OpenChannels News

Expanding our view of voices that matter: New perspectives on ocean stakeholders

In recent years, stakeholder engagement has been widely recognized as integral to effective marine conservation, marine ecosystem-based management, and marine spatial planning. There are many different definitions of the term ”stakeholder”, but at its most inclusive, it is any “person, organization, or group with an interest (professional or societal) or an influence on the marine environment or who is influenced directly or indirectly by activities and management decisions.” The list of stakeholders engaged in any marine conservation or management process depends on the context of the specific project, but, in practice, typical stakeholders engaged in marine conservation and management processes include local industries, coastal residents, management agencies, and conservation organizations.

The world is changing rapidly though. New information and technologies, new forms of social interaction (often fostered by social media), increases in tourism around the globe, shifting economies, globalization, global climate change, and other factors make it critical to continually reexamine traditional views of who ocean stakeholders are, their relative importance, and how we engage them.

In this issue of The Skimmer, we feature three recent studies that highlight new (or often underrepresented) voices in ocean management processes, as well as thoughts on how these voices can be brought into decision making for marine ecosystems.

One of these studies found the value of marine stewardship activities is greater than the revenues from commercial finfish and whale watching activities in the US state of Massachusetts.
Another study presents the concept of “extra-local ecosystem services” – ecosystem services provided by coastal and marine ecosystems that are distributed beyond the ecosystem itself, including regionally and globally.
A third study – of place attachment to the Great Barrier Reef – found a community of people with strong attachment to the reef who do not necessarily have ongoing direct experience with it.

The Slimmer Skimmer: An end to harmful fisheries subsidies may be coming soon – and that could help a marine ecosystem near you

Editor’s note: The Slimmer Skimmer is a new feature to give a brief update on a topic critical to marine ecosystem management.

We are starting off our Slimmer Skimmer series with one of fisheries subsidies. The World Trade Organization is currently working to make an end-of-the year deadline (their own, as well as one for the Sustainable Development Goals) to end harmful types of fisheries subsidies. Not all fisheries subsidies are harmful – fisheries management is commonly considered a subsidy, for instance – but the harmful ones encourage overfishing and have substantial negative impacts on marine ecosystems.

Please let us know what you think of this type of feature and if there is anything that you feel we should cover in this format in the future.

So let’s start with a few basics – what are fisheries subsidies?

Different groups have different definitions of what constitutes a fisheries subsidy. But generally speaking, subsidies are government actions that help the fishing industry increase its income or lower its costs. Examples of fisheries subsidies include fuel subsidies, income supports, price supports, tax credits, tax exemptions, low-interest loans, loan guarantees, regulatory exemptions, and preferential treatment. Many also consider government funding for fisheries management – including monitoring and enforcement efforts – and free access to fishing areas to be subsidies.
It is estimated that, globally, nations provide ~US$35 billion in subsidies to their fishing industries every year. Some specifics:
- Fuel subsidies and fisheries management are the most common types of subsidies, comprising 22% and 20% of total subsidies respectively. For example, in 2013, China provided ~US$6.5 billion to its fishing industry, almost entirely (94%) as fuel subsidies.
- Regionally, Asian countries provide the most subsidies (beneficial, harmful, and ambiguous) to their fishing industries (43% of the global total) followed by Europe (25% of the global total) and North America (16% of the global total). Japan and China are the highest subsidizing countries (20% each of the global total) with the US coming in a close third.
Fisheries subsidies are considered beneficial, harmful, or ambiguous based on whether they have positive or negative impacts on fisheries resources.
- Beneficial subsidies promote the growth of fish stocks through conservation and the sustainable management of the resource. They include investments in fisheries science, management, and enforcement.
- Harmful subsidies lead to overcapacity and the overexploitation of stocks. In general, harmful subsidies artificially increase revenues or lower costs for fishers. This puts pressure on poorly managed fish stocks and enables fishing entities to continue fishing in situations that would otherwise be unprofitable. This encourages fishers to stay in the industry and keep fishing when they would otherwise leave/stop. Harmful subsidies include fuel subsidies, boat construction programs, price supports, marketing supports, tax exemptions, and payment of fees for foreign access agreements.
- Ambiguous subsidies are programs that could be harmful or beneficial (or both) depending on the details of the program and the local context. They include fisher assistance programs, vessel buyback programs, and community development programs. For example, vessel buyback programs could lead to fewer boats fishing and reduced fishing capacity as they are generally intended to do. If fishers anticipate that there will be buybacks, however, they may have incentives to overinvest in vessels, leading to an increase in fishing capacity. Another example is unemployment insurance for fishers. An unemployment program could lead to increased safety and reduced effort because fishers do not need to go out in unsafe conditions. If there is a minimum number of fishing days needed to quality for the program, however, the insurance could lead to increased effort and pressure to lengthen the fishing season.
Of the total subsidies provided to fisheries globally, US$20 billion are considered harmful, capacity-enhancing subsidies.
- Of the major subsidizers (the EU, Japan, China, the US, and Russia), the US is the only entity where beneficial subsidies exceed harmful subsidies. (In fact, in the US, harmful and ambiguous subsidies are less than a quarter of the total subsidies to the industry).

Latest News and Resources for Ocean Planners and Managers

From the Archives: Can we insure our way to healthier oceans and ocean communities? (MEAM Feb 2018, Issue 11:4)

Editor’s Note: From the Archives calls attention to past Skimmer/MEAM articles whose perspectives and insight remain relevant.

Imagine a world where:

Municipalities proactively restore wetlands and offshore reefs wherever possible to protect their citizens and infrastructure and lower their insurance premiums.
Small-scale fishers receive insurance payouts immediately after devastating hurricanes so fisheries-dependent communities can start to recover.
The risks of running an illegal fishing operation rise dramatically because it is impossible to get insurance for the ships involved.

Learn about real-life examples where this is happening as well as other ways insurance can promote sustainable marine ecosystems and marine communities.