Elsevier

Ecological Economics

Volume 48, Issue 1, January 2004, Pages 109-124
Ecological Economics

Analysis
An institutional framework for designing and monitoring ecosystem-based fisheries management policy experiments

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.002Get rights and content

Abstract

Indicator systems are seen as central tools for ecosystem-based fisheries management, helping to steer fisheries towards sustainability by providing timely and useful information to decision-makers. Without testing hypotheses about the links between policies and outcomes, however, indicator systems may do little more than promote ad hoc policies, possibly even prolonging the transition to sustainable fisheries. The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework is a robust framework that has been used extensively to design policy experiments and empirically test theories and models linking ecological–economic systems, institutions and the sustainability of common pool resource systems. A modified IAD framework is developed that transparently encompasses both process-oriented pressure-state-response (PSR) and structurally oriented sustainable livelihood indicator frameworks, thus providing a platform for ecosystem-based fisheries management policy experiment design and monitoring. An institutional approach to fisheries management facilitates critical examination of important cross-cutting issues, including assumptions regarding what comprises sustainability and how market, government and civil society organizations use strategic investments in capital assets and institutions to achieve sustainability objectives. The emphasis on capital assets keeps attention on the relative merits of alternative investment options in policy experiments.

Introduction

According to the American Fisheries Society, “sustainability of fisheries and other aquatic resources is a state in which these resources, and the ecosystems that support them, are managed in such a way that their long-term viability and productivity are maintained for the benefit of future generations” (Knuth et al., 1999). Achieving sustainability has proven elusive to date, but it is internationally recognized as a primary goal of fisheries management FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 1995, NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 1999, NRC (National Research Council), 1999, Garcia, 2000, Garcia and Staples, 2000.

There is a growing consensus that an ecosystem-based fisheries management paradigm is needed for achieving fisheries sustainability Costanza et al., 1998, NRC (National Research Council), 1999, Gislason et al., 2000. Under ecosystem-based fisheries management, experiments are needed to build further understanding about complex fishery system processes (Walters, 1997). This goes beyond just implementing ad hoc ‘adaptive’ responses to unexpected ecological or economic crises, replacing trial and error learning with a directed process of active policy selection. Policy selection is driven by societal objectives that are ultimately a reflection of the values, preferences and behaviors of individuals and organizations within that society.

Institutions, the human-crafted rules and norms that infuse social order, shape human incentives and behavior Ostrom, 1990, Ostrom, 1999 and a variety of institutions (means) can be crafted to achieve any particular objectives (ends) envisioned under ecosystem-based fisheries management. Even small-scale, self-governing fisheries use a plethora of rules to govern when and how resources are harvested and used by particular users (Ostrom et al., 1994) and, in more complicated fisheries, the rule set may become very complex (Sinclair et al., 1999). Furthermore, the array of options may vary greatly in costs, making it necessary to design and monitor policy experiments that strategically test the cost-effectiveness of policy bundles that can help achieve diverse societal objectives under ecosystem-based fisheries management (Rudd et al., 2003).

A variety of indicator frameworks have been proposed to monitor fisheries sustainability Garcia and Staples, 2000, Garcia et al., 2000, Sutinen, 2000, Charles, 2001, Olsen, 2003, the sustainability of other common pool resources Prabhu et al., 1999, Campbell et al., 2001 and for broader assessment purposes Hammond et al., 1994, Ashley and Carney, 1999, Bossel, 1999, OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2000, UN (United Nations), 2001, World Bank, 2001, Segnestam, 2002, NRTREE (National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy), 2003. The OECD pressure-state-response (PSR) framework (OECD, 2000) and variants are process-oriented frameworks that are gaining exposure in the fisheries field Garcia and Staples, 2000, Bowen and Riley, 2003. Exogenous driving forces and endogenous anthropogenic impacts exert pressure on the state of the environment; societies respond by attempting to mitigate the pressures. An alternative structurally oriented framework, the sustainable livelihoods model Ashley and Carney, 1999, Bebbington, 1999, is popular in the forestry and agricultural development fields Prabhu et al., 1999, Campbell et al., 2001. An emphasis in the sustainable livelihoods framework is on the role of capital assets (natural, produced or physical, human, social and financial) on sustainability and human welfare.

The emphasis in both PSR and sustainable livelihoods frameworks has been largely on using indicator systems to communicate useful information to decision-makers Ashley and Carney, 1999, Garcia and Staples, 2000, Garcia et al., 2000, Segnestam, 2002; relatively little explicit emphasis has been placed on the role of frameworks in developing policy experiments. Without testing hypotheses about the links between policies and outcomes, however, indicator systems may do little more than promote ad hoc policy responses, possibly even prolonging the transition to fisheries sustainability. There is, therefore, a need to use a framework that can be used for both the design and monitoring of fisheries policy experiments.

The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework Ostrom, 1990, Ostrom, 1999 is a robust framework that has been used extensively to design policy experiments and empirically test theories and models linking institutions and the sustainability of common pool resource systems (Ostrom et al., 1994). The strength of the IAD framework is derived from its systematic theoretical focus on the impact of rules and norms on individual incentives in complex ecological–economic systems, its empirically oriented focus on outcomes (including the transaction costs of management) and by its accounting for dynamic system interactions at multiple tiers of analysis (Ostrom, 1999). To date, however, the IAD framework has not been used to organize indicators of sustainability.

In this paper, I present a modified IAD framework that transparently encompasses both the PSR and sustainable livelihoods frameworks, thus providing a platform for designing, monitoring and communicating the results of ecosystem-based fisheries management policy experiments. The framework encourages analysts to organize indicators to take full account of the ecological, social and institutional variables that influence and shape the incentives and behavior of individuals and organizations. Further, there is a clear differentiation between aggregate patterns of behavior (e.g., fishing effort), the impacts those behaviors have on capital assets (e.g., species depletion, rent capture) and the threats that those impacts pose to capital assets (based on societal goals and fishery management objectives). Finally, societal responses to threats to capital assets are clearly differentiated through the investment choices that various sectors of society (private, public and civil society organizations) make in response to those threats. Investments can be made in the capital assets themselves or in institutions that influence that shape human behavior. While this paper focuses on fisheries management, the modified IAD framework can be applied to other renewable resource systems.

Section snippets

The institutional analysis and development framework

The IAD framework was developed by scholars at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University Ostrom, 1990, Ostrom et al., 1994 as a multidisciplinary tool to frame policy research on public goods and common pool resources at multiple levels of analysis. It does this by facilitating the organization and analysis of specific policy problems, and by identifying the universal elements that policy researchers need to consider. It was originally used for studies of

Modified IAD framework for ecosystem-based fisheries management

It is useful to recast the IAD framework in terms that are more familiar to fisheries scientists and managers, and that are useful for developing specific indicators of sustainability. Given the historical emphasis of IAD research on the production and appropriation of common pool resources, a modification of the original IAD framework to specifically include capital assets is reasonable. In the following section, I outline the structure and features of a modified IAD framework (Fig. 3),

Concluding remarks

Successful implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management policies requires that managers consider multiple ecological and socioeconomic objectives in transdisciplinary policy experiments. A modified IAD framework encompasses both the structurally oriented sustainable livelihoods framework and the process-oriented PSR framework and is thus well-suited for designing and monitoring policy experiments because of its multilevel causal linkages and flexibility.

Causality is a key

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at a seminar at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Halifax, Nova Scotia and the Ocean Management Research Network national conference, Ottawa. I would like to thank Bob O'Boyle for a stimulating discussion that triggered the idea of using the IAD framework for monitoring, and Elinor Ostrom and three anonymous reviewers for providing valuable comments on the manuscript.

References (66)

  • M.A. Rudd

    Live long and prosper: collective action, social capital and social vision

    Ecological Economics

    (2000)
  • J.H. Spangenberg et al.

    Towards indicators for institutional sustainability: lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21

    Ecological Indicators

    (2002)
  • J. Allard et al.

    A strategy to detect fish discarding by combining onboard and onshore sampling

    Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

    (1997)
  • C. Ashley et al.

    Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from Early Experience

    (1999)
  • H. Bossel

    Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications

    (1999)
  • J.F. Caddy et al.

    Reference points for fisheries management

  • B. Campbell et al.

    Assessing the performance of natural resource systems

    Ecology and Conservation

    (2001)
  • T. Charles

    Sustainable Fishery Systems

    (2001)
  • J.S. Collie et al.

    Biological reference points for fish stocks in a multispecies context

    Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

    (2001)
  • R. Costanza et al.

    Principles of sustainable governance of the oceans

    Science

    (1998)
  • S.E.S. Crawford et al.

    A grammar of institutions

    American Political Science Review

    (1995)
  • P. Dalzell et al.

    Coastal fisheries in the Pacific Islands

    Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review

    (1996)
  • DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

    Strategic Plan: Moving Forward with Confidence and Credibility

    (2000)
  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization)

    Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries

    (1995)
  • S.M. Garcia

    The FAO definition of sustainable development and the code of conduct for responsible fisheries: an analysis of the related principles, criteria and indicators

    Marine and Freshwater Research

    (2000)
  • S.M. Garcia et al.

    Sustainability reference systems and indicators for responsible marine capture fisheries: a review of concepts and elements for a set of guidelines

    Marine and Freshwater Research

    (2000)
  • H. Gislason et al.

    Symposium overview: incorporating ecosystem objectives within fisheries management

    ICES Journal of Marine Science

    (2000)
  • C. Grootaert et al.

    Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Multidisciplinary Tool for Practitioners

    (2002)
  • A. Hammond et al.

    Environmental Indicators: A Systematic Approach to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance in the Context of Sustainable Development

    (1994)
  • T. Heikkila

    Institutional boundaries and common-pool resource management: a comparative analysis of water management agencies in California

  • Helliwell, J.F., 2001.The Contribution of Human and Social Capital to Sustained Economic Growth and Well-Being:...
  • G. Jamieson et al.
  • J. Kirkley et al.

    Skipper skill and panel data in fishing industries

    Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

    (1999)
  • Cited by (100)

    • An exploration of institutional approaches in pursuing sustainable development

      2022, Sustainable Production and Consumption
      Citation Excerpt :

      Grothmann et al., (2013) address climate change (3rd aim) and aspects of equity are addressed (1st aim) and Ostrom (2009) and McGinnis and Ostrom (2014) address equity, natural resources and environment (1st and 3rd aim). Rudd (2004), using the five capitals, sustainable livelihoods approach in conjunction with the IAD, address the second and third aims of sustainable development but not the first. Frameworks found to address all three aims were: Kolinjivadi et al., 2014, Kauko, 2012.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text