Unregulated Open-Access versus Regulated Open-Access Fishing: Stakeholders Perceptions in Sierra Leone

Abstract

Fish stocks are declining in marine capture coastal fisheries in West Africa. Many observers have blamed climate change and the system of open access for the decline. Open-access fishing encourages too many people to take up fishing, and the result is overfishing of the stocks. According to such critics, this is a classic example of Hardin’s tragedy of the commons, whereby a continuous increase in the number of users of a natural resource eventually leads to the collapse of the resource. The present study, which analysed stakeholders’ perceptions about their open-access fishing in Siera Leone’s marine fisheries, conducted 32 key informant interviews. Our research found that while they perceived that open-access fishing impacted fish stocks, most Sierra Leone’s marine capture fishers did not see open access as a cause of fish decline; instead, they blamed the lack of enforced regulations on the methods and extent of fishing. Accordingly, these fishers favoured the continuation of open access—not least because it helps to alleviate hunger and is a readily available source of protein in Sierra Leone’s coastal communities—but accompanied by strict regulations on both the type of fishing gear used and the quantity, size, and species of fish caught. In other words, they preferred regulated open access to unregulated open access. The central government’s resolve to regulate its fishery will determine whether it will transition from unregulated open access to regulated open access or other forms of OA. This study recommends detailed research into how to influence political will to enforce regulations.