Abstract

We examine decision-making, shared authority, and pluralism as key characteristics for the effective co-management of natural resources. Drawing on the concept of network governance, we complement this approach by studying localized practices of governance that support existing and compensate for missing aspects in the regulation. The regime of territorial use rights for fisheries (TURF) in Chile is a recognized example of large-scale co-management that has given rise to local organizations that manage and exploit benthic resources. Based on multi-sited qualitative fieldwork across five regions, we analyze practices with respect to two governance objects: the deterrence of illegal fishing and the periodic assessment of the fisheries’ biology fields. Our analysis shows that local fisher organizations have institutionalized informal practices of surveillance and monitoring to fill in the gaps of existing regulations. Although fisher organizations and consultants—the so-called management and exploitation areas for benthic resources (AMERB)—have managed to operate the TURF regime, they depend on the government to enforce regulations and receive public subsidies to cover the costs of delegated governance tasks. We suggest that governance effectiveness could benefit from delegating additional authority to the local level. This would enhance the supervision of productive areas and better adaptation of national co-management regulations to the specific geographical context.

Highlights

  • Recent debate on the governance of natural resources suggests that both hierarchical government as well as free market mechanisms may be limited in providing for consensual and sustainable resource use

  • Deterrence from illegal fishing is a major challenge affecting the ecological and productive performance of the AMERB, it is not considered as an element in the co-management of the Chilean Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries (TURF)

  • The Chilean TURF regime is an initiative promoted by the state that has rendered co-management a claim for a hierarchical control structure rather than a delegation of power and responsibility to local stakeholders

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Recent debate on the governance of natural resources suggests that both hierarchical government as well as free market mechanisms may be limited in providing for consensual and sustainable resource use. The fact that scholars have demonstrated the failure of top-down governance arrangements in practice requires new approaches to address collective coordination among different stakeholders [3]. In this context, co-management has become a popular concept that aims at “sharing power and responsibility between government and local resource users” [4]. Berkes [7,8] argues that co-management as a rights regime involves government systems and local-level systems, but is a “cross-scale interaction” perspective This is a relational position on understanding socio-ecological systems that addresses the multi-level and multi-stakeholder nature of governance as well as its organizational and spatial connectivity. This involves designing and Environments 2020, 7, 104; doi:10.3390/environments7120104 www.mdpi.com/journal/environments

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call