions within the fishery, and effect the
cooperation of fishermen.
The defendant stakeholders are those who attach a
high interest to the project but their actions would
not have strong impact on its implementation. This
group, should be kept informed about the project as
they could be allies to influence important stakehold-
ers (Winch and Bonke, 2002; Newcombe, 2003), such
as fishermen and government, through pressure and
lobbying. Defendant stakeholders include academics
and NGOs (i.e., Sustainable Fisheries Partnership,
SFP); staff from MSC; staff from a third-party certifi-
cation body (Intertek); and staff from Pro Chile, a
governmental body promoting exports of Chilean
goods and services (Figure 2). To better promote the
objective of achieving certification, three organizations
have been identified that should reposition themselves
from defenders to promoters: MSC, as they have a
Latin American manager based in Chile who works
on fishery engagement, and the fisheries teams from
the NGOs World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in Chile and
CeDePesca, a Latin American NGO. WWF have a
longstanding relationship with MSC (Kong et al.,
2002; Bush et al., 2013) and have previous experience
promoting the MSC certification of small-scale fisher-
ies in developing countries, even financially support-
ing fisheries that cannot cover the associated costs of
certification (P
erez-Ram
ırez et al., 2012). Thus, they
could be appointed as a key facilitator in this project
since previous experiences in certification indicate
that NGOs may play a key role in the process (Kong
et al., 2002; Bush et al., 2013; Deighan and Jenkins,
2015). For the case of the SPHF, NGOs may support
the rebuilding of the fishery through several mecha-
nisms such as awareness and social support. WWF
specifically, may work to promote MSC certification
to stakeholders in the fishery.
Since 2014, CeDePesca have been running a fisheries
improvement project (FIP) for the industrial SPHF. FIPs
are not part of the MSC certification but they may vali-
date the fact that a poorly-performing fishery is improv-
ing performance to maintain access to markets (Deighan
and Jenkins, 2015). The FIP for the industrial SPHF
attends to rebuilding of the stock and assessing the
impacts in the demersal/benthic communities. It
involves the action of governmental agencies (SUB-
PESCA, INPESCA and IFOP); the financial facilitation
from SFP; the technical advisory of CeDePesca; the mar-
ket pressure from Walmart (main customer for the
industrial SPHF), and the National Society of Fisheries
(Sociedad Nacional de Pesca, SONAPESCA) as the
potential client to pursue MSC certification (SFP, 2015).
Apathetic stakeholders cannot affect the implementa-
tion of the project and require minimal effort during
stakeholder management to keep informed (Newcombe,
2003). It could be advantageous to specific apathetic
stakeholders to defenders, so that they would become
allies to the project. This group includes the support
workers within the fishery and the domestic market
actors discussed below.
Stakeholders frequently identified the lack of effec-
tive management as a barrier to certification. Chile
has a history of unsuccessful fisheries management
(Asche et al., 2009; Gelcich et al., 2010; Smith et al.,
2010) and management in general (Astudillo-Besnier,
2014) and despite new legal measures to improve this
management it is expected that it will take time for
the current situation to improve. Astudillo-Besnier
(2014) criticizes the lack of a centralized ministry in
Chile to coordinate and implement a national fisher-
ies agenda, which leads to unclear responsibilities and
 REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 237

frequent disruptions and cancellations of policies. It Market conditions and fishermen arrangements
was indicated during the interviews that government
The industrial SPHF exclusively exports its production in
agencies, such as SUBPESCA, require extra effort and
the form of frozen fillets, with a majority exported to the
personal drive from staff to achieve specific projects
USA, Germany and Italy (SFP, 2015). The artisanal sec-
such as the certification of a fishery, including the
tor supplies the domestic market, but frequently a lack of
long-term preparation and involvement of specific
records makes traceability difficult. Two distinct distri-
managers concerned with the fishery. Often, there are
bution channels for the artisanal sector were observed
not readily available means or policies to carry out
(Figure 3): (1) on arrival to the caleta fishermen supply
private initiative projects such as certification.
their product directly to the public looking to purchase
Most stakeholders considered that the future of the
fresh fish (»US$1.40 per kilo). (2) On arrival to the
artisanal SPHF depends on the performance of the man-
caleta fishermen sell either all or the majority of their
agement committee and the effectiveness and prompt-
landings to intermediaries who are waiting with refriger-
ness of the management plan. At present, the absence of
ator vehicles; the hake passes through an indefinite num-
a well-implemented management plan delays the pro-
ber of steps from the initial intermediary through further
gression of stock recovery. Furthermore, the lack of obli-
intermediaries where the price progressively increases
gation to fulfill targets and drawn-out processes to
until it reaches the final consumer. The latter form of dis-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 07:04 01 April 2016

implement changes were also identified as problems.

tribution is the most common. Hake is sold in boxes that
Some stakeholders voiced concerns that conflicts within
hold approximately 25 kilos. According to statements
the committee will impede the realization of goals. In
from fishermen the price paid in the caletas varies
addition, within the management committee, MSC certi-
between US$5 – $65 per box. According to workers in
fication is not a priority and most stakeholders had no
the central market in Santiago the same box of fish sells
deeper understanding of certification.
for up to US$100. The price fluctuates daily and depends
The current poor condition of the stock was widely
predominantly on supply from other caletas and regions
acknowledged by stakeholders and it was unanimously
(fieldwork, May-August 2014). There is no process of
agreed that the stock would not achieve the MSC
adding value to the product and all cleaning, gutting and
requirements. Even though costs of certification were
filleting takes place once the hake is sold to a restaurant
not mentioned as a main barrier, most stakeholders were
or market stall.
concerned that complying with the conditions and rec-
The artisanal SPHF shows inequitable top-down com-
ommendations set to achieve and maintain certification
mercial regulation due to the disorganized supply from a
requires time, money and effort. This is in line with
weak and disunited entity (the fishermen) to an infor-
previous studies where pursuing certification is identified
mally organized group (final traders) controlling first
as complex, expensive and a sometimes challenging
purchase prices. This leads to collusion between traders
process (May et al., 2003; Macfadyen and Huntington,
which reduces competition and leads to lower prices for
2007; P
erez-Ram
ırez et al., 2012; Auld et al., 2014;
the fishermen. The final traders operate over all the
Bellchambers et al., 2014).

Figure 3. Distribution channels identified for the artisanal sector of the South Pacific hake fishery. The arrows indicate flow of commodi-
ties and the boxes represent stages in the chain (fishermen, intermediaries, markets and consumers). The continuous line shows the pre-
dominant method of commercialization and the dotted line is a minor form of commercialization. The chain is split by a grey-dotted line
that represents the first point where value is added to the product.
 238 E. PLOTNEK ET AL.
regions transporting fish to the centralized fish markets
of Chile, and set the price taking advantage of the perish-
able nature of the product, so that the previous trader
prefers to sell all his cargo rapidly at a reduced price.
Traders apparently restrict entry to new intermediaries,
or any new intermediary must comply with their practi-
ces or they will be excluded from trade through eco-
nomic harm, especially if they are trying to give a better
or a “fair” price to the fishermen. Traders seem to facili-
tate the underreporting of catches and illegal fishing;
interviewed fishermen explained that the intermediaries
maintain contact with one another, advise one another
where SERNAPESCA are carrying out compliance and
control, and also to advise one another when they can
enter the fish market without control.
On the other hand, the fishermen usually become
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 07:04 01 April 2016
indebted to the trader by informal and unregulated loans
(i.e., ice, fuel and boat repairs) and they thereby repay
these loans by selling their catch to this trader. These
habitual practices in artisanal fisheries make the fisher-
men vulnerable (Jacinto and Pomeroy, 2011; Nayak
et al., 2014). Nevertheless, surveyed fishermen do not sell
directly to the market because: (1) they would require
immediate payment; (2) the traders facilitate the under-
reporting of landings so they prefer to extend their
quota; (3) they claimed they did not have the knowhow
to sell directly to market; (4) infrastructural deficiencies
(i.e., transportation and refrigeration units). It is note-
worthy that in small-scale fisheries in developing coun-
tries, infrastructural deficiencies affect the majority of
the post-harvest activities causing poor commercial con-
ditions (B
en
e et al., 2010). Exceptions are some caletas in
the VII region (Figure 1) which are supplying the market
by independently commercializing their products
through syndicates to control the price and protect the
resource. This commercial arrangement only occurs in
caletas with multi-species fisheries since the low quota
registered for the SPHF cannot provide sufficient income
to sustain the fishermen’s livelihood.
The overbearing market structure in most of the cale-
tas of the artisanal SPHF, with unregulated commerce
and lack of traceability, is likely to obstruct a plan for
certification due to issues with illegal fishing (i.e., overf-
ishing). To overcome some of the mentioned issues the
market should be formalized, preferably with simulta-
neous regulation of the fishery and commerce through
actions by both the state and the fishing community
(Jacinto and Pomeroy, 2011). Currently there is no gov-
ernment ministry specifically for regulating commerce in
the artisanal SPHF, and responsibilities fall between SER-
NAPESCA, SUBPESCA, and the Ministry of Economy.
It should be considered that a market restructure as a
consequence of a potential project to certify the fishery
may impact the traders and fishery support workers
(apathetic stakeholders) as well fishermen (latent stake-
holders) who depend on the SPHF.
From a certified-market perspective, demand for MSC
products had increased in the European Union and the
United States (Parkes et al., 2010). P
erez-Ram
ırez et al.
(2015) argue that in Latin American and the Caribbean the
local market has little interest in the MSC and most certi-
fied fisheries harvest high-value species with export-ori-
ented markets. This opinion was reaffirmed by several
stakeholders surveyed in this study who believe that there
is no “culture” for this kind of product on the Chilean
domestic market. Both the lack of local consumer demand
and producer awareness leaves little desire for this fishery
to participate in MSC certification. South Pacific hake is
not considered to be a premium product nor is the public
widely aware of its sustainability status. There is seemingly
no beneficial vision in terms of certifying this sector for
financial market benefits, even though it would be advanta-
geous for the recovery of the fish stock and prohibit under-
reporting. Furthermore, without the ability to self-
commercialize, the fishermen would require support to
execute a project to obtain certification.
From the surveyed fishermen (n D 64), a majority
(62%) of the households were dependent on at least half
of their monthly income from the SPHF. This pattern is
consistent with other coastal small-scale fisheries where
a single species is vital to the local livelihoods (Cinner
et al., 2008; Nayak et al., 2014). Therefore, dependence
on the fishery may have a strong bearing on the conduct
of the fishermen in the face of restrictions from the gov-
ernment, like closed seasons and quota reductions, with
a general tendency to violate regulations that may affect
the subsistence of the household. In this case, is possible
that fishermen are subjected to what is known as a pov-
erty trap, where they may not overcome chronic low-
income situations and consequently remain in poverty
(Cinner et al., 2008). For instance, 34% of the fishermen
were boat owners and the rest were artisanal fishermen
who operated as crew on the boat. Crew received a lower
share of the earnings per trip compared to the boat
owner (Table 3). This division between crew and boat
owner contributes to the socio-economic disadvantage of
the fishermen and the observed fragmentation within the
artisanal SPHF, since within some caletas there even
existed separate organizations (syndicates) for the boat
owners and fishermen.
Generally within a caleta there is at least one syndicate
for the fishermen, the syndicate organizes and may give
collective power to the fishermen and in a few cases may
manage earnings so the fishermen get returns during the
year. The syndicate has legal status and can be used as a
platform to applying for projects and funding from
 REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 239

Table 3. Summary of the fishing crew share of the earnings within the artisanal South Pacific hake fishery.
Boats features Fishing crew Division of the earnings Expenses Fishing gear

<10 m length Boat owner and 2 or 3 Boat owner D 60% of the total earnings; Expenses are Each member carries his own fishing
crew fishermen D 40% in equal parts or deducted from the gear (generally 4 nets per fishermen)
Boat owner D 50% of the total earnings; total income which is added to the fishing gear of
fishermen D 50% the boat owner
12–16 m length Boat owner, skipper Earnings are divided into 12 shares; one The owner pays all the Each member carries his own fishing
and 5 to 7 for each crew member, two for the expenses of the gear (generally 4 nets per fishermen)
members of crew skipper and three for the boat owner boat which is added to the fishing gear of
the boat owner

NGOs, businesses, and/or the government. Nevertheless,
there is wide variation among and between caletas in
organization, involvement, cooperation, size and invest-
ment, which results in a lack of consolidated community
order in the fishery. The fragmentation within and
between the caletas may be considered as an important
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 07:04 01 April 2016
cohesion and well-defined internal rules set by the fisher-
men may explain high scores in Principles 1 and 3
(P
erez-Ram
ırez et al., 2015). Thus, it might be valuable
to strengthen the organization of the fishermen through
local stewardship (Gelcich et al., 2009; Castilla, 2010;
Guti
errez et al., 2012).

barrier to certification because the lack of organization
and poor leadership in the fishery may hinder changing
practices toward fishery performance, furthermore prob-
lems may occur when trying to engage fishermen into
improvement projects (Guti
errez et al., 2012). Specifi-
cally in Latin American and the Caribbean MSC-certified
fisheries, spatial property rights driven by strong social
Attitudes on recent government policies and manage-
ment of the fishermen indicate the perception that gov-
ernment policies do not favor the artisanal fishery
(Figure 4). This opinion is part of a recurring conflict in
Chile where it is perceived that the industrial fisheries
are favored over the artisanal sectors, despite legislation
reform which highlights a national-scale transformation

Figure 4. Fishermen attitude measurement on recent government policies and management of the South Pacific hake fishery (SPHF)
(n D 64). Strongly disagree; disagree; neither agree or disagree; agree; strongly agree.
 240 E. PLOTNEK ET AL.

toward a more sustainable and comprehensive pathway,
which is advantageous to the artisanal sector (Castilla,
2010; Gelcich et al., 2010). The fishermen also conveyed
clear opinions that the quotas for the artisanal SPHF are
not sufficient (Figure 4), although some fishermen
observed that low quotas were necessary for sustaining
the fishery. Most artisanal fishermen already view them-
selves as being sustainable and consider that it is their
responsibility, as a fishery, along with the government to
ensure sustainability (Figure 4). Nevertheless, some fish-
ermen highlighted that when possible, they have not will-
ingly changed their fishing effort with the reduction in
quota. Instead when conditions allow it they continue
underreporting catches. This perception may be an
opportunity to implement certification as it serves to
attract the fishermen using the tangible status benefit of
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 07:04 01 April 2016
helped to persuade reluctant fishermen to comply with
the prevailing policy of bycatch levels and discards (i.e.,
P
erez-Ram
ırez et al., 2015).
After a short capacitation on certification 73% of fisher-
men surveyed agreed that they considered certification as
appropriate in their caleta. When asked regarding their
expected benefits from certification the answers were related
to improving income or adding value to their product. This
is reflected both cumulatively in the ranking of the most
important benefits, and also these were the benefits most
frequently ranked in first place (Figure 5A). More than half
of the fishermen either selected increased income or better
price for hake as their first option and both options were
linked to the desire to receive more money for their product.
Selection between these two answers were justified by con-
sidering that either a better price would lead to increased

being sustainably certified, rather than promoting MSC income, or conversely that a better price at market is likely
certification as a market tool that it is unlikely to fulfill. to only benefit those higher in the commercial chain, there-
In other small-scale fisheries MSC certification has fore they only desire a better income. Other potential

Figure 5. A. Cumulative frequencies of benefits during ranking a list of suggested expected benefits from MSC certification of the South
Pacific hake fishery. Frequency of selection in order 1–3 (most important to least important) from left to right. B. Cumulative frequency
of selection during ranking a list of suggested expected barriers. Frequencies of selection are cumulative and rank order is from 1–5
(most important to least important) going from left to right for ranked selection of each barrier.

benefits were related to protecting the fishery and the future
of the fishery, and some fishermen were interested in the
idea of gaining access to new markets (Figure 5A). Some
fishermen did not know enough about certification to make
a clear judgment or did not want certification based on lack
of trust in such schemes, and concerns it would be too diffi-
cult to achieve and consist of paperwork.
By contrast, the selection of barriers to certification
was fairly evenly spread, with cumulatively lack of state
support and lack of knowledge about certification identi-
fied as the most important barriers (Figure 5B). The
term “certification” amongst several fishermen had a
negative connotation, related to obligatory certification
that signifies restrictions, control and barriers for them
to continue working in the fishery. In contrast, fishermen
understood that a lack of control of illegal fishing may be
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 07:04 01 April 2016
a main barrier to certification and was commonly chosen
as the first option. The least frequently chosen options
were ethical considerations, that the fishermen were not
interested or not committed (Figure 5B). Through par-
ticipant observation (Wolcott, 2002), this study consid-
ered that certification would be of little importance to
the artisanal sector, as currently sustainability is not the
primary interest of the fishermen and there is a perceived
incentive to continue exploiting the fishery, due to the
lack of control and/or monetary incentives. Furthermore,
the fishermen either did not fully understand or would
not accept the scientific information about the poor state
of the stock; this is combined with a poor understanding
of the current law, which as a result leads to persistent
non-compliance. When asked to identify any disadvan-
tages of certification, concerns were raised about the cost
of certification and the reality that benefits may not reach
the fishermen. These findings are in line with MSC certi-
fication experiences in developing countries, but inde-
pendent to the MSC Standard application (Eklof, 2008;
Macfadyen and Huntington, 2007; P
erez-Ram
ırez et al.,
2015; Stratoudakis et al., 2015).
Conclusions
The study shows that there are several barriers to certifi-
cation and that presently these barriers would not only
prohibit the fishery from pursuing MSC certification, but
would also hold back a project to certify the fishery in
the near future. Barriers included an over-exploited
stock, lack of information about the impacts of the fish-
ery on the ecosystem, little knowledge about certification
benefits, and the currently-evolving management system.
In addition, noncompliance of existing norms and social
arrangements of fishermen leads to illegal fishing. Before
considering certification, the fishery needs to be rebuilt
which requires a management plan that addresses the
REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 241
underreporting of catches in the artisanal fishery, the
fishing gear and mesh sizes used in the artisanal fishery,
the capture of small individuals from the target stock
and nontarget species in the industrial fishery, the dura-
tion and compliance of the closed season, and in addi-
tion investing in ecosystem based studies which
potentially may require further modifications to the fish-
ery. Long-term efforts in these areas may be carried out
by using the MSC Standard as a diagnostic tool to iden-
tify the improvements required to move the fishery
towards better performance. Yet, if an intention emerges
to certify the artisanal SPHF, it would be beneficial to
consider the implementation of the MSC Standard into
public policy (for example inclusion of the MSC criteria
when developing management actions for the fishery).
Even though MSC has proven as a successful tool in
some Latin America and Caribbean fisheries, and shows
environmental, social, and/or economic benefits for
some artisanal fisheries, it should be considered that it is
not necessarily an appropriate tool for all fisheries alike.
Pursuing certification must consider the market, politi-
cal, organizational and social features on a case by case
basis. Aside from the previously mentioned barriers to
certification, this study also indicated that the current sit-
uation of the artisanal SPHF is not the most appropriate
for certification, since it may not offer economic benefits
to the sector due to the domestic market features and as
MSC certification is not promoted to stakeholders of the
artisanal sector.
Acknowledgments
Authors thank the interviewees who were willing to talk about
MSC certification. The study is part of the Master Thesis con-
ducted by the first author. John Shepherd (University of South-
ampton), Rodrigo Polanco (MSC-Latin America) and Cassie
Leisk (MSC Developing World Team) provided useful com-
ments during the study. Claudio Villegas provided fieldwork
assistance. Almendra Villela (CONACYT, Mexico) made
Figure 1 improvements.
Funding
The study was done with the financial support of World Wild-
life fund for Nature (WWF) Chile.
References
Agnew, D. J., N. L. Guti
errez, and D. S. Butterworth. Fish catch
data: less than what meets the eye. Mar. Policy, 42: 268–269
(2013).
Alarc
on-Mu~ noz, R., L. Cubillos, and C. Gatica. Jumbo squid
(Dosidicus gigas) biomass off central Chile: effects on Chil-
ean hake (Merluccius gayi). Cal. Coop. Ocean. Fish., 49:
157–166 (2008).
 242 E. PLOTNEK ET AL.
Andrew, N. L., C. B
en
e, S. J. Hall, E. H Allison, S. Heck,
and B. D. Ratner. Diagnosis and management of small-
scale fisheries in developing countries. Fish Fish., 8:
227–240 (2007).
Arancibia, H. and S. Neira. Overview of the Chilean hake
(Merluccius gayi) stock, a biomass forecast, and the jumbo
squid (Dosidicus gigas) predator-prey relationship off cen-
tral Chile (33 S-39 S). Cal. Coop. Ocean. Fish., 49: 104–115
(2008).

Asche, F., H. Hansen, R. Tveteras, and S. Tveteras. The salmon
disease crisis in Chile. Mar. Resour. Econ., 24: 405–411 (2009).
Astudillo-Besnier, P. Chile needs better science governance
and support. Nature, 511: 385 (2014).
Auld, G., S. Renckens, and B. Cashore. Transnational private
governance between the logics of empowerment and con-
trol. Regul. Gov., 9: 108–124 (2014).
Bellchambers, L. M., B. F. Phillips, M. P
erez-Ram
ırez, E. Loz-


ano-Alvarez, K. Ley-Cooper, and A. Vega-Velazquez.
Addressing environmental considerations for Marine Stew-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 07:04 01 April 2016
ardship Council certification: A case study using lobsters.
Mar. Policy, 50: 249–260 (2014).
B
en
e, C., R. Lawton, and E. H. Allison. “Trade matters in the
fight against poverty”: narratives, perceptions, and (lack of)
evidence in the case of fish trade in Africa. World Dev., 38:
933–954 (2010).
Bryman, A. Social Research Methods. 4th Edition. Oxford, UK:
Oxford (2012).
Bush, S. R., H. Toonen, P. Oosterveer, and A. P. J. Mol. The
‘devils triangle’ of MSC certification: Balancing credibility,
accessibility and continuous improvement. Mar. Policy, 37:
288–293 (2013).
Castilla, J. C. Fisheries in Chile: small pelagics, management,
rights, and sea zoning. Bull. Mar. Sci., 86: 221–234 (2010).
Cerna, J. F. and C. Oyarz
un. Talla de primera madurez sexual y
fecundidad parcial de la merluza com
un (Merluccius gayi,
Guichenot 1848) del
area de la pesquer
ıa industrial de la
zona de Talcahuano, Chile. Investigaciones Marinas, 26:
31–40 (1998).
Cinner, J. E., T. Daw, and T. R. McClanahan. Socioeconomic
factors that affect artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declin-
ing fishery. Conserv. Biol., 23: 124–130 (2008).
Deighan, L. K. and L. D. Jenkins. Fishing for recognition:
Understanding the use of NGO guidelines in fishery
improvement projects. Mar. Policy, 51: 476–485 (2015).
Denzin, N. K. The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago US:
Aldine (1970).
Eklof, G. Slipping Through the Net – Eco-labelling and Develop-
ing Country Fisheries. Stockholm SE: Swedish Society for
Nature Conservation (2008).
Field, J. G., G. G Attwood, A. Jarre, K. Sink, L. J. Atkinson, and
S. Peterson. Cooperation between scientists, NGOs and
industry in support of sustainable fisheries: the South Afri-
can hake Merluccius spp. trawl fishery experience. J. Fish
Biol., 83: 1019–1034 (2013).
Gelcich, S., N. Godoy, and J. C. Castilla. Artisanal fishers’ per-
ceptions regarding coastal co-management policies in Chile
and their potentials to scale-up marine biodiversity conser-
vation. Ocean. Coast. Manage., 52: 424–432 (2009).
Gelcich, S., T. P. Hughes, P. Olsson, C. Folke, O. Defeo,
M. Fern
andez, and J. C. Castilla. Navigating transforma-
tions in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources.
PNAS, 107: 16794–16799 (2010).
Guti
errez, N. L., R. Hilborn, and O. Defeo. Leadership, social
capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature,
470: 386–389 (2011).
Jacinto, E. R. and R. S. Pomeroy. Developing markets for
small-scale fisheries: utilizing the value chain approach, pp.
160–177. In: Small-Scale Fisheries Management: Frame-
works and Approaches for the Developing World. (Pomeroy
R. S. and N. L. Andrew, Eds.). London, UK: Centre for Agri-
cultural Bioscience International (2011).
Kong, N., O. Salzmann, U. Steger, and A. Ionescu-Somers.
Moving business/industry towards sustainable consump-
tion: The role of NGOs. Eur. Manage. J., 20: 109–127
(2002).
Martin, S. M., T. A. Cambridge, C. Grieve, F. M. Nimmo, and
D. J. Agnew. An evaluation of environmental changes
within fisheries involved in the Marine Stewardship Council
certification scheme. Rev. Fish. Sci., 20: 61–69 (2012).
May, B., D. Leadbitter, M. Sutton, and M. Weber. The Marine
Stewardship Council (MSC), pp. 14–33. In: Eco-labelling in
Fisheries. What is it all about?. (Phillips, B., T. Ward and C.
Chaffee, Eds.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science (2003).
Macfadyen, G. and T. Huntington. Potential Cost and Benefits
of Fisheries Certification for Countries in the Asia-Pacific
Region. Rome, IT: FAO RAP Publication 2007/24 (2007).
MSC. Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Assessment Meth-
odology and Guidance to Certification Bodies Including
Default Assessment tree and Risk-Based Framework. Ver-
sion 2.1, London, UK: Marine Stewardship Council (2010).
MSC. MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance.
London, UK: Marine Stewardship Council (2014a).
MSC. Guidance for Using the MSC Benchmarking and Tracking
Tool (BMT). London, UK: Marine Stewardship Council
(2014b).
Nayak, P. K., L. E. Oliveira, and F. Berkes. Resource degrada-
tion, marginalization, and poverty in small-scale fisheries:
threats to social-ecological resilience in India and Brazil.
Ecol. Soc., 19: 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06656–
190273 (2014).
Neira, S. and H. Arancibia. Food web and fish stock changes in
central Chile: comparing the roles of jumbo squid (Dosidi-
cus gigas) predation, the environment, and fisheries. Deep
Sea Res. Part 2 Top. Stud. Oceanogr., 95: 103–112 (2013).
Newcombe, R. From client to project stakeholders: a stake-
holder mapping approach. Constr. Manage. Econ., 21: 841–
848 (2003).
Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and
Attitude Measurement. 2nd Ed. London, UK: Continuum
(1998).
Parkes, G., J. A. Young, S. F. Walmsley, R. Abel, J. Har-
man, P. Horvat, A. Lem, A. MacFarlane, M. Mens, and
C. Nolan. Behind the signs—a global review of fish sus-
tainability information schemes. Rev. Fish. Sci., 18: 344–
356 (2010).
P
erez-Ram
ırez, M., B. Phillips, D. Lluch-Belda, and
S. Lluch-Cota. Perspectives for implementing fisheries
certification in developing countries. Mar. Policy, 36:
297–302 (2012).
P
erez-Ram
ırez, M., M. Castrej
on, N. L. Guti
errez, and
O. Defeo. The Marine Stewardship Council certification in
Latin American and the Caribbean: A review of experiences,
potentials and pitfalls. Fish. Res. DOI 10.1016/j.
fishres.2015.11.007 (2015).

Queirolo, D., E. Gaete, and M. Ahumada. Gillnet selectivity for
Chilean hake (Merluccius gayi gayi Guichenot, 1848) in the
bay of Valpara
ıso. J. Appl. Ichthyo., 29: 775–781 (2013).
Queirolo, D., J. Merino, M. Ahumada, I. Montenegro, E.
Gaete, and R. Escobar. Composici
on de especies en la
pesquer
ıa artesanal de enmalle de merluza com
un Mer-
luccius gayi gayi en Chile central. Rev. Biol. Mar. Ocean-
ogr., 49: 61–69 (2014).
San Mart
ın, M., L. Cubillos, and J. Saavedra. The spatial depen-
dence of juvenile hake (Merluccius gayi gayi) off central
southern Chile (1997–2006). Aquat. Living Resour., 24:
161–168 (2011).
SFP. Chilean common hake. Available from https://www.
sustainablefish.org/fisheries-improvement/whitefish/chil
ean-common-hake (2015).
Smith, M. D., C. A. Roheim, L. B. Crowder, B. S. Halpern, M.
Turnipseed, J. L. Anderson, F. Asche, L. Bourill
on, A. G.
Guttormsen, A. Khan, L. A. Liguori, A. McNevin, M. I.
O’Connor, D. Squires, P. Tyedmers, C. Brownstein, K. Car-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 07:04 01 April 2016
den, D. H. Klinger, R. Sagarin, and K. A. Selkoe. Sustain-
ability and global seafood. Science, 327: 784–786 (2010).
REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 243
Stratoudakis, Y., P. McConney, J. Duncan, A. Ghofar, N.
Gitonga, K. S. Mohamed, M. Samoilys, K. Symington, and
L. Bourill
on. Fisheries certification in the developing world:
locks and keys or square pegs in round holes? Fish. Res.
doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2015.08.021 (2015).
SUBPESCA. Cuota Global Anual de Captura de Merluza
Com
un (Merluccius gayi gayi), a~ no 2014. Inf. Tec. (R. Pesq.)
No 214/2013. Valpara
ıso, CL: Subsecretar
ıa de Pesca
(2013).
SUBPESCA. Estado de Situaci
on de las Principales Pesquer
ıas
Chilenas, 2013. Valpara
ıso, CL: Departamento de
Pesquer
ıas. Divisi
on de Administraci
on Pesquera. Available
online http://www.subpesca.cl/publicaciones/606/articles-
82828_recurso_1.pdf (2014).
Winch, G. and S. Bonke. Project stakeholder mapping: Analy-
sing the interests of project stakeholders, pp. 385–403. In:
The Frontiers of Project Management Research. (Slevin D.
P., D. I. Cleland, and J. K. Pinto, Eds.) Newtown Square,
Philadelphia: Project Management Institute (2002).
Wolcott, H. F. Writing up qualitative research… better. Qual.
Health Res., 12: 91–103 (2002).