Project Topics
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER III: RE-CONCEPTUALISING THE NEW ZEALAND’S WILD CAPTURE FISHERY INSHORE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
This thesis is an argument about policy-building approaches from a policy-informed perspective. This chapter explores insights from the international and New Zealand fisheries management literature that may assist to develop that argument. The approach is two-fold. Firstly, to establish that in both the New Zealand context and in the diverse international literature there is a notable absence of published research dealing with the New Zealand commercial, customary and recreational fisheries in some integrated manner by way of comparisons or any other analytical framework that connects the three sectors together. Secondly, to suggest not just from a reading of the literature, but also from an appreciation of the policy environment, why there is an absence of a holistic conception of fisheries management. The gap in the literature highlights a preoccupation with the commercial fishery and raises a number of tentative propositions relating to how the thinking about fisheries management has been constrained. Since the intention is to break away from the restrictions of the literature trajectories (such as fishing rights, the problems of commercial fishing) what is absent in the literature becomes the essential tenet of this thesis. The argument, informed by the realities of policy development and operation in the New Zealand context, is that a vital step in producing knowledge about fisheries management is positioning fisheries and fisheries management trajectories into a single conceptual framework.
The exploration of limited re-conceptualisation follows two strands. The first strand comprises two analyses: an analysis of the literature on institutions, rights and governance documenting the spheres of interest and the range of perspectives; and secondly, an analysis of several fisheries legislation reviews in the 1990s by independent reviewers appointed by the Minister or by the Ministry of Fisheries. Their reports are analysed to assess recommendations and comment on institutions, rights and governance in particular. The second line of inquiry looks for evidence of the development of an integrated approach to policy and management of New Zealand’s three wild stock harvest fishery sectors (commercial, customary and recreational).
EVIDENCE OF THE LIMITED CONCEPTUALISATION OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
Reviewing the literature on Institutions, Rights, and Governance in New Zealand
There have been more than 90 papers from the international literature with a primary focus on New Zealand’s fisheries management experience. This section discusses the literature in relation to commercial, recreational and customary Maori with an emphasis on institutions, rights and governance, and finally the discussion around the three sectors combined.
Commercial
1985- 1990 – INSTITUTIONAL FOCUS, EXPERIENCES AND SPREADING THE WORD The characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of the New Zealand QMS are well documented in the fisheries management literature. In the period up until 1990 most of the literature discussed the history and fisheries management leading up to the QMS, and the QMS institutions and their performance to date (Clark et al. 1988, 1989; Crothers 1988a; Shallard 1990).
1990 -2000 – BROADENING THE DEBATE: ACADEMIC ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE During the 1990s the literature continued to summarise the QMS progress but also to identify the management issues in a more critical note. Much of this literature came from the fishing industry commentators talking about their experiences with the New Zealand approach to the QMS (Rhoades 1991; Sharp 1991; Talley 1991, 2000). These commentaries noted the bureaucracy and regulation complexity developing in the QMS. In the 1990s (as the history of empirical data started to develop) scientists began to assess the performance of the QMS (Sissenwine and Mace 1992; Annala 1996; Batstone and Sharp 1999) identifying in more detail many of the issues raised in the earlier literature (such as bycatch, and the regulatory regime complexity). In addition economic assessments (such as economic performance and efficiency) began to appear (Lindner et al. 1992; Batstone and Sharp 2003). Another thread in the literature which began in the 1990s focused on the policy elements of the QMS and not just the management (as had been the case in the 1980s). A number of these papers came from policy analysts within the Ministry or ex Ministry staff (Falloon 1992; McClurg 1993, 1997; Major 1994; Shallard 1998, Edwards 2000). These commentaries have been supplemented by literature from academics such as Harding (1991) (fisheries bureaucratisation and regulatory processes since the 1980s); Boyd and Dewees (1992) (performance of the QMS against a range of policy principles), Dewees (1989, 1998), and Yandle and Dewees (2000, 2008) (industry and Ministry perception of the QMS management); Sharp (1997) (institutional change in the fishing industry); Batstone and Sharp (1999) (economic performance and policy challenges in the QMS); Hersoug (2002a, 2000) (Review of fisheries policy and management); Bess (2000) (strategic capabilities in the seafood sector), Rees (2006) (sustainable growth in fisheries). Likewise industry commentary moved from anecdotal accounts of experience with the QMS to a more analytical critique of fisheries policy and also suggested ways forward; Branson (1994) (the interaction of the QMS and non-commercial sectors, and reform of the QMS), Craig (2000) (Fisheries frameworks and devolution of roles), Craig (1999), (characteristics of effective rights based fisheries management).
2000-2009 – SEGMENTING THE DEBATE: THE GROWTH OF GOVERNANCE, AS WELL AS RIGHTS AND INSTITUTION ISSUES The literature since 2000 has orientated around several issues which may indicate that the policy regime was beginning to mature. Most notable is that the literature on governance issues has become a point of discussion along with the institutional and rights frameworks popular in the 1980s and 1990s. Examples of such governance issues are participation, co- management/self management, and interaction between sectors. Co-management (which started to develop in New Zealand in the late 1990s) for rights holders was strongly supported (Hughey et al. 2000:120; Soboil and Craig 2006:9; Mincher 2009:320) as were co-management processes through Fisheries Plans. Customary Maori co-management (Craig 2000:4). Several papers described the industry’s positive developments in taking a lead in industry-funded and managed research and monitoring initiatives (Maunder and Starr 2002:481; Yandle 2003:19, 2008 b:298-301). Other researchers noted that many of the commercial stakeholder organisations had made limited progress and that their success was tenuous (Yandle 2003:179; 2008 a:140) particularly since non-commercial stakeholders were not participants or generally supporters Hersoug (2002:7), raising issues of legitimacy (Harte 2001:8; Yandle 2008:136). In the early 2000s the Ministry supported stakeholder developed fisheries plans; but by the mid 2000s the Ministry of Fisheries decided to take control of the fisheries planning process undermining the role of the commercial sector. Post-2005, industry commentators have been much less positive about the potential of the planning approach: ‘Some piecemeal devolution of fisheries management responsibility has occurred…But the current New Zealand government is, at best, sceptical of further devolution of core fishery management services and, at worst, may be strongly opposed to such devolution’ (Craig and Soboil 2008:270). Since the mid 2000s ‘Ministry led Fisheries Planning’ was seen by Ministry commentators as the vehicle for co-management development (Peacey and Connor 2006:10)
CHAPTER I: DAWNING CONCERNS
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCES
1.3 A POLICY-CENTRED REPRESENTATION OF NEW ZEALAND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
1.4 THESIS ARGUMENTS
1.5 THESIS ANALYSIS
1.3 OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS
CHAPTER II: AN EXPLORATION OF THE INTER-DEPENDENCE OF INSTITUTIONS, RIGHTS, AND GOVERNANCE
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 INSTITUTIONS AND THE MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES
2.3 FISHING RIGHTS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES
2.4 FISHERIES GOVERNANCE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES
2.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER III : RE-CONCEPTUALISING THE NEW ZEALAND’S WILD CAPTURE FISHERY INSHORE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 EVIDENCE OF THE LIMITED CONCEPTUALISATION OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
3.3 CURRENT APPROACHES TO THE RE-CONCEPTUALISATION OF INSHORE FISHERIES
3.4 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER IV: THREE SECTOR ANALYSIS OF THE REGLUATION REGIME IN THE AUCKLAND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT REGION’S MARINE WILD FISHERIES 1970 – 2002
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 THE ARGUMENT
4.3 ANALYSIS OF THE REGULATION REGIME IN THE AUCKLAND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT REGION’S MARINE WILD FISHERIES 1970-2002
4.4 ANALYSIS OF THE AFMA REGULATIONS 1970-2002
4.5 IS THE COMMERCIAL FISHERY MORE HIGHLY REGULATED SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF THE QMS?
4.6 CONCLUSIONS
CHAPTER V: MANAGING THE MOST CONTENTIOUS FISHERY – INSTITUTIONS, RIGHTS, AND GOVERNANCE IN THE RECREATIONAL SECTOR
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 METHODOLOGY
5.3 SURVEY INSIGHTS ON GOVERNANCE
5.4 INSTITUTIONS AND THE MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES
5.5 INSIGHTS INTO RIGHTS ASPECTS IN THE RECREATIONAL FISHERY
5.6 MOTIVATIONS FOR FISHING
5.7 WHAT INSIGHTS DOES THE SURVEY PROVIDE TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF
RIGHTS, INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE IN THE RECREATIONAL SECTOR?
5.8 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER VI: INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE AS INFLUENCES IN THE DECISION TO EXIT THE QMS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
6.3 ANALYSIS OF MOTIVES: MEANS BY SUB-CATEGORIES
6.4 WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF QMS FACTORS RELATED TO INSTITUTIONS, RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE IN THE DECISION OF EXITERS?
6.5 DID THOSE WHO REMAINED IN THE QMS HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS ON INSTITUTIONS, RIGHTS, AND GOVERNANCE?
6.6 CONCLUSIONS
CHAPTER VII: THE CONCLUDING CHAPTER
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 A SUMMARY OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF INSTITUTIONS, RIGHTS, AND GOVERNANCE FOR EACH SECTOR IN THE AFMA’S WILD MARINE FISHERIES
7.3 THE CURRENT VIEW OF EACH OTHER SECTOR’S RIGHTS
7.4 THE THESIS ARGUMENTS: HAVE THEY BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE RESEARCH?
7.5 HOW DOES MY THESIS GIVE GREATER INSIGHT INTO THE INSTITUTIONS, RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES, AND IDENTIFY POTENTIAL FUTURE DIRECTIONS?
7.6 HOW DOES MY THESIS SUGGEST CHANGING THE ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN SECTORS TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES?
7.7 HOW COULD THE PROPOSED INSTITUTIONS, RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE REGIME BETTER MANAGE EXTREME EVENTS?
7.8 WHAT KEY PRINCIPLES WOULD SUPPORT A HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES RECOGNISING THE THREE SECTOR TRAJECTORIES AND A NEW GOVERNANCE REGIME?
7.9 CONCLUSION
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
The Fisheries’ Trinity: Re-conceptualising New Zealand’s Inshore Fisheries Management
