Fisheries Policy and Governance Analysis

Background
Governance consists of the institutions, processes, roles, responsibilities and resources that collectively determine how societa
regulations and other instruments that create and limit the power of institutions to achieve objectives, including by defining proc
designed fisheries law and policy and an effective governance system are critical components for ensuring the durability of a su
system.

The Fisheries Policy and Governance Analysis is used to evaluate the presence, absence and completeness of key policy and
analysis allows the user to diagnose the weaknesses of the existing fisheries law and governance system that might create bar
Fishery reform projects can then be designed to account for these gaps and weaknesses, or, where possible, they can be addr
project.

Intended audience
The Fisheries Policy and Governance Analysis is meant to be used by fishery managers, non-governmental organizations (NG
policy and governance landscape of a fishery system. An analysis performed with the tool can help inform policy reform strateg
and institutions can be strengthened.

When to use this tool

The tool can be used at various stages of the fisheries reform and management process. During the Strategic Scoping phase o
use this tool to initially analyze the highest relevant level of governance, such as at the national or international level, to identify
system that will need to be addressed in order to facilitate fishery reforms. The tool can also be used at a regional or local level
attributes at the fishery scale during the Assessment and Evaluation phase of a project. See the Sustainable Fisheries Toolkit w
fishery reform process.

Applying this tool

The Fisheries Policy and Governance Analysis is designed to be completed in a half day or less. However, this estimate varies
governance and policies of the fishery system being analyzed. If additional research is required to score the fishery system, add

The tool can be completed by conducting desk research, reviewing existing laws and regulations and interviewing local experts
understanding the gaps and enabling conditions of the governance system in a given country or region.

Limitations
The tool is based on research and literature conducted on key attributes which enable and contribute to successful fisheries ma
inclusive and many systems will not meet all attributes. However, it will guide users to important gaps or areas of underperform
may need to be addressed in order to ensure the durability of sustainable management.

In addition, the differing number of Attributes within each Category may emphasize some Attributes over others. In other words
Attributes, each individual Attribute score will have a greater relative impact on the overarching Category’s score than in Catego
This is something users of the tool should be aware of as they interpret the results of their analysis (see below).

The accuracy of the results also depends on the expertise and knowledge of those completing the tool. We highly recommend
when scoring the attributes in this tool, and seek to corroborate scores with multiple sources whenever possible.
About this tool
Authors: Willow Battista, Alexis N. Rife, Monica Goldberg, Jake Kritzer and Matt Tinning
Citation: Battista, W., Rife, A., Goldberg, M., Kritzer, J. and Tinning, M. (2018). Fishery Policy and Governance Analysis. Envir
Version: May, 2018. This tool is being released as a beta version that will be updated as we receive feedback from fishery prac
the value of stakeholder input, which we know will make this tool even more successful in supporting sustainable fisheries man
your feedback on the Sustainable Fisheries Toolkit website.
Compatibility: Due to Excel features this tool works best when used with the Windows operating system.
Note 1: Any views expressed in this tool and associated materials are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent tho
errors are those of the authors. This tool is a support tool and should not be used as a decision-making tool. Neither EDF, nor t
use of this tool.
Note 2: An earlier version of this tool was originally developed by Mohammed Aatish Khan and Ariana Spawn, Masters student
under the guidance of Alexis Rife and Jake Kritzer.
Instructions

These instructions are intended to get you started using the Fisheries Governance and Analysis. For more detailed guid
information on the tool, please download the User Guide for this tool on the Sustainable Fisheries Toolkit website.

Before you begin: To determine appropriate scores for Attributes, we recommend thoroughly reviewing fisheries laws a
environmental laws that may inform decision-making processes or other aspects of your governance system. It is also h
literature review to find information on the performance and degree of implementation of various aspects of the governa
Attributes, it is also helpful to speak with local experts on fishery laws and governance within your country or fishery. Thi
professors, lawyers at NGOs, or others. Additionally, fisheries managers or other government officials and fishermen the
to provide additional insights.

Begin with Step 1: Define scope.

Step 1: Define scope

Step 2: Score each attribute

Step 3: Review results

 Interpret and reflect
Step 4:
upon results

(optional) Conduct
Steps 5 & 6:
further analyses

0 Attribute not present in system

1 EITHER Attribute present "on paper" (i.e. formally ratified or sanctioned) but not manifesting in practice OR
2 Attribute present on paper and manifesting in practice, but incomplete or not fully effective for any reason;
3 Attribute fully realized in system - both formally ratified on paper and fully effective in practice.
nded to get you started using the Fisheries Governance and Analysis. For more detailed guidance and additional
ase download the User Guide for this tool on the Sustainable Fisheries Toolkit website.

rmine appropriate scores for Attributes, we recommend thoroughly reviewing fisheries laws and any related
ay inform decision-making processes or other aspects of your governance system. It is also helpful to conduct a
rmation on the performance and degree of implementation of various aspects of the governance system. For some
to speak with local experts on fishery laws and governance within your country or fishery. This may include law
Os, or others. Additionally, fisheries managers or other government officials and fishermen themselves can be consulted
s.

Begin with Step 1: Define scope.

Use the space in cell B6 in the Policy and Governance Analysis tab to answer the following questions and
define your scope:
a. Spatial: What regions, agencies, fisheries, communities, etc. do you consider to be a part of your
governance and policy system? Is this analysis for the national level system or for a local/regional system?
b. Temporal: Are you going to score your system based on past performance (i.e., based on data or
information about outcomes under current or past regulations), or future expectations (e.g., how recent
policy changes are expected to impact system components)?

a. Review each Attribute defined in Column G.

b. Select the score from the dropdown, following the guidelines below and in cell I4.
c. Record the relevant regulatory reference (i.e., statute, section, etc.) for each Attribute where this is
appropriate in Column K.
d. Include any additional notes on your scoring rational in Column L that might be valuable later on when
interpreting outcomes.

Use the following scale for scoring each attribute:

0 = Attribute not present in system;
1 = EITHER Attribute present "on paper" (i.e., formally ratified or sanctioned) but not manifesting in practice
OR Attribute manifesting through informal agreements or agency/individual efforts but not formally ratified
and supported;
2 = Attribute present on paper and manifesting in practice, but incomplete or not fully effective for any
reason;
3 = Attribute fully realized in system—both formally ratified on paper and fully effective in practice.

Once all Attributes have been scored, go the Results tab and review the results.

The tool will automatically generate a summary score (in percentages) for each Category, based on scores
for each contributing Attribute. Refer to the scoring key for interpretation guidance.

The tool will also generate summary scores for each of three Governance System Components in a table
underneath the main results. These Components can be thought of as an alternative lens through which to
examine the system.

Examine these summary scores to identify gaps in your Governance and Policy System that might be
undermining management efficacy and leading to negative outcomes
 For each Category, and in particular if the score is yellow, orange or red, we recommend going back to the
Policy and Governance Analysis tab to explore which Attributes are driving these scores. To interpret and
reflect upon each Attribute:
a. In the Policy and Governance Analysis tab, examine the Attributes to determine which specific system
elements and features might benefit from attention. After reviewing the Attributes, identify which are
performing well and which are underperforming. Think through some next steps to address current
challenges.
b. b. Write down your findings in Columns F-H in the Results tab. For example, some improvements may
be accomplished through actual adjustments or changes to the governance and policy system (e.g.,
changing a law, strengthening enforcement authority, etc.). Alternatively, some gaps may need to be
addressed through elements of the fishery management design itself (e.g., building a community monitoring
system into the fishery management plan to reduce gaps in formal systems to incorporate science and
management).

Refer to User Guide for additional analyses, including the Fishery Systems Mapping Tool, which may be of
assistance in assessing your governance and policy system.

present in system
bute present "on paper" (i.e. formally ratified or sanctioned) but not manifesting in practice OR Attribute manifesting through informal agreem
ent on paper and manifesting in practice, but incomplete or not fully effective for any reason;
y realized in system - both formally ratified on paper and fully effective in practice.
esting through informal agreements or agency/individual efforts but not formally ratified and supported;
Fisheries Policy and Governance Analysis

Country: Date:

Spatial and Temporal Scope of Analysis:

Category Category Definition

Systems exist to hold

institutions accountable for
their actions and decisions,
act based on relevant and
Accountable and
accurate information that’s
Transparent
accessible to the public, with
minimal politicization.
Systems exist to address
corruption, should it arise.

Adequate and Systems are in place to

Effective identify rule violations, with
Monitoring and reliable and effective
Enforcement enforcement and
Authority prosecutorial processes.

Management authorities
have power to develop,
adopt and implement rules
necessary to successfully
 Management authorities
have power to develop,
adopt and implement rules
necessary to successfully
manage the resource, and
Adequate
to evaluate the efficacy of
Regulatory
those decisions and adjust
Authority
them over time. Regulatory
authority is sufficiently
stable and adequately and
reliably funded to facilitate
management success.

Management Authorities are

Clear Rules guided by common,
Defining Objectives overarching principles and
and Directives, goals, with clear and
Decision-making transparent standards by
and Deliberation which decisions will be
made.

Mechanisms and policies

are in place that enable and
Clear Standards for facilitate the conservation of
Protecting Marine resources, marine habitats
Ecosystems and and ecosystems, ensuring
Science-Based that management decisions
Management are made based on the best
available scientific
information to meet goals.
Management are made based on the best
available scientific
information to meet goals.

Mechanisms are in place

that ensure stakeholders
can meaningfully participate
Facilitates and
throughout decision-making
Protects
and management processes
Stakeholder
and that all individuals
Participation
impacted by management
decisions are represented
fairly and equitably.

Systems are in place which

ensure an appropriate
distribution of rights and
Facilitates Secure
responsibilities, and which
Fishing Rights
enable effective
management utilizing
secure fishing rights.

Scale of governing
institutions, as well as
resource management
Operates at
rules, are congruent with the
Appropriate Scale
scale of the social and
biophysical systems being
governed.
Operates at
rules, are congruent with the
Appropriate Scale
scale of the social and
biophysical systems being
governed.
 Governance Analysis

Evaluator: Scoring Methodology

0 = Attribute not present in system;
1 = EITHER Attribute present "on paper" (i.e.
nalysis:
OR Attribute manifesting through informal
2 = Attribute present on paper and manifestin
3 = Attribute fully realized in system - both fo

Attribute Score

An independent judicial review or legal recourse process exists for private

citizens, and is accessible, efficient and effective.
Clear and transparent processes and standards for decision-making are outlined.

Effective and adequate financial accountability systems are in place that ensure
compliance with regulations and protect against fraud (or increase confidence for
granters/funders).
Governing agencies and organizations exist in a multilayered (hierarchical/
nested) structure with multiple centers of power and formal processes for power
sharing to prevent any one agency or body from gaining too much authority or
influence and to reduce the chances of corruption.
Institutional relationships, interactions and power sharing, as well as budget
decisions and monetary flows, are formalized and transparent.
Power transfers occur on a reasonable timeline (i.e., not too often to impede
accomplishing goals or not so rarely that corruption develops) and system
changes in response to power transfers do not undermine management
efficiency.
Information about the condition of the resource and expected flow of costs and
benefits resulting from management decisions is available and easily accessible
to impacted parties.

Fisheries enforcement authority is legally designated and enforcement structure

and process are clear.

Monitoring programs for compliance with regulations (including community

monitoring mechanisms as appropriate) are authorized and accurate/effective.

“On the water” enforcement power is adequate (i.e., enforcement agents have
sufficient authority to apprehend, detain and penalize violators).

System, process, and mechanisms for prosecuting violators are appropriate,

efficient, and effective (e.g., fines and sanctions increase with the severity of the
offense, and are sufficiently severe to deter offenders; apprehended individuals
are effectively and fairly prosecuted and held to payment of fines, sanctions and
other penalties, such as jail time, as appropriate).

Fisheries agency or other management authority is legally designated.

Sovereign rights over fishery resources within the country’s EEZ are declared.
Jurisdiction over different aspects of marine resource management is clearly
defined such that there is no confusion around responsibility or authority, and a
clear process and guidelines exist to address any overlapping or contradictory
laws pertaining to different marine resources or stemming from different
jurisdictional authorities.
Management agency has sufficient authority to develop, adopt and implement
rules and regulations, evaluate the efficacy of those decisions, and adjust them
over time.
Regular review of legislation, with effective process for amendment as
necessary, is required.

Fisheries management activities are permanently or regularly funded through

national or state budget, or through funding authorizations in fisheries law.

Funding is adequate to meet fisheries management needs.

Management authority has objectives and directives with goals, clear tasks,
deadlines for completing tasks and periodic review to determine progress.
There are clear and effective consequences for managers, authorities, and
management institutions if responsibilities are not met.
Objectives and directives are agreed upon at the outset of decision-making
process.
Clear and unambiguous process and standards (e.g., voting rules) are outlined
for decision-making, and are obvious and known while decisions are under
consideration by all involved.

Explicit recognition of trade-offs is part of the decision-making process and formal

guidance on how to make choices if/when goals or values conflict exists.

Process for determining and allocating TACs and quotas is clear and
transparent.
Systems are in place to effectively communicate management decisions to the
impacted public.

Formal mechanisms to facilitate scientific input and to ensure the use of best
available science in management exist.

Spatial planning and management techniques (e.g., marine reserves) are

explicitly authorized.

Adequate standards to protect threatened and endangered species are

established.

Standards for identifying and protecting key habitats (e.g., prohibition on certain
destructive fishing techniques, incentives, or other) are articulated.

Science-based management decisions are required and allow for the

incorporation of local knowledge when appropriate or needed.

Rebuilding of overexploited stocks or stocks at risk (including protected species)

is required within specific timeframes.
Harvest controls and catch limits or exploitation rates that are risk-averse, set at
sustainable levels and employ precautionary buffers to account for scientific
authority are required for all impacted species.

Fishery management plans (FMPs) for meeting scientifically-specified

management goals are in place.

Some management authority is explicitly granted to stakeholders or fishing

communities, or encouraged through co-management, community-based
management, or other collaborative management arrangements (including
Fishery Management Councils).

Mechanisms for stakeholder participation in deliberation and decision-making

processes (e.g. public hearings & comment periods, mediation and facilitation
when necessary) are institutionalized and carried out consistently.

Dissemination of information, materials and responses to public comments is

timely and easily accessed.
Mechanisms exist to systematically identify and include all relevant stakeholders.

Institutions have formal mechanisms to ensure appropriate influence by all

stakeholders, including those who have been traditionally underrepresented.
If traditional systems for marine resource management exist, they are supported
and protected by current regulations and management plans.
Secure permitting or licensing systems are authorized.
Secure fishing rights (including allocation of secure access to quota and/or
fishing grounds to individuals, cooperatives, communities, or other entities as
appropriate) are formally recognized and allowed
A system for defining and allocating exclusive fishing privileges is defined.
The ability to determine rights for who can and cannot participate in the fishery is
explicitly granted to the community or encouraged through co-management,
community-based management, or other collaborative management
arrangements (including Fishery Management Councils).
Secure fishing rights systems are designed to address inequities in the
distribution of rights, benefits and involuntary risks.
Resource users have the authority and autonomy to make many of their own
operational rules which are acknowledged and, if appropriate, enforced by
external authorities.
Management authority and resource-governing rules are congruent with
biological and social scales of local system. If the resource range covers the
fishing grounds of multiple communities, and/ or there are multiple communities
from different areas fishing the same resource, the management authority and
resource-governing rules should be designed and implemented at a
corresponding scale, for example, through the creation of regional management
bodies.
Management authority is designated to the agency or office closest to the
resource being governed.
Each level of authority (national, regional, local) has adequate technical, financial
and human resources and capacity to carry out management duties. Higher level
agencies, which likely have greater resources, are designed to facilitate and
support lower level agencies when necessary.
If local-level user organizations exist (e.g., cooperatives), those organizations are
accountable, transparent and participatory, such that they effectively represent
the needs and values of their members, and have not been falsely created to
amplify the power of any one individual or organization.
g Methodology
bute not present in system;
ER Attribute present "on paper" (i.e. formally ratified or sanctioned) but not manifesting in practice

ttribute manifesting through informal agreements or agency/individual efforts but not formally ratified and supported;
bute present on paper and manifesting in practice, but incomplete or not fully effective for any reason;
bute fully realized in system - both formally ratified on paper and fully effective in practice.

Relevant Statute & Section Scoring Rationale & Notes

 Corresponding
References FAO Code of
Conduct Article
3, 9, 12, 22, 24,
38, 46, 53, 55

33, 43 7.1.9, 6.13

3, 9, 12, 22, 24,

38, 46, 53, 55 7.8.1

3, 9, 12, 22, 24,

38, 46, 53, 55 7.7.1
3, 9, 12, 22, 24,
38, 46, 53, 55

3, 9, 12, 22, 24,

38, 46, 53, 55 6.13, 7.1.6

1, 3, 12, 43, 50, 6.10, 6.11, 7.7.1,

55 7.7.2, 7.1.7, 8.1-8.3

6.10, 6.11, 7.1.7,

1, 27, 35 8.1-8.3
6.10, 6.11, 7.7.3,
3, 12, 55 8.1-8.3

6.10, 6.11, 7.7.1,

3, 4, 12, 55 7.7.2, 8.1-8.3
36 8.1-8.3, 10.1

7.6.2, 8.1.1
3, 9, 12, 20, 21, 6.12, 6.15, 7.3.4,
25, 38, 53, 55, 56 7.6.5, 8.1-8.3

3, 9, 13, 20, 23,

25, 45, 49, 53, 55 7.6.2, 7.6.4, 8.1-8.3

3, 53, 55 7.6.4, 7.6.8, 8.1-8.3

2, 45, 53, 56 7.7.4, 10.4.2

2, 45, 53, 56 10.4.2

12, 22, 49, 51, 53 7.2.1

3, 9, 12, 22, 24,
38, 46, 53, 55

12, 22, 49, 51, 53 6.16

3, 9, 12, 22, 24,

38, 46, 53, 55 6.13, 7.1.9
7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.1.2,
7.6.7, 10.2.2,
9 10.2.3
3, 9, 12, 22, 24, 6.13, 7.1.9, 7.1.10,
38, 46, 53, 55 7.4.4
3, 9, 12, 22, 24,
38, 46, 53, 55 6.13, 7.1.10, 7.4.4

6.1 - 6.9, 7.1.1,

7.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.1,
12, 20, 45, 51, 53 8.4, 8.5, 8.7, & 8.10
6.1 - 6.9, 7.2.1,
1, 23, 26, 29, 30, 7.1.2, 8.4, 8.5, 8.7,
33, 39, 44, 50, 57 & 8.10
6.1 - 6.9, 7.2.1,
7.1.2, 8.4, 8.5, 8.7,
3, 49 & 8.10
6.1 - 6.9, 7.2.1,
7.1.2, 7.6.10, 8.4,
3, 33, 49 8.5, 8.7, & 8.10
6.1 - 6.9, 7.2.1,
1, 12, 20, 33, 43, 7.1.2, 8.4, 8.5, 8.7,
45, 51, 53 & 8.10
6.1 - 6.9, 7.2.1,
7.1.2, 7.6.10, 8.4,
8.5, 8.7, & 8.10
 6.1 - 6.9, 7.1.1,
1, 3, 12, 16, 17, 7.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.5.1 -
20, 34, 45, 49, 51, 7.5.4, 7.6.1, 8.4,
53 8.5, 8.7, & 8.10
6.1 - 6.9, 7.1.1,
1, 3, 12, 16, 18, 7.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.3,
20, 34, 45, 49, 51, 7.3.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.7,
53 & 8.10

13, 41, 47

6.13, 6.16, 7.1.6,

1, 9, 12, 22, 33, 10.1.4, 10.1.4,
38, 45, 51, 53 10.1.5
9, 12, 38, 45, 51, 6.13, 7.1.6, 7.4.6,
53 7.4.7, 7.4.4

9, 22, 38, 51, 55 6.13, 6.16, 7.1.2

3, 9, 22, 38, 51,

55 6.13, 6.16

6.18, 7.6.6
50 6.18

1, 8, 14, 25, 31,

32, 33, 34 10.1.3
6.18

13, 41, 47

3, 22, 38 6.18

27 10.1.3

7.1.3 - 7.1.5, 7.3.1,

9, 12, 49 7.3.2

9, 12, 49

3, 9, 12, 20, 21,

24, 38, 53, 55, 56 10.4.2
3, 9, 12, 20, 21,
24, 38, 53, 55, 56 7.1.4, 7.1.5
Results and Interpretation

Total
Percent
Category Score Points
Complete
Possible

Accountable and Transparent 0 21 0%

Adequate and Effective Monitoring

0 12 0%
and Enforcement Authority

Adequate Regulatory Authority 0 21 0%

Clear Rules Defining Objectives

and Directives, Decision-making 0 18 0%
and Deliberation

Clear Standards for Protecting

Marine Ecosystems and Science- 0 24 0%
Based Management

Facilitates and Protects

0 18 0%
Stakeholder Participation

Facilitates Secure Fishing Rights 0 18 0%

Operates at Appropriate Scale 0 12 0%

Totals: 0 144

Total
Governance System Points Percent
Component Score Possible Complete
Administrative/ Executive 0 69 0%
Legislative 0 63 0%
Judicial 0 12 0%
What are the specific attributes What are the specific attributes that are
underperforming in this category? performing strongly in this category?
What are some potential next steps and actions we could take to
improve the performance in this category? What attributes can
we currently leverage and draw from to improve overall
performance in the system?
References

Ref. #

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39
40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57
References

Reference
Anderson, J. L., Anderson, C. M., Chu, J., Meredith, J., Asche, F., Sylvia, G., Smith, M. D., Anggraeni, D., Arthur, R., Guttormse
management tool for triple bottom line outcomes. PLoS One, 10(5), p.e0122809.

Baland, J. M. and Platteau, J. P. (1996). Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities? Fo

Basurto, X. and Ostrom, E. (2009). Beyond the Tragedy of the Commons. Economia Delle Fonti Di Energia E Dell’ambiente.

Battista, W., Kelly, R. P., Erickson, A. and Fujita, R. (in review). Fisheries governance impacting conservation outcomes in the U

Beddington, J. R., Agnew, D. J. and Clark, C. W. (2007). Current problems in the management of marine fisheries. Science, 31

Beets, J. and Friedlander, A. M. (1998). Evaluation of a conservation strategy: a spawning aggregation closure for red hind, Ep
91-98.

Berkeley, S. A., Hixon, M. A., Larson, R. J. and Love, M. S. (2004). Fisheries sustainability via protection of age structure and s

Bonzon, K., McIlwain, K., Strauss, C. K. and Van Leuvan, T. (2013). Catch Share Design Manual, Volume 1: A Guide for Mana

Branch, T. A., Hilborn, R., Haynie, A. C., Fay, G., Flynn, L., Griffiths, J., Marshall, K. N., Randall, J. K., Scheuerell, J. M., Ward,
fisheries managers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63(7), 1647-1668.

Branch, T. A. (2009). How do individual transferable quotas affect marine ecosystems? Fish and Fisheries, 10(1), 39-57.

Campbell, B. M., Sayer, J. A. and Walker, B. (2010). Navigating trade-offs: working for conservation and development outcome

Catchpole, T. L., Frid, C. L. J. and Gray, T. S. (2005). Discards in North Sea fisheries: causes, consequences and solutions. Ma

Campbell, B. M., Sayer, J. A. and Walker, B. (2010). Navigating trade-offs: working for conservation and development outcome

Cinner, J. E., Basurto, X., Fidelman, P., Kuange, J., Lahari, R. and Mukminin, A. (2012). Institutional designs of customary fishe
Marine Policy, 36(1), 278-285.
Cinner, J. E., McClanahan, T. R., MacNeil, M. A., Graham, N. A., Daw, T. M., Mukminin, A., Feary, D. A., Rabearisoa, A. L., Wa
social-ecological systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(14), 5219-5222.

Costello, C., Gaines, S. D. and Lynham, J. (2008). Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? Science, 321(5896), 1678-168

Crowder, L. and Norse, E. (2008). Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem-based management and marine spatial p

Gwinn, D. C., Allen, M. S., Johnston, F. D., Brown, P., Todd, C. R. and Arlinghaus, R. (2015). Rethinking length ‐based fisheries
and Fisheries, 16(2), 259-281.
Darcy, G. H. and Matlock, G. C. (1999). Application of the precautionary approach in the national standard guidelines for conse
Marine Science, 56(6), 853-859.
De Bruyn, P., Murua, H. and Aranda, M. (2013). The precautionary approach to fisheries management: How this is taken into a
Policy, 38, 397-406.
Douvere, F. (2008). The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Marine P

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of En

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1995). Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome.

Fujita, R. M., Honey, K. T., Morris, A., Wilson, J. R. and Russell, H. (2010). Cooperative strategies in fisheries management: int

Fung, A. (2003). Survey article: recipes for public spheres: eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal o

Gell, F. R. and Roberts, C. M. (2003). Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends in Ecology &

Goodin, R. E. (Ed.) (1998). The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge University Press.

Grafton, R. Q., Arnason, R., Bjørndal, T., Campbell, D., Campbell, H. F., Clark, C. W., Connor, R., Dupont, D. P., Hannesson, R
sustainable fisheries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63(3), 699-710.
Graham, N., Ferro, R. S., Karp, W. A. and MacMullen, P. (2007). Fishing practice, gear design, and the ecosystem approach—
selectivity and discards. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64(4), 744-750.

Gutiérrez, N. L., Hilborn, R. and Defeo, O. (2011). Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Natur

Hall, S. J. and Mainprize, B. M. (2005). Managing by‐catch and discards: how much progress are we making and how can we d

Halpern, B. S. (2003). The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecological Applications,

Halpern, B. S., Lester, S. E. and Kellner, J. B. (2009). Spillover from marine reserves and the replenishment of fished stocks. E

Hentrich, S. and Salomon, M. (2006). Flexible management of fishing rights and a sustainable fisheries industry in Europe. Mar

Hilborn, R., Orensanz, J. L. and Parma, A. M. (2005). Institutions, incentives and the future of fisheries. Philosophical Transacti

Hilborn, R. (2007). Moving to sustainability by learning from successful fisheries. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment,

Holmes, L., Strauss, C. K., de Vos, K. and Bonzon, K. (2014). Towards investment in sustainable fisheries: A framework for fina
International Sustainability Unit.

Jentoft, S. and McCay, B. (1995). User participation in fisheries management: lessons drawn from international experiences. M

Jentoft, S. and Bavinck, M. (2014). Interactive governance for sustainable fisheries: dealing with legal pluralism. Current Opinio

Kaczynski, V. M. and Fluharty, D. L. (2002). European policies in West Africa: who benefits from fisheries agreements? Marine

Lebel, L., Anderies, J., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T. and Wilson, J. (2006). Governance and the capa
Society, 11(1), 19.
Lester, S. E., Halpern, B. S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B. I., Gaines, S. D., Airamé, S. and Warner, R. R.
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 384, 33-46.
Liu, O. R., Thomas, L. R., Clemence, M., Fujita, R., Kritzer, J. P., McDonald, G. and Szuwalski, C. (2016). An evaluation of harv
Aquaculture, 24(3), 244-263.
McClanahan, T. R., Verheij, E. and Maina, J. (2006). Comparing the management effectiveness of a marine park and a multiple
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 16(2), 147-165.
McClanahan, T. R., Graham, N. A., MacNeil, M. A., Muthiga, N. A., Cinner, J. E., Bruggemann, J. H. and Wilson, S. K. (2011). C
coral reef fisheries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(41), 17230-17233.
Mora, C., Myers, R. A., Coll, M., Libralato, S., Pitcher, T. J., Sumaila, R. U., Zeller, D., Watson, R., Gaston, K. J. and Worm, B.
7(6), p.e1000131.
O'Keefe, C. E., Cadrin, S. X. and Stokesbury, K. D. (2013). Evaluating effectiveness of time/area closures, quotas/caps, and fle
71(5), 1286-1297.

Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social–ecological systems. Envir

Ostrom, E. and Schlager, E. (1996). The Formation of Property Rights. In Hanna, S., Folke, C. and Maler, K. G. (Eds.) Rights to
the Environment. Island Press.

Parlee, C. E. and Wiber, M. G. (2014). Institutional innovation in fisheries governance: adaptive co-management in situations o

Pikitch, E., Santora, C., Babcock, E. A., Bakun, A., Bonfil, R., Conover, D. O., Dayton, P. A. O., Doukakis, P., Fluharty, D., Hen
Science, 305(5682), 346-347.

Pitcher, T. J., Kalikoski, D., Short, K., Varkey, D. and Pramod, G. (2009). An evaluation of progress in implementing ecosystem

Purcell, S. W., Mercier, A., Conand, C., Hamel, J. F., Toral‐Granda, M. V., Lovatelli, A. and Uthicke, S. (2013). Sea cucumber fi
overfishing. Fish and Fisheries, 14(1), 34-59.

Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(

Shepherd, J. G. (2003). Fishing effort control: could it work under the common fisheries policy? Fisheries Research, 63(2), 149-

Sivas, D. A. and Caldwell, M. R. (2008). A new vision for California ocean governance: comprehensive ecosystem-based marin

Turner, S. J., Thrush, S. F., Hewitt, J. E., Cummings, V. J. and Funnell, G. (1999). Fishing impacts and the degradation or loss

Wade, R. (1988). The management of irrigation systems: How to evoke trust and avoid prisoner's dilemma. World Developmen

Wielgus, J., Poon, S., del Río, E. C., Muñoz, D., Whittle, D. and Fujita, R. (2014). Fishery cooperatives in Cuba: Potential bene

Worm, B., Hilborn, R., Baum, J. K., Branch, T. A., Collie, J. S., Costello, C., Fogarty, M. J., Fulton, E. A., Hutchings, J. A., Jenni
325(5940), 578-585.