Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Sep 11;115(37):9065-9073. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1716545115. Epub 2018 Aug 23.

Moving beyond panaceas in fisheries governance.

Author information

1
Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5131.
2
Environmental Studies Program, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755-3577; d.g.webster@dartmouth.edu.
3
Environmental Studies Program, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755-3577.
4
Innovative Fisheries Management, Aalborg University, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark.
5
Nordic Institute for Asian Studies, University of Copenhagen, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark.
6
Centre for Innovation, University of the Faroe Islands, Tórshavn 100, Faroe Islands.
7
Stefansson Arctic Institute, 600 Akureyri, Iceland.
8
Department of Anthropology, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5773.
9
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706.
10
School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, United Kingdom.
11
College of Fisheries & Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Anchorage, AK 99501.
12
High North Department, Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research, 9296 Tromsø, Norway.
13
Norwegian College of Fishery Science, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, 9019 Tromsø, Norway.
14
Human Ecology, School of Environmental & Biological Sciences, Rutgers, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520.
15
Anthropology, University of Waikato, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand.
16
Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-6150.
17
Resource & Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada.
18
Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, 1001 NA Amsterdam.
19
Marine Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5741.
20
Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695.
21
Risk Analysis and Decision Science, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.

Abstract

In fisheries management-as in environmental governance more generally-regulatory arrangements that are thought to be helpful in some contexts frequently become panaceas or, in other words, simple formulaic policy prescriptions believed to solve a given problem in a wide range of contexts, regardless of their actual consequences. When this happens, management is likely to fail, and negative side effects are common. We focus on the case of individual transferable quotas to explore the panacea mindset, a set of factors that promote the spread and persistence of panaceas. These include conceptual narratives that make easy answers like panaceas seem plausible, power disconnects that create vested interests in panaceas, and heuristics and biases that prevent people from accurately assessing panaceas. Analysts have suggested many approaches to avoiding panaceas, but most fail to conquer the underlying panacea mindset. Here, we suggest the codevelopment of an institutional diagnostics toolkit to distill the vast amount of information on fisheries governance into an easily accessible, open, on-line database of checklists, case studies, and related resources. Toolkits like this could be used in many governance settings to challenge users' understandings of a policy's impacts and help them develop solutions better tailored to their particular context. They would not replace the more comprehensive approaches found in the literature but would rather be an intermediate step away from the problem of panaceas.

KEYWORDS:

fisheries; governance; individual transferable quotas; institutional diagnostics; panacea mindset

PMID:
30139919
PMCID:
PMC6140477
[Available on 2019-03-11]
DOI:
10.1073/pnas.1716545115

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire
Loading ...
Support Center