SVF-3554 A social science perspective on fisheries management and development - 10 stp

Application code: 9371

The course is an integrated part of the IFM programme, but is also open for single course students with relevant background.

The aim is to give the students a social science perspective on marine governance and development. During the course the students are introduced to different theoretical approaches and the practical application of these approaches. After the course the students should be familiar with the historical development of marine governance and management institutions and instruments, know the challenges and problems, and be able to understand why different solutions are relevant in different settings.

Students will learn:

• Basic social science concepts relevant for marine management and development
• How marine governance regimes, institutions and instruments are linked to social development
• How the marine environment and the users are made governable
• Approaches and institutional set-ups in marine governance and management and the historical development of them
• Conceptual and analytical approaches to analyse governance regimes, institutions and instruments

Students will have the ability to:

• Identify, understand and review research literature
• Plan and carry out institutional analyses of marine governance systems
• Identify the governable objects and the processes that makes them governable
• Identify user interests and power relations in marine governance and development
• Identify, discuss and present societal and institutional problems, challenges and solutions in relation to marine governance and development
• Write literature reviews, policy briefs and scientific papers

General competence:

• Understand how the marine space, environment and users are turned into governable objects
• Understand the roles of science andpolitics in governance and management
• Understand how the construction of governable objects and governability impacts the fisheries, other marine industries and communities
• Understand the relationship between management, governance and social change
• Understand the objectives, use and effects of different governance and management instruments

5 hours written exam. The grading scale is: A-F, where F is not passed.

Work requirement: Four written assignments that must be approved by the teacher before the exam. Deadline for final submission will be two weeks before the exam. 

• Two of the assignments shall be policy briefs (500 word), followed by an oral presentation.
  • The first policy brief shall be a presentation of the marine/fisheries governance system in their home country.
  • The second shall be about potential improvements in the same system.
• A literature review (2000-2500 word) based on the literature in the reading list
• Essay (4000-5000 words) where they analyse a marine governance problem. The topics for the review and the essay will be given in advance.

A re-sit exam will be arranged for the written exam in the next semester for those students who fail the exam.

The date for the exam can be changed. The final date will be announced at your faculty early in May and early in November.

Reading list:

Due to the Norwegian copyright regulations the literature in the course is available in accordance with the KOPINOR agreement. (More information: http://www.kopinor.no/en/agreements/education/universities). The students are expected to individually get access to and download the relevant articles that are available through the library service or through open access sources, or buy or borrow the relevant books.

The search for the course literature in libraries and databases is a part of the scientific training at a university. Articles in open access journals are available from personal computers; articles in other scientific journals (not open access) are normally only available through university computers or through computers connected to the university network through VPN client. Only book chapters and articles not available on web or through libraries and book stores will be handed out in paper copy by the teacher before the relevant lecture.

Social theory and method

• Blaikie, N. 2000. Designing Social Research. Cambrigde: Polity Press. Chapter 2. Designing Social Research (19p)
• Waters, M. 1994. Modern sociological theory, Chapter 1. 14p. Sage.
• Outhwaite, W. and S. Turner. (2008). The SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology. SAGE Publications Ltd
• Introduction (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/upm-data/17274_01_Outwaite_Introduction.pdf) (2p)
• Chapter one: (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/upm-data/17275_02_Outwaite_Ch_1.pdf) (29p)
  

The Tragedy of the Commons

• Gordon, H. Scott (1954). The Economic Theory of a Common Property Resource: The Fishery. Journal of Political Economy 62(2): 124-42
• Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162: 1243-1248.)
  

The Economic approach

• Christy jr, F. T. (1975). Property rights in the World Ocean. Natural Resources Journal Vol 15: 695-712. (17p)
• Hannesson, R. (2006). The privatization of the oceans: Cambridge: MIT press. Chap. 3 Property rights in fisheries (25p)
• Johnson, Derek, and Sölmundur Karl Pálsson. 2015. Governability and its discontents in the fishery of Lake Winnipeg since the late 1960s: The view from Gimli. In Interactive governance for small-scale fisheries: Global reflections, eds. Svein Jentoft and Ratana Chuenpagdee, 281-298. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• The Sunken Billions, The economic justification for fisheries reform, World Bank. (Chapter 1-5 (59p) http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTARD/Resources/336681-1224775570533/SunkenBillionsFinal.pdf
  

The Institutionalist approach

• Berkes, F., D. Feenes, B.J. McCay and J.M: Acheson (1989). The Benefits of the Commons. Nature, Vol 340, pp 91-93.
• Chuenpagdee, R. and A. M. Song (2012). Institutional thinking in fisheries governance: broadening perspectives. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4(3): 309-315.
• Dolsâk, N. and E. Ostrom (2003) The Challenges of the Commons. In Dolsâk, N. and E. Ostrom (eds.) The Commons in the New Millennium. Challenges and Adaptations. MIT. Pp. 6-34.
• Jentoft, S.(2004) Institutions in fisheries: what they are, what they do and how they change. In Hersoug, B., S. Jentoft and P. Degnbol (2004) Fisheries Development: The Institutional Challenge. Delft: Eburon. P.205-228. (Available on fronter).
• McCay, B.J. and J. M. Acheson (1987). Human Ecology of the commons. In McCay B.J and J. M.Acheson: The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. The University of Arizona Press, Pp. 1-34.
• McCay, B.J. and S. Jentoft. (1998). Market or Community Failure? Critical Perspectives on Common Property Research. Human Organization, Vol. 57, No. 1. (9p)
• Ostrom, E. (1990). The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Actions. Cambridge. Chapter 1 Reflections on the Commons. Pp 1-28.
  

The Co-management discourse

• Armitage, D. R., et al. (2009). "Adaptive co-management for social¿ecological complexity." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2): 95-102.
• Jentoft, S. (1989). Fisheries Co-management: Delegating Government Responsibility to Fishermen's Organization. Marine Policy. April 1989, pp. 137-154.
• Jentoft, S. (2005). Fisheries Co-management as Empowerment. Marine Policy 29(1) 1-7.
• Jentoft, S. B.J. McCay and D. Wilson (1998). Social Theory and Fisheries Co-management. Marine Policy, Vol. 22, No. 4-5, pp. 423-436, 1998.
  

The Knowledge crises discourse

• Berkes, F. (1998).Sacred Knowledge. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Taylor and Francis. (Chapter 1 and 10).
• Davis. A. and J. (2003). Wagner Who Knows? On the Importance of Finding Experts when Researching Local Ecological Knowledge. Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal 31(3): 463-489.
• Holm, P. (2003). Crossing the Border: On the Relationship Between Science and Fishermen's Knowledge in a Resource Management Context. MAST 2(1): 5-33.
• Johannes, R. E., M. M. R. Freeman, and R. J. Hamilton. (2000). Ignore fishers- knowledge and miss the boat. Fish and Fisheries 1: 257-271,
• Johnsen, J. P., Murray, G., & Neis, B. (2009). North Atlantic fisheries in change - from organic associations to cybernetic organizations. Mast, 9(2), 55-82.
• St. Martin, K. 2009. Toward a Cartography of the Commons: Constituting the Political and Economic Possibilities of Place. Professional Geographer 61(4): 493-507.
  

The Governance, complexity and ecosystems discourse:

• Berkes, F. (2009). Shifting perspectives on resource management: Resilience and the Reconceptualization of 'Natural Resources' and 'Management' MAST 2010, 9(1): 13-40
• Chuenpagdee, R. J. J.Pascual-Fernandez, E. Szelianszky, J.L.Alegret, J. Fraga, S. Jentoft. (2013) Marine protected areas: Re-thinking their inception. Marine Policy 39, pp 234-240.
• Gray, T. (ed.) (2005). Participation in Fisheries Governance. Springer. Chapter One: Theorising about participatory fisheries goverance. Pp.1-25.
• Gullestad, P., et al. (2017). "Towards ecosystem-based fisheries management in Norway - Practical tools for keeping track of relevant issues and prioritising management efforts." Marine Policy 77: 104-110.
• Jentoft. S. (2007). Limits of Governability? Institutional Implications for Fisheries and Coastal Governance. Marine Policy, 31, pp. 360-370.
• Jentoft S. and R. Chuenpagdee (2009). Fisheries and Coastal Governance as a Wicked Problem. Marine Policy. 33, pp. 553-560.
• Johnsen, J. P. (2014). "Is fisheries governance possible?" Fish and Fisheries 15(3): 428-444.
• Johnsen, Jahn Petter and Svein Jentoft (2017). Transferable Quotas in Norwegian Fisheries. In. Winder G. Fisheries, Quota Management and Quota Transfer, Rationalization through Bio-economics. Springer.
• Link, J. S., and Browman, H. I. 2014. Integrating what? Levels of marine ecosystem-based assessment and management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 1170-1173
• S. Parks and J. Gowdy (2013). What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review essay. Ecosystem Services 3, pp 1-10.
• Valdés-Pizzini, M., C. G. Garcia-Quijano and M. T. Schärer-Umpierre. (2012). Connecting Humans and Ecosystem-Based Fisheries management in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean. Caribbean Studies 40, (2) pp. 95-128.
• Winder, G. 2017. Context and Challenges: The Limited `Success' of the Aotearoa/New Zealand Fisheries Experiment, 1986-2016. In. Winder G. Fisheries, Quota Management and Quota Transfer, Rationalization through Bio-economics. Springer.
  

Poverty and development

• Allison, E.H. B. D. Ratner, B. Åsgård, R.Willmann, R. Pomeroy, J. Kurien (2012). Rights-based fisheries governance: from fishing rights to human rights. Fish and Fisheries, Volume 13, Issue 1, pages 14-29, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00405.x
• Béné, C, B. Hersoug and E.H. Allison (2010). Not by Rent Alone: Analysing the Pro-Poor Functions of Small-Scale Fisheries in Developing Countries. Development Policy Review 28 (3): 325-358.
• Eide, A., M. Bavinck and J. Raakjær. (2011). Avoiding Poverty: Distributing Wealth in Fisheries. In Jentoft, S. and A. Eide (eds). Poverty Mosaics: Realities and Prospects in Small-Scale Fisheries. Springer. (pp 13-25, 12p)
• Hersoug, B., S. Jentoft and P. Degnbol (2004) Fisheries Development: The Institutional Challenge. Delft: Eburon. (Available on fronter). (180p)
  

(Total about 880 pages, references included)

• In addition: All lectures and lecture notes published on Fronter are relevant for the written exam.
  

Recommended reading

• EAF Toolbox The ecosystem approach to fisheries (FAO 2012) Manual (171p) (http://www.fao.org/fishery/eaf-net/topic/166272/en)