- Email: [email protected]
Fisheries as learning systems: Interactive learning as the basis for improved decision making
Fisheries Research 127–128 (2012) 182–187
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Fisheries Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fishres
Review
Fisheries as learning systems: Interactive learning as the basis for improved decision making Angus Garrett a,∗ , Phil MacMullen a , David Symes b a b
Sea Fish Industry Authority, United Kingdom University of Hull, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 26 July 2011 Received in revised form 19 January 2012 Accepted 24 January 2012 Keywords: Fisheries governance Decision making Interactive learning Learning cycle Stakeholder forums
a b s t r a c t Calls for the increasing involvement of the industry in the governance of fisheries come at a time when fishermen feel estranged from the decision making process and confidence in the outcomes of policy making is low. Against the background of changing perspectives on fisheries management and an increasing emphasis on interactive learning as a social process, this paper examines the role of stakeholder forums in stimulating shared understanding of the issues confronting a range of stakeholders. Using four case studies from the UK, the analysis suggests that while interactive learning is almost always beneficial in terms of promoting better understanding, the achievement of tangible outcomes is likely to depend on duration of the exercise, the extent to which relations are close knit or at arms length, together with success in closing the gap between the early stages of reflection and the emergence of a shared forward vision. © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changing perspectives on fisheries management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Creating an interactive learning environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interactive stakeholder forums: experiences from the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learning the lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction Increasing emphasis is being placed on the need to increase the involvement of the fishing industry in both the formulation and implementation of fisheries policy. Different forms of participation are being encouraged from fisheries science partnerships (Mackinson et al., 2011), to interactive governance (Kooiman et al., 2005) and objectives led management (Lassen et al., 2008). These new approaches serve a number of objectives: relieving central administration of responsibility for micromanaging a range of complex fisheries; giving fishermen a greater sense of ownership of the management process and therefore a stronger commitment to, and compliance with, the regulatory framework; and reversing the
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 131 524 8697. E-mail addresses: a garrett@seafish.co.uk, [email protected] (A. Garrett). 0165-7836/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2012.01.014
182 183 183 184 185 187 187 187
burden of proof whereby the industry rather than fisheries science and/or the administration assumes responsibility for demonstrating that the proposed fishing activity is sustainable. In the European Union, the move to a new approach in fisheries policy (Commission, 2009) comes at a time when the industry’s support for the overall process is at a very low ebb. Centralised government with top-down delivery of policy decisions has marginalised the fishermen. A managerial legacy that privileges information generation and decision making over sense making and shared understanding undermines collaboration between stakeholders and the administration. This, coupled with a lack of transparency throughout the policy process and a sense that the regulatory framework is becoming unworkable and unenforceable, has fuelled the industry’s growing hostility towards the Common Fisheries Policy (Sissenwine and Symes, 2007). Crucially, for a science led policy, the industry is losing confidence in the system of stock assessment. Fishermen’s representatives are becoming more
A. Garrett et al. / Fisheries Research 127–128 (2012) 182–187
knowledgeable about the science and its shortcomings, particularly the nature of the assessment and the time lags between the evidence and the advice. The fishermen are increasingly aware of the perceived contradictions between the estimated abundance of fishable stocks and the fisherman’s own observations while fishing, an awareness that is heightened by the level of discards needed to satisfy the regulations. This is scarcely the ideal situation in which to nurture participatory governance and increasing self-management. The growing disconnect between management and stakeholders hinders shared understanding of the issues, instruments and performance of fisheries in general. As a consequence management decisions are only partially informed. It will be imperative to improve the learning environments for individual fishermen and those groups that may become involved in developing fisheries plans in order to promote greater understanding of the complex systems that encompass the fisheries. This will also help to engender mutual respect among all actors involved in fisheries management. As a contribution to improving the learning environment, this paper considers one widely used learning medium – the interactive stakeholder forum. Most forums are established ad hoc, concentrate on a single issue and have a fairly limited lifespan. Others may acquire a more permanent existence and become a regular reference group used repeatedly as a source of advice and feedback. We begin by reviewing the nature of fisheries as a complex system and source of so-called ‘wicked problems’, the solution of which requires an approach to management that focuses on stakeholder participation and interactive governance. This is followed by an examination of the changing nature of the learning environment and the concept of interactive learning. The substance of the argument is presented in an evaluation of four UK case studies of learning experience from which, in the concluding sections, we attempt to identify the key lessons to be learned.
2. Changing perspectives on fisheries management Fisheries are highly complex systems. In marked contrast to the view of marine ecosystems as essentially well ordered and tending towards a state of equilibrium that prevailed some 35 years ago, they are now seen as non-linear and unpredictable, prone to turbulence and chaotic behaviour but capable of self-organising, adaptive response and resilience (Berkes, 2010). Fisheries are therefore no longer to be considered as relatively stable, closed systems. Indeed they are increasingly exposed to external effects (pollution, globalisation, oil price rises, technology transfers etc.) and enveloped within what Beck (1999) called the ‘world risk society’. Increasing awareness of the intrinsically complex, diverse and dynamic nature of fishery systems has prompted a reappraisal of the nature of the problems faced by fisheries management and the implications for their solution. Jentoft and Chuenpagdee (2009:553) have described the issues confronting fisheries as wicked problems ‘difficult to define and delineate from other and bigger problems . . . [and which cannot be] . . . solved once and for all but pose a constant challenge’. Unlike so-called ‘tame problems’ that are clearly defined, easily diagnosed and immediately treatable through technical solutions, wicked problems are not so easily cured. As the perceived nature of wicked problems tends to vary according to the perspectives of the different actors involved, the choice of treatment is more complex and compromise solutions may need to be found. For all their seemingly enigmatic properties, wicked problems are highly specific, arising out of circumstances that are unique both in time and space (Allen and Gould, 1986). Although the symptoms may appear similar from one location to another, the underlying conditions that give rise to the problem are likely to be significantly
183
different. In treating only the symptoms there is a real risk of aggravating the underlying conditions. Defining the problem therefore becomes crucial and can only be achieved through a structured discourse involving all relevant actors. One further consequence of the complexity and open nature of fishery systems is that the number of actors involved – each with different perspectives on the nature of the problem – is potentially quite large. The classic command and control model of fisheries policy, underpinned by a reductionist and positivist science which assumed the world to be predictable and controllable, and reliant on the technical expertise of a managerial elite (Berkes, 2010) is no longer appropriate. Unlike the traditional cause and effect approach where information is gathered in advance and consequences of decisions are predicted in order to identify the ‘right’ decision, complex systems demand an experimental or adaptive approach (Kay and Regier, 2000; Burnes, 2004). The new approach also seeks to bridge the gap between managers and stakeholders. Emphasis is placed on achieving greater equality and more creative relationships between management and industry through ‘interactive governance’ (Kooiman et al., 2005), involving partnership building, the pooling of knowledge and experience and interactive learning.
3. Creating an interactive learning environment One of the major challenges arising from these changing perspectives lies in managing the diverse information streams and facilitating meaningful knowledge exchange that will help to create a more balanced understanding of the issues, possible solutions and potential outcomes of fisheries management across the range of actors involved in the management discourse. A particular concern is ensuring that professional fishermen are able to play a more active role than hitherto. Difficulty in reconciling the product of two distinct knowledge systems – fisheries science and fishermen’s ‘local ecological knowledge’ (see, for example, Haggan et al., 2007; Daw, 2008) – has contributed to the marginalisation of the industry within the policy process, though a third more recent policy knowledge system based on industry generated, fishery dependent information could help bridge the gap. Professional fishermen, especially selfemployed skipper owners, are placed at a disadvantage in terms of the commitment of time, energy and resource to attending regular meetings. It is often left to others to stand proxy for the fishermen. Most commonly it is the paid officials of the fishermen’s professional organisations, many of whom have no direct experience of ‘living the fishing’, that represent the fishermen’s views. Recent developments in learning theory provide useful indicators of how a more interactive learning environment for those involved in fisheries might be developed. According to EasterbySmith et al. (2000) a radical change in the way learning and development is conceptualised has occurred, shifting the emphasis towards learning as a result of social interaction, in which knowing and understanding are constructed through practice and experience. This shift has brought into clear focus the importance of groups, the systems in which groups interact and the process which enables collective or social learning. At a practical level there has been growing interest in social learning as a means of generating knowledge and building capacity, as for example in handling complex environmental problems at community level (Kilvington, 2007; Manring, 2007). In group interactions, learning theory highlights reflection and action as two dialectical processes for transforming experience (Bradbury and Mainemelis, 2001), where reflection is the inward process of observation, sense making and analysis, and action the outward process of goal setting, planning and implementation. Dialogue is the means of stimulating these two processes.
184
A. Garrett et al. / Fisheries Research 127–128 (2012) 182–187
Reflection, action and dialogue are key components in the learning cycle. Reflection provides the opportunity for synthesising available knowledge to produce a shared awareness and understanding of different experiences in the evolving situation which, in turn, is fed back to inform action. At the heart of reflection is sense making. This involves a continuous process of reorganising, interpreting and integrating different forms of information from a widening range of sources so as to create a coherent consensual view of the overall situation (Weick et al., 2005). Sense making may therefore lead to a realisation that what may initially appear to one group of stakeholders as a simple or tame issue, when refracted through the lens of other stakeholder perceptions emerges as a more complex wicked problem. Action concerns the capability of stakeholders to identify and undertake practical measures to resolve common issues. Such capability involves building a shared view that underpins an agreed commitment to goal setting, planning and delivery. As Jentoft and Chuenpagdee (2009, p. 559) assert ‘the process of wicked problem solving as an inquiry starts with the questioning of experience and when answers have been found ends by again engaging experience’. For this to happen, social learning needs to be stimulated at all levels to culminate in institutional learning and the weakening of inertial forces that impede transformational change. In fisheries the potential landscapes of interactive learning can be mapped as a set of partially nested systems occurring at different scales but operating, to some degree, in contexts shaped partly by the larger systems. At the micro-level, that of the local occupational community, learning takes place through everyday interactions with the immediate marine environment and through contact with others holding common values forged through shared experiences. At the meso-level, regular interaction and the sharing of information occurs across a range of actors in the seafood industry with a common interest in the product of fishing but distinguished by differing roles and, in all likelihood, alternative and possibly conflicting goals, values and world views (e.g. fishermen, merchants, processors and retailers in the seafood chain). Finally, at the macro-level concerned with wider issues of fisheries governance, less frequent but vital discourse takes place between actors with sharply contrasting experience, knowledge, roles and values, including representatives of industry, science, administration and marine environmental conservation. It is at this level that the discourse (and interactive learning) will most likely involve senior executives from the different interest groups rather than the practitioners themselves. 4. Interactive stakeholder forums: experiences from the UK The opening decade of the 21st century has been a difficult one for Europe’s fishing industries. Reduced fishing opportunities, rising fuel prices and increasing pressure from conservation organisations, retailers and consumers over issues of sustainable fishing practice are among the challenges faced. Both government and industry were caught out by the severity of these challenges and inadequate levels of understanding of the issues involved. In their response, governments sought to consult more widely with stakeholders. In Scotland, the Scottish Fisheries Council – established in 2008 and comprising representatives from the seafood industry, conservation interests and the government’s administrative and scientific divisions – meets quarterly to inform government on a range of fishery issues, using a sub-committee structure to monitor specific sectors and/or recurring themes in the policy discourse. The Council can be seen as an institutionalised form of macro-level interactive learning but one which is largely inaccessible to working fishermen. Providing opportunities for interactive learning at lower levels is more difficult. Interest groups, such as non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) may organise open events around a particular theme or issue, but their primary purpose is usually to get a message across rather than sponsor a balanced exchange of information and understanding between different actors. The problem lies in finding a suitably neutral intermediary, respected by all parties and with the resources, organisational skills and experience in facilitating the exchange of information, knowledge and opinion. The four case studies analysed below describe stakeholder forums where the UK’s Sea Fish Industry Authority (Seafish), an industry funded body providing commercial, technical and training support to all parts of the UK seafood industry, was involved in an organising or facilitating capacity. They cover a range of situations from a problem facing the catching sector as a whole to issues relating to specific sectors or to the need for joined up thinking throughout the seafood industry. Significantly, the need for shared understanding between industry, administration and conservation interests is a prominent feature in three out of the four examples discussed. Our investigation is essentially a reflective exercise, reliant on information provided through interviews with the facilitators, initially to gain an overview of the aims, membership and outputs of the forums and subsequently to deepen our understanding of the process involved. The first example, Profitable Futures for Fishing, is the most recent, and shortest lived (12 months). Initiated in mid 2008 by government and industry representatives as a consequence of rising fuel prices, it was specifically intended to provide insights on, and potential improvements to, vessel profitability in the Scottish fleet in the form of a report for a Fuel Task Force set up by the Scottish Fisheries Council. Taking a broad approach, a series of 8 parallel workshops were held throughout Scotland. With guidance from the steering group members, targeted invitations were sent to industry leaders, vessel owners and agents, scientists and administrators. Attendees were mostly fishermen together with other stakeholders. Each workshop, provided a discrete opportunity for stakeholders to have a facilitated discussion about the issue, lasting over a 4–5 h period. The workshops followed a set pattern with initial presentations, breakout groups charged with identifying good and bad practice as a consequence of rising fuel costs and creating a future vision of the industry in a high fuel cost scenario. Internally, the workshops provided the opportunity for a frank exchange of views that was welcomed especially by those fishermen who had no previous experience of a stakeholder forum. Whilst there was little reluctance to speak on the issue generally, participants were less inclined to discuss the issue in the context of their own businesses. There was, therefore, reluctance among some industry representatives to acknowledge that part of the solution to the problem lay within their control and a scepticism that the workshops would serve any practical benefit. Their fears proved well founded as the project, and its findings, were overtaken by a broader initiative presented to the Scottish Fisheries Council in 2010 in the form of a ‘four pillar plan’ for the industry’s future. By contrast, the second and third examples refer to specific sectors of the industry which had come under the spotlight of specific, and targeted, marine conservation concerns over environmentally unsustainable fishing. In the case of the Skates and Rays Group established in 2006, and still operating at the time of this review, the immediate catalyst was the response of multiple retail organisations to direct action by Greenpeace. The reaction of some multiples in banning the sale of skates and rays caused shock waves throughout the fish supply chain. It led industry businesses directly affected by the issue to establish a skates and rays producers association which approached Seafish for assistance in facilitating discussion across the range of stakeholders. A workshop was organised in April 2006 to bring together a range of stakeholders. Known contacts in various conservation agencies
A. Garrett et al. / Fisheries Research 127–128 (2012) 182–187
and NGOs were approached by email along with selected retail companies, scientists, managers and working fishermen. With the exception of one stakeholder who was reluctant to discuss the issue fully and departed early, the engagement of stakeholders remained fairly consistent over a number of facilitated discussions and increased substantially from around 10 to 30 in the latter stages. The outcome of the discussions was an enhanced understanding of the different situations facing particular species of skates and rays in UK waters through improved sources of information. In detail, a database was inaugurated to provide up to date trade information, an identification guide was produced to assist fishermen, and the processors were able to offer customers clear information on their sourcing practices. But for the intervention of the Skates and Rays Group, the actions of Greenpeace and the retailers’ response could well have resulted in the closure of markets for directed fisheries taking place off the south and east coasts of England. The group continues to meet to discuss issues relevant to the management of skates and ray fisheries in the UK. The high earning scallop industry was also coming under the threat of action to prevent access to some of the most productive UK inshore fishing grounds through the designation of marine protected areas (MPAs). Voluntary closed areas had been introduced in the Lorne and Luce Bays (Scotland), Cardigan Bay (Wales) and the Fal and Lyme Bay (England) but the risks from breaches of the agreements had led to statutory closures being imposed in the Cardigan and Lyme Bay areas. Led by the Scallop Association, specific individuals were approached to build a group of industry and other stakeholders. As a result the UK Scallop Group was formed in 2008. The group comprised a diverse range of national and regional stakeholder organisations including statutory nature conservation agencies, voluntary wildlife trusts, representatives from Defra and the devolved administrations, together with processors, retailers and scallop fishermen. Its aim was to counter the negative publicity surrounding the industry and moderate proposals to prevent access to scallop grounds through a reasoned examination of the evidence for unsustainable fishing practice. The group, still active at the time of this review, has met on several occasions with numbers attending ranging between 30 and 40. These facilitated discussions led to some early achievements, notably the drawing up of a draft code of conduct and the preparation of carefully coordinated evidence on local MPA proposals to safeguard fishing practices. This initial work has led to a focus on related issues and the development of a draft action plan for the UK scallop industry that will require further debate and buy-in. A by-product of the group’s activity was the piloting of new, lighter and more durable gear that it was hoped would reduce habitat damage, improve catch quality and cut fuel consumption. Although initial attention was focused on particular issues the agenda has broadened out considerably and evidence of the take-up of these more recent initiatives are awaited. The final example – the Common Language Group – was also a response to highly critical scrutiny of the seafood industry by the conservation lobby, the initial focus of which was the use of evidence, on discard levels for example. The group sought to achieve a common position across the industry and create a basis for shared understanding with conservation interests through accurate, up to date and appropriate information. The target population was, however, rather different. Instead of engaging with working fishermen, it sought to facilitate discussion and build a consensus among those most likely to influence decision making within their own organisations. The initial meeting of this group in 2005 involved NGOs and leading processors in Hull and Grimsby directly affected by the issue and was brokered by Seafish. Since that time the original membership of the Common Language Group has remained fairly consistent and has snowballed to include around 40 senior personnel from a range of different stakeholder groups; major
185
processing and retailing companies, national conservation organisations (WWF, Greenpeace, Marine Conservation Society and the Marine Stewardship Council), the national federations of fishermen’s organisations and the government departments. Despite reluctance from some stakeholders to have their positions peerreviewed, over time confidence has increased, participants have ‘opened up’ and extreme positions ‘contained’. At the time of this review, the Common Language Group has evolved to become, in essence, a reputation building exercise for the seafood industry, hoping to restore public confidence by reducing levels of dissonance arising from the use of different and sometimes misleading information sources. Using a supply chain approach to issues affecting the industry’s status, it has been successful in achieving positive feedbacks within the seafood industry, as well as improving the level of information to the consumer. One of the main outputs has been the publication of 25 Responsible Fishing Guides in respect of key species on the UK and export markets, and available to processors, retailers, the media and the public. In all four cases, participants responded positively to the opportunities afforded by stakeholder forums. Although the original terms of reference for each of the forums was drawn up by ‘professionals’ (civil servants, representative organisations or the facilitators) and the initial intake of members selected through closed invitation, most groups showed a willingness to broaden their membership and embrace new challenges during the forums lifetime. Table 1 presents the outcomes by June 2010 of the four case studies in relation to the three key processes in the learning cycle – reflection, dialogue and action. Under each of these processes a number of characteristics have been identified: in the case of reflection, the two characteristics are clarity of the issue under discussion and the level of knowledge and information available to the participants. Dialogue is characterised by the frequency of meetings (whether restricted to a single workshop or continued over a series of meetings), the range of stakeholders attending and the extent to which working fishermen were involved. Finally, under action consideration is given to the achievement of common understanding among the participants, feedback on outcomes, and the extent to which actions were taken. It should be noted that the scoring of the case studies (strong, moderate or weak) was based on evidence provided retrospectively by the forum facilitators and may be considered highly subjective.
5. Learning the lessons While acknowledging that it can be both difficult and dangerous to draw firm conclusions from such a small number of case studies, we believe there are some useful lessons to be learned from this simple exercise. Overall, the desired outcome from interactive learning is better decision making and well informed actions resulting from a thorough and balanced assessment of all relevant issues. The ability to deliver such outcomes derives from the opportunity for stakeholders to engage in dialogue, reflection, a shared vision and a process of collective decision making. All four case studies share certain similarities in respect of the opportunity for dialogue. At one end of the scale, Profitable Futures provided for a number of working fishermen the novel experience of meeting with other stakeholders, developing a basic understanding of their viewpoints and, to a lesser extent, a realisation that each had a role to play in achieving a positive outcome. For many attending the workshops the experience was an ‘eye opener’. On another level, the Skates and Rays and Scallop Groups brought together – again in many cases for the first time – people engaged in different sectors of the fish distribution chain that helped to create a deeper understanding of their complementary roles, concerns and capacities for action. In particular, it enabled the catching sector to adopt
186
A. Garrett et al. / Fisheries Research 127–128 (2012) 182–187
Table 1 Characteristics of case study approaches – emerging themes in case studies. Case
Profitable Futures for Fishing Scallop Group Skates and Rays Common Language Group
Reflection
Dialogue and interaction
Issue
Exploration
Dialogue
√√ √√√ √√√ √√√
√√ √√ √√√ √√√
√ √√ √√√ √√√
Stakeholder mix √√ √√√ √√√ √√√
Action Engagement of fishermen √√√ √√√ √√√ √
Feedback √ √√ √√√ √√√
Common understanding √ √√ √√√ √√√
Practical action √ √√ √√√ √√√
A
a more positive relationship with the multiple retail organisations and consider them as potential allies in the quest for sustainable fisheries. But there were also some important contrasts. Perhaps the most significant relates to the duration of the interactive learning and its implications for the strength of relationships between the different stakeholders and the evolving capacity for sense making and collective action. Those groups with longer lifespans proved the more likely to generate practical results as a response to the prolonged interaction, growing mutual trust and expanding networks of collaboration, as in the case of the Skates and Rays and Common Language Groups. In both cases it was acknowledged that it took several meetings to gain confidence and get people to really open up. Not only were those groups able to deliver tangible benefits in respect of the original issue but the stronger, more permanent relationships allowed them to develop higher problem solving capabilities reaching well beyond the circumstances of the original issue. Both groups remain in being today. Another feature to emerge from a comparison of the four case studies is the distinction between ‘close knit’ and ‘arms length’ relationships (Fig. 1) which influences the level of engagement of the stakeholder in the learning cycle. The engagement of working fishermen varies according to the proximity of the issue to their own livelihoods and the extent to which they believe their own actions can influence the outcomes. Although, in the case of Profitable Futures, the fishermen were highly motivated by the issue of rising fuel costs, they appeared relatively disengaged from the problem solving process. Close knit groups, like Skates and Rays and Common Language, which are not only directly affected by the issue but believe in their ability to influence the outcome, appear better
able to make sense of, and respond to, the issues and demonstrate progress through feedback to the participants. The degree of engagement may also reflect the type of learning taking place. Those groups with limited objectives, weaker engagement and shorter lifespans (Profitable Futures; Scallops) appear to be involved in a simple technical learning process. By contrast, the closer knit groups with a longer history seem closer to a complex, possibly reflexive, learning process which would allow the participants to reformulate the goals, redefine the underlying values and respecify the causal relationships of the issue (Nye, 1987) in ways more suitable to dealing with wicked problems. While this is perhaps overstating the achievements of the Common Language and Skates and Rays Groups, a more reflexive mode of learning has certainly permitted the development of a much stronger common vision and a focus on practical action. In the foregoing assessment a distinction emerges between the ‘more successful’ close engagement of participants where momentum is maintained through a focus on outcomes and the ‘less successful’ examples of arms’ length engagement focused on reporting. In the latter, reflection was passive rather than creative and tangible outputs were never considered as part of the exercise or simply not pursued with sufficient vigour. What we believe is critical to this distinction is closing the initial gap in the learning cycle between the early stages of reflection and the emergence of a shared forward vision as a prerequisite for consensual action. This appears to be more difficult in cases where the boundaries of the issue are drawn too tightly and/or where the time scale allowed is too short. These constraints will limit the participants’ field of vision and the scope for reflection and action. It also makes it more likely that the issue under consideration will be treated as a ‘tame problem’ that can be fixed by simple technical solutions.
Arms length
Case 4 Common Language Group
Engagement with fishermen
Case 1 Profitable futures
Case 3 Skates & Rays Group
Case 2 Scallop
Close knit
Close knit
Arms length
Engagement with other stakeholders Fig. 1. Comparing and contrasting cases by degree of engagement with fishermen and other stakeholders. (Description – this illustration shows the thickness of relationships in each of the four case studies.)
A. Garrett et al. / Fisheries Research 127–128 (2012) 182–187
Closing the gap can be facilitated and the learning cycle accelerated by controlled flows of relevant information and by the presence of key stakeholders – practitioners ‘on top of their game’ or experts with appropriate specialist knowledge. Such experts can assist in synthesising the early phases of the dialogue, maintain the focus on outcomes and ensure a more rapid feedback that will help sense making and building the shared vision. However, care may be needed in ensuring that ‘expert opinion’ does not overshadow the contributions of other participants. Where such assistance is lacking, sense making and feedback will inevitably be hampered and the learning cycle will become more protracted and run a higher risk of becoming incomplete. 6. Conclusions Using a learning systems perspective allows us to portray interactive learning as a social process taking place in an environment that requires certain infrastructural investments in order to deliver successful outcomes. These essential investments include effective organisation; an active network of participants; appropriate sources of knowledge and information, including expert advice; assured channels of communication and feedback; and an adequate time frame in which to develop dialogue, reflection and action. In future the science and practice of fisheries management will need to take far greater account of stakeholder knowledge and experience. The present paper provides an indication of the potential of interactive learning, in the form of stakeholder forums, as a mechanism for realising the benefits of stakeholder participation. In particular we would draw attention to the benefits that accrue from an open ended process of engagement with stakeholders in an interactive learning environment, most notably in developing shared forward visions and generating outputs of direct value to the wider seafood chain. This finding may appear to run counter to the perceived efficiency gains from applying stricter remits and tighter timelines to stakeholder forums. The difference may well be explained by reference to the nature of the issue under discussion. If we are to develop an effective community of practice, with interactive learning at its core, we will need to deepen our understanding of the processes involved – the role of leadership, group dynamics and knowledge transfer inter alia – and to experiment with different formats. The demand for interactive learning will increase significantly at local, regional, national and international scales as new supply or market driven issues emerge and new forms of fisheries governance take hold. This is all the more pressing given the growing concern over sustainable production, consumption and food security. Those involved will vary according to the nature of the issue and the scale on which it occurs. At the local level, for example, working fishermen are increasingly likely to become involved in issues concerning the management of inshore fisheries and the wider maritime economy as pressures from conservation interests, renewable energy and marine spatial planning make their impacts. To participate fully in these activities, fishermen will need to understand their own local systems, identify hotspots, fill in gaps in their knowledge of the demands placed on the local ecosystem by non-fishing activities and finally build an appreciation of the overall situation. This can best be achieved through the processes of interactive learning. On a higher scale, fishermen’s representatives and other stakeholders will need to familiarise themselves with similar learning routines if they are to make a success of the regional management of fisheries and the wider marine environment. The processes of interactive learning will need to diffuse throughout the hierarchy of fisheries governance to ensure that it is not just the stakeholders that benefit from the learning process but the very institutions of governance as well.
Assessment √√√ √√ √ Definition of characteristics Issue Exploration Dialogue Stakeholder mix Engagement of fishermen Feedback Common understanding
Practical action
187
Strong Moderate Weak Complexity and severity of issue(s) Scope and thoroughness of knowledge and information gathering Frequency of meetings (single workshop or series) Range and diversity of stakeholders involved Extent to which working fishermen are involved Detailed feedback of outcomes to stakeholders Achievement of common understanding and shared vision amongst stakeholders Extent to which substantive action flows from agreed stakeholder initiatives
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Hazel Curtis, Mark Gray, Jon Harman and Bill Lart (Seafish), Jennifer Russell (Anderson Solutions), Jeremy Phillipson (Newcastle University) and Duncan Shaw (Aston University) for their constructive comments on earlier versions of the paper. References Allen, G.M., Gould, E.M., 1986. Complexity, wickedness and public forests. Journal of Forestry 84, 20–23. Beck, U., 1999. World Risk Society. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Berkes, F., 2010. Shifting perspectives on resource management: resilience and the reconceptualisation of ‘natural resources’ and ‘management’. Maritime Studies 9, 13–40. Bradbury, H., Mainemelis, C., 2001. Learning history and organizational praxis. Journal of Management Inquiry 10, 340–357. Burnes, B., 2004. Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: back to the future? Journal of Change Management 4, 309–325. Commission of the European Communities, 2009. Green Paper: Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. COM (2009) 163 Final. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium. Daw, T.M., 2008. How fishers count: engaging fishers’ knowledge in fisheries science and management. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., Nicolini, D., 2000. Organizational learning: debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies 37, 783–796. Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., 2009. Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Marine Policy 33, 553–560. Haggan, N., Neis, G., Baird, I.G. (Eds.), 2007. Fishers’ Knowledge in Fisheries Science and Management. UNESCO, Paris, France. Kay, J., Regier, H., 2000. Uncertainty, complexity, and ecological integrity: insight from an ecosystem approach. In: Crabbe, P., Holland, A., Ryszkowski, L., Westra, L. (Eds.), Implementing Ecological Integrity: Restoring Regional and Global Environmental and Human Health. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Kilvington, M., 2007. Social Learning as a Framework for Building Capacity to Work on Complex Environmental, Management Problems. Landscape Research, New Zealand, http://www.landscaperesearch.co.nz/publications/researchpubs/ Social learning review pdf. Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., Pullin, R. (Eds.), 2005. Fish for Life: Interactive Governance of Fisheries. University of Amsterdam Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Lassen, H., Sissenwine, M., Symes, D., Thulin, J., 2008. Reversing the Burden of Proof for Fisheries Management: Managing Commercial Fisheries Within Sustainable Limits. ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark. Mackinson, S., Wilson, D.C., Galiay, P., Deas, B., 2011. Engaging stakeholders in fisheries and marine research. Marine Policy 35, 18–34. Manring, S., 2007. Creating and managing interorganizational learning networks to achieve sustainable ecosystem management. Organization and Environment 20, 325–346. Nye, J.S., 1987. Nuclear learning and US-Soviet regimes. International Organization 41, 371–402. Sissenwine, M., Symes, D., 2007. Reflections on the Common Fisheries Policy, Report to the General Directorate for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K., Obstfeld, D., 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science 16, 409–421.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Fisheries Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fishres
Review
Fisheries as learning systems: Interactive learning as the basis for improved decision making Angus Garrett a,∗ , Phil MacMullen a , David Symes b a b
Sea Fish Industry Authority, United Kingdom University of Hull, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 26 July 2011 Received in revised form 19 January 2012 Accepted 24 January 2012 Keywords: Fisheries governance Decision making Interactive learning Learning cycle Stakeholder forums
a b s t r a c t Calls for the increasing involvement of the industry in the governance of fisheries come at a time when fishermen feel estranged from the decision making process and confidence in the outcomes of policy making is low. Against the background of changing perspectives on fisheries management and an increasing emphasis on interactive learning as a social process, this paper examines the role of stakeholder forums in stimulating shared understanding of the issues confronting a range of stakeholders. Using four case studies from the UK, the analysis suggests that while interactive learning is almost always beneficial in terms of promoting better understanding, the achievement of tangible outcomes is likely to depend on duration of the exercise, the extent to which relations are close knit or at arms length, together with success in closing the gap between the early stages of reflection and the emergence of a shared forward vision. © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changing perspectives on fisheries management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Creating an interactive learning environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interactive stakeholder forums: experiences from the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learning the lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction Increasing emphasis is being placed on the need to increase the involvement of the fishing industry in both the formulation and implementation of fisheries policy. Different forms of participation are being encouraged from fisheries science partnerships (Mackinson et al., 2011), to interactive governance (Kooiman et al., 2005) and objectives led management (Lassen et al., 2008). These new approaches serve a number of objectives: relieving central administration of responsibility for micromanaging a range of complex fisheries; giving fishermen a greater sense of ownership of the management process and therefore a stronger commitment to, and compliance with, the regulatory framework; and reversing the
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 131 524 8697. E-mail addresses: a garrett@seafish.co.uk, [email protected] (A. Garrett). 0165-7836/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2012.01.014
182 183 183 184 185 187 187 187
burden of proof whereby the industry rather than fisheries science and/or the administration assumes responsibility for demonstrating that the proposed fishing activity is sustainable. In the European Union, the move to a new approach in fisheries policy (Commission, 2009) comes at a time when the industry’s support for the overall process is at a very low ebb. Centralised government with top-down delivery of policy decisions has marginalised the fishermen. A managerial legacy that privileges information generation and decision making over sense making and shared understanding undermines collaboration between stakeholders and the administration. This, coupled with a lack of transparency throughout the policy process and a sense that the regulatory framework is becoming unworkable and unenforceable, has fuelled the industry’s growing hostility towards the Common Fisheries Policy (Sissenwine and Symes, 2007). Crucially, for a science led policy, the industry is losing confidence in the system of stock assessment. Fishermen’s representatives are becoming more
A. Garrett et al. / Fisheries Research 127–128 (2012) 182–187
knowledgeable about the science and its shortcomings, particularly the nature of the assessment and the time lags between the evidence and the advice. The fishermen are increasingly aware of the perceived contradictions between the estimated abundance of fishable stocks and the fisherman’s own observations while fishing, an awareness that is heightened by the level of discards needed to satisfy the regulations. This is scarcely the ideal situation in which to nurture participatory governance and increasing self-management. The growing disconnect between management and stakeholders hinders shared understanding of the issues, instruments and performance of fisheries in general. As a consequence management decisions are only partially informed. It will be imperative to improve the learning environments for individual fishermen and those groups that may become involved in developing fisheries plans in order to promote greater understanding of the complex systems that encompass the fisheries. This will also help to engender mutual respect among all actors involved in fisheries management. As a contribution to improving the learning environment, this paper considers one widely used learning medium – the interactive stakeholder forum. Most forums are established ad hoc, concentrate on a single issue and have a fairly limited lifespan. Others may acquire a more permanent existence and become a regular reference group used repeatedly as a source of advice and feedback. We begin by reviewing the nature of fisheries as a complex system and source of so-called ‘wicked problems’, the solution of which requires an approach to management that focuses on stakeholder participation and interactive governance. This is followed by an examination of the changing nature of the learning environment and the concept of interactive learning. The substance of the argument is presented in an evaluation of four UK case studies of learning experience from which, in the concluding sections, we attempt to identify the key lessons to be learned.
2. Changing perspectives on fisheries management Fisheries are highly complex systems. In marked contrast to the view of marine ecosystems as essentially well ordered and tending towards a state of equilibrium that prevailed some 35 years ago, they are now seen as non-linear and unpredictable, prone to turbulence and chaotic behaviour but capable of self-organising, adaptive response and resilience (Berkes, 2010). Fisheries are therefore no longer to be considered as relatively stable, closed systems. Indeed they are increasingly exposed to external effects (pollution, globalisation, oil price rises, technology transfers etc.) and enveloped within what Beck (1999) called the ‘world risk society’. Increasing awareness of the intrinsically complex, diverse and dynamic nature of fishery systems has prompted a reappraisal of the nature of the problems faced by fisheries management and the implications for their solution. Jentoft and Chuenpagdee (2009:553) have described the issues confronting fisheries as wicked problems ‘difficult to define and delineate from other and bigger problems . . . [and which cannot be] . . . solved once and for all but pose a constant challenge’. Unlike so-called ‘tame problems’ that are clearly defined, easily diagnosed and immediately treatable through technical solutions, wicked problems are not so easily cured. As the perceived nature of wicked problems tends to vary according to the perspectives of the different actors involved, the choice of treatment is more complex and compromise solutions may need to be found. For all their seemingly enigmatic properties, wicked problems are highly specific, arising out of circumstances that are unique both in time and space (Allen and Gould, 1986). Although the symptoms may appear similar from one location to another, the underlying conditions that give rise to the problem are likely to be significantly
183
different. In treating only the symptoms there is a real risk of aggravating the underlying conditions. Defining the problem therefore becomes crucial and can only be achieved through a structured discourse involving all relevant actors. One further consequence of the complexity and open nature of fishery systems is that the number of actors involved – each with different perspectives on the nature of the problem – is potentially quite large. The classic command and control model of fisheries policy, underpinned by a reductionist and positivist science which assumed the world to be predictable and controllable, and reliant on the technical expertise of a managerial elite (Berkes, 2010) is no longer appropriate. Unlike the traditional cause and effect approach where information is gathered in advance and consequences of decisions are predicted in order to identify the ‘right’ decision, complex systems demand an experimental or adaptive approach (Kay and Regier, 2000; Burnes, 2004). The new approach also seeks to bridge the gap between managers and stakeholders. Emphasis is placed on achieving greater equality and more creative relationships between management and industry through ‘interactive governance’ (Kooiman et al., 2005), involving partnership building, the pooling of knowledge and experience and interactive learning.
3. Creating an interactive learning environment One of the major challenges arising from these changing perspectives lies in managing the diverse information streams and facilitating meaningful knowledge exchange that will help to create a more balanced understanding of the issues, possible solutions and potential outcomes of fisheries management across the range of actors involved in the management discourse. A particular concern is ensuring that professional fishermen are able to play a more active role than hitherto. Difficulty in reconciling the product of two distinct knowledge systems – fisheries science and fishermen’s ‘local ecological knowledge’ (see, for example, Haggan et al., 2007; Daw, 2008) – has contributed to the marginalisation of the industry within the policy process, though a third more recent policy knowledge system based on industry generated, fishery dependent information could help bridge the gap. Professional fishermen, especially selfemployed skipper owners, are placed at a disadvantage in terms of the commitment of time, energy and resource to attending regular meetings. It is often left to others to stand proxy for the fishermen. Most commonly it is the paid officials of the fishermen’s professional organisations, many of whom have no direct experience of ‘living the fishing’, that represent the fishermen’s views. Recent developments in learning theory provide useful indicators of how a more interactive learning environment for those involved in fisheries might be developed. According to EasterbySmith et al. (2000) a radical change in the way learning and development is conceptualised has occurred, shifting the emphasis towards learning as a result of social interaction, in which knowing and understanding are constructed through practice and experience. This shift has brought into clear focus the importance of groups, the systems in which groups interact and the process which enables collective or social learning. At a practical level there has been growing interest in social learning as a means of generating knowledge and building capacity, as for example in handling complex environmental problems at community level (Kilvington, 2007; Manring, 2007). In group interactions, learning theory highlights reflection and action as two dialectical processes for transforming experience (Bradbury and Mainemelis, 2001), where reflection is the inward process of observation, sense making and analysis, and action the outward process of goal setting, planning and implementation. Dialogue is the means of stimulating these two processes.
184
A. Garrett et al. / Fisheries Research 127–128 (2012) 182–187
Reflection, action and dialogue are key components in the learning cycle. Reflection provides the opportunity for synthesising available knowledge to produce a shared awareness and understanding of different experiences in the evolving situation which, in turn, is fed back to inform action. At the heart of reflection is sense making. This involves a continuous process of reorganising, interpreting and integrating different forms of information from a widening range of sources so as to create a coherent consensual view of the overall situation (Weick et al., 2005). Sense making may therefore lead to a realisation that what may initially appear to one group of stakeholders as a simple or tame issue, when refracted through the lens of other stakeholder perceptions emerges as a more complex wicked problem. Action concerns the capability of stakeholders to identify and undertake practical measures to resolve common issues. Such capability involves building a shared view that underpins an agreed commitment to goal setting, planning and delivery. As Jentoft and Chuenpagdee (2009, p. 559) assert ‘the process of wicked problem solving as an inquiry starts with the questioning of experience and when answers have been found ends by again engaging experience’. For this to happen, social learning needs to be stimulated at all levels to culminate in institutional learning and the weakening of inertial forces that impede transformational change. In fisheries the potential landscapes of interactive learning can be mapped as a set of partially nested systems occurring at different scales but operating, to some degree, in contexts shaped partly by the larger systems. At the micro-level, that of the local occupational community, learning takes place through everyday interactions with the immediate marine environment and through contact with others holding common values forged through shared experiences. At the meso-level, regular interaction and the sharing of information occurs across a range of actors in the seafood industry with a common interest in the product of fishing but distinguished by differing roles and, in all likelihood, alternative and possibly conflicting goals, values and world views (e.g. fishermen, merchants, processors and retailers in the seafood chain). Finally, at the macro-level concerned with wider issues of fisheries governance, less frequent but vital discourse takes place between actors with sharply contrasting experience, knowledge, roles and values, including representatives of industry, science, administration and marine environmental conservation. It is at this level that the discourse (and interactive learning) will most likely involve senior executives from the different interest groups rather than the practitioners themselves. 4. Interactive stakeholder forums: experiences from the UK The opening decade of the 21st century has been a difficult one for Europe’s fishing industries. Reduced fishing opportunities, rising fuel prices and increasing pressure from conservation organisations, retailers and consumers over issues of sustainable fishing practice are among the challenges faced. Both government and industry were caught out by the severity of these challenges and inadequate levels of understanding of the issues involved. In their response, governments sought to consult more widely with stakeholders. In Scotland, the Scottish Fisheries Council – established in 2008 and comprising representatives from the seafood industry, conservation interests and the government’s administrative and scientific divisions – meets quarterly to inform government on a range of fishery issues, using a sub-committee structure to monitor specific sectors and/or recurring themes in the policy discourse. The Council can be seen as an institutionalised form of macro-level interactive learning but one which is largely inaccessible to working fishermen. Providing opportunities for interactive learning at lower levels is more difficult. Interest groups, such as non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) may organise open events around a particular theme or issue, but their primary purpose is usually to get a message across rather than sponsor a balanced exchange of information and understanding between different actors. The problem lies in finding a suitably neutral intermediary, respected by all parties and with the resources, organisational skills and experience in facilitating the exchange of information, knowledge and opinion. The four case studies analysed below describe stakeholder forums where the UK’s Sea Fish Industry Authority (Seafish), an industry funded body providing commercial, technical and training support to all parts of the UK seafood industry, was involved in an organising or facilitating capacity. They cover a range of situations from a problem facing the catching sector as a whole to issues relating to specific sectors or to the need for joined up thinking throughout the seafood industry. Significantly, the need for shared understanding between industry, administration and conservation interests is a prominent feature in three out of the four examples discussed. Our investigation is essentially a reflective exercise, reliant on information provided through interviews with the facilitators, initially to gain an overview of the aims, membership and outputs of the forums and subsequently to deepen our understanding of the process involved. The first example, Profitable Futures for Fishing, is the most recent, and shortest lived (12 months). Initiated in mid 2008 by government and industry representatives as a consequence of rising fuel prices, it was specifically intended to provide insights on, and potential improvements to, vessel profitability in the Scottish fleet in the form of a report for a Fuel Task Force set up by the Scottish Fisheries Council. Taking a broad approach, a series of 8 parallel workshops were held throughout Scotland. With guidance from the steering group members, targeted invitations were sent to industry leaders, vessel owners and agents, scientists and administrators. Attendees were mostly fishermen together with other stakeholders. Each workshop, provided a discrete opportunity for stakeholders to have a facilitated discussion about the issue, lasting over a 4–5 h period. The workshops followed a set pattern with initial presentations, breakout groups charged with identifying good and bad practice as a consequence of rising fuel costs and creating a future vision of the industry in a high fuel cost scenario. Internally, the workshops provided the opportunity for a frank exchange of views that was welcomed especially by those fishermen who had no previous experience of a stakeholder forum. Whilst there was little reluctance to speak on the issue generally, participants were less inclined to discuss the issue in the context of their own businesses. There was, therefore, reluctance among some industry representatives to acknowledge that part of the solution to the problem lay within their control and a scepticism that the workshops would serve any practical benefit. Their fears proved well founded as the project, and its findings, were overtaken by a broader initiative presented to the Scottish Fisheries Council in 2010 in the form of a ‘four pillar plan’ for the industry’s future. By contrast, the second and third examples refer to specific sectors of the industry which had come under the spotlight of specific, and targeted, marine conservation concerns over environmentally unsustainable fishing. In the case of the Skates and Rays Group established in 2006, and still operating at the time of this review, the immediate catalyst was the response of multiple retail organisations to direct action by Greenpeace. The reaction of some multiples in banning the sale of skates and rays caused shock waves throughout the fish supply chain. It led industry businesses directly affected by the issue to establish a skates and rays producers association which approached Seafish for assistance in facilitating discussion across the range of stakeholders. A workshop was organised in April 2006 to bring together a range of stakeholders. Known contacts in various conservation agencies
A. Garrett et al. / Fisheries Research 127–128 (2012) 182–187
and NGOs were approached by email along with selected retail companies, scientists, managers and working fishermen. With the exception of one stakeholder who was reluctant to discuss the issue fully and departed early, the engagement of stakeholders remained fairly consistent over a number of facilitated discussions and increased substantially from around 10 to 30 in the latter stages. The outcome of the discussions was an enhanced understanding of the different situations facing particular species of skates and rays in UK waters through improved sources of information. In detail, a database was inaugurated to provide up to date trade information, an identification guide was produced to assist fishermen, and the processors were able to offer customers clear information on their sourcing practices. But for the intervention of the Skates and Rays Group, the actions of Greenpeace and the retailers’ response could well have resulted in the closure of markets for directed fisheries taking place off the south and east coasts of England. The group continues to meet to discuss issues relevant to the management of skates and ray fisheries in the UK. The high earning scallop industry was also coming under the threat of action to prevent access to some of the most productive UK inshore fishing grounds through the designation of marine protected areas (MPAs). Voluntary closed areas had been introduced in the Lorne and Luce Bays (Scotland), Cardigan Bay (Wales) and the Fal and Lyme Bay (England) but the risks from breaches of the agreements had led to statutory closures being imposed in the Cardigan and Lyme Bay areas. Led by the Scallop Association, specific individuals were approached to build a group of industry and other stakeholders. As a result the UK Scallop Group was formed in 2008. The group comprised a diverse range of national and regional stakeholder organisations including statutory nature conservation agencies, voluntary wildlife trusts, representatives from Defra and the devolved administrations, together with processors, retailers and scallop fishermen. Its aim was to counter the negative publicity surrounding the industry and moderate proposals to prevent access to scallop grounds through a reasoned examination of the evidence for unsustainable fishing practice. The group, still active at the time of this review, has met on several occasions with numbers attending ranging between 30 and 40. These facilitated discussions led to some early achievements, notably the drawing up of a draft code of conduct and the preparation of carefully coordinated evidence on local MPA proposals to safeguard fishing practices. This initial work has led to a focus on related issues and the development of a draft action plan for the UK scallop industry that will require further debate and buy-in. A by-product of the group’s activity was the piloting of new, lighter and more durable gear that it was hoped would reduce habitat damage, improve catch quality and cut fuel consumption. Although initial attention was focused on particular issues the agenda has broadened out considerably and evidence of the take-up of these more recent initiatives are awaited. The final example – the Common Language Group – was also a response to highly critical scrutiny of the seafood industry by the conservation lobby, the initial focus of which was the use of evidence, on discard levels for example. The group sought to achieve a common position across the industry and create a basis for shared understanding with conservation interests through accurate, up to date and appropriate information. The target population was, however, rather different. Instead of engaging with working fishermen, it sought to facilitate discussion and build a consensus among those most likely to influence decision making within their own organisations. The initial meeting of this group in 2005 involved NGOs and leading processors in Hull and Grimsby directly affected by the issue and was brokered by Seafish. Since that time the original membership of the Common Language Group has remained fairly consistent and has snowballed to include around 40 senior personnel from a range of different stakeholder groups; major
185
processing and retailing companies, national conservation organisations (WWF, Greenpeace, Marine Conservation Society and the Marine Stewardship Council), the national federations of fishermen’s organisations and the government departments. Despite reluctance from some stakeholders to have their positions peerreviewed, over time confidence has increased, participants have ‘opened up’ and extreme positions ‘contained’. At the time of this review, the Common Language Group has evolved to become, in essence, a reputation building exercise for the seafood industry, hoping to restore public confidence by reducing levels of dissonance arising from the use of different and sometimes misleading information sources. Using a supply chain approach to issues affecting the industry’s status, it has been successful in achieving positive feedbacks within the seafood industry, as well as improving the level of information to the consumer. One of the main outputs has been the publication of 25 Responsible Fishing Guides in respect of key species on the UK and export markets, and available to processors, retailers, the media and the public. In all four cases, participants responded positively to the opportunities afforded by stakeholder forums. Although the original terms of reference for each of the forums was drawn up by ‘professionals’ (civil servants, representative organisations or the facilitators) and the initial intake of members selected through closed invitation, most groups showed a willingness to broaden their membership and embrace new challenges during the forums lifetime. Table 1 presents the outcomes by June 2010 of the four case studies in relation to the three key processes in the learning cycle – reflection, dialogue and action. Under each of these processes a number of characteristics have been identified: in the case of reflection, the two characteristics are clarity of the issue under discussion and the level of knowledge and information available to the participants. Dialogue is characterised by the frequency of meetings (whether restricted to a single workshop or continued over a series of meetings), the range of stakeholders attending and the extent to which working fishermen were involved. Finally, under action consideration is given to the achievement of common understanding among the participants, feedback on outcomes, and the extent to which actions were taken. It should be noted that the scoring of the case studies (strong, moderate or weak) was based on evidence provided retrospectively by the forum facilitators and may be considered highly subjective.
5. Learning the lessons While acknowledging that it can be both difficult and dangerous to draw firm conclusions from such a small number of case studies, we believe there are some useful lessons to be learned from this simple exercise. Overall, the desired outcome from interactive learning is better decision making and well informed actions resulting from a thorough and balanced assessment of all relevant issues. The ability to deliver such outcomes derives from the opportunity for stakeholders to engage in dialogue, reflection, a shared vision and a process of collective decision making. All four case studies share certain similarities in respect of the opportunity for dialogue. At one end of the scale, Profitable Futures provided for a number of working fishermen the novel experience of meeting with other stakeholders, developing a basic understanding of their viewpoints and, to a lesser extent, a realisation that each had a role to play in achieving a positive outcome. For many attending the workshops the experience was an ‘eye opener’. On another level, the Skates and Rays and Scallop Groups brought together – again in many cases for the first time – people engaged in different sectors of the fish distribution chain that helped to create a deeper understanding of their complementary roles, concerns and capacities for action. In particular, it enabled the catching sector to adopt
186
A. Garrett et al. / Fisheries Research 127–128 (2012) 182–187
Table 1 Characteristics of case study approaches – emerging themes in case studies. Case
Profitable Futures for Fishing Scallop Group Skates and Rays Common Language Group
Reflection
Dialogue and interaction
Issue
Exploration
Dialogue
√√ √√√ √√√ √√√
√√ √√ √√√ √√√
√ √√ √√√ √√√
Stakeholder mix √√ √√√ √√√ √√√
Action Engagement of fishermen √√√ √√√ √√√ √
Feedback √ √√ √√√ √√√
Common understanding √ √√ √√√ √√√
Practical action √ √√ √√√ √√√
A
a more positive relationship with the multiple retail organisations and consider them as potential allies in the quest for sustainable fisheries. But there were also some important contrasts. Perhaps the most significant relates to the duration of the interactive learning and its implications for the strength of relationships between the different stakeholders and the evolving capacity for sense making and collective action. Those groups with longer lifespans proved the more likely to generate practical results as a response to the prolonged interaction, growing mutual trust and expanding networks of collaboration, as in the case of the Skates and Rays and Common Language Groups. In both cases it was acknowledged that it took several meetings to gain confidence and get people to really open up. Not only were those groups able to deliver tangible benefits in respect of the original issue but the stronger, more permanent relationships allowed them to develop higher problem solving capabilities reaching well beyond the circumstances of the original issue. Both groups remain in being today. Another feature to emerge from a comparison of the four case studies is the distinction between ‘close knit’ and ‘arms length’ relationships (Fig. 1) which influences the level of engagement of the stakeholder in the learning cycle. The engagement of working fishermen varies according to the proximity of the issue to their own livelihoods and the extent to which they believe their own actions can influence the outcomes. Although, in the case of Profitable Futures, the fishermen were highly motivated by the issue of rising fuel costs, they appeared relatively disengaged from the problem solving process. Close knit groups, like Skates and Rays and Common Language, which are not only directly affected by the issue but believe in their ability to influence the outcome, appear better
able to make sense of, and respond to, the issues and demonstrate progress through feedback to the participants. The degree of engagement may also reflect the type of learning taking place. Those groups with limited objectives, weaker engagement and shorter lifespans (Profitable Futures; Scallops) appear to be involved in a simple technical learning process. By contrast, the closer knit groups with a longer history seem closer to a complex, possibly reflexive, learning process which would allow the participants to reformulate the goals, redefine the underlying values and respecify the causal relationships of the issue (Nye, 1987) in ways more suitable to dealing with wicked problems. While this is perhaps overstating the achievements of the Common Language and Skates and Rays Groups, a more reflexive mode of learning has certainly permitted the development of a much stronger common vision and a focus on practical action. In the foregoing assessment a distinction emerges between the ‘more successful’ close engagement of participants where momentum is maintained through a focus on outcomes and the ‘less successful’ examples of arms’ length engagement focused on reporting. In the latter, reflection was passive rather than creative and tangible outputs were never considered as part of the exercise or simply not pursued with sufficient vigour. What we believe is critical to this distinction is closing the initial gap in the learning cycle between the early stages of reflection and the emergence of a shared forward vision as a prerequisite for consensual action. This appears to be more difficult in cases where the boundaries of the issue are drawn too tightly and/or where the time scale allowed is too short. These constraints will limit the participants’ field of vision and the scope for reflection and action. It also makes it more likely that the issue under consideration will be treated as a ‘tame problem’ that can be fixed by simple technical solutions.
Arms length
Case 4 Common Language Group
Engagement with fishermen
Case 1 Profitable futures
Case 3 Skates & Rays Group
Case 2 Scallop
Close knit
Close knit
Arms length
Engagement with other stakeholders Fig. 1. Comparing and contrasting cases by degree of engagement with fishermen and other stakeholders. (Description – this illustration shows the thickness of relationships in each of the four case studies.)
A. Garrett et al. / Fisheries Research 127–128 (2012) 182–187
Closing the gap can be facilitated and the learning cycle accelerated by controlled flows of relevant information and by the presence of key stakeholders – practitioners ‘on top of their game’ or experts with appropriate specialist knowledge. Such experts can assist in synthesising the early phases of the dialogue, maintain the focus on outcomes and ensure a more rapid feedback that will help sense making and building the shared vision. However, care may be needed in ensuring that ‘expert opinion’ does not overshadow the contributions of other participants. Where such assistance is lacking, sense making and feedback will inevitably be hampered and the learning cycle will become more protracted and run a higher risk of becoming incomplete. 6. Conclusions Using a learning systems perspective allows us to portray interactive learning as a social process taking place in an environment that requires certain infrastructural investments in order to deliver successful outcomes. These essential investments include effective organisation; an active network of participants; appropriate sources of knowledge and information, including expert advice; assured channels of communication and feedback; and an adequate time frame in which to develop dialogue, reflection and action. In future the science and practice of fisheries management will need to take far greater account of stakeholder knowledge and experience. The present paper provides an indication of the potential of interactive learning, in the form of stakeholder forums, as a mechanism for realising the benefits of stakeholder participation. In particular we would draw attention to the benefits that accrue from an open ended process of engagement with stakeholders in an interactive learning environment, most notably in developing shared forward visions and generating outputs of direct value to the wider seafood chain. This finding may appear to run counter to the perceived efficiency gains from applying stricter remits and tighter timelines to stakeholder forums. The difference may well be explained by reference to the nature of the issue under discussion. If we are to develop an effective community of practice, with interactive learning at its core, we will need to deepen our understanding of the processes involved – the role of leadership, group dynamics and knowledge transfer inter alia – and to experiment with different formats. The demand for interactive learning will increase significantly at local, regional, national and international scales as new supply or market driven issues emerge and new forms of fisheries governance take hold. This is all the more pressing given the growing concern over sustainable production, consumption and food security. Those involved will vary according to the nature of the issue and the scale on which it occurs. At the local level, for example, working fishermen are increasingly likely to become involved in issues concerning the management of inshore fisheries and the wider maritime economy as pressures from conservation interests, renewable energy and marine spatial planning make their impacts. To participate fully in these activities, fishermen will need to understand their own local systems, identify hotspots, fill in gaps in their knowledge of the demands placed on the local ecosystem by non-fishing activities and finally build an appreciation of the overall situation. This can best be achieved through the processes of interactive learning. On a higher scale, fishermen’s representatives and other stakeholders will need to familiarise themselves with similar learning routines if they are to make a success of the regional management of fisheries and the wider marine environment. The processes of interactive learning will need to diffuse throughout the hierarchy of fisheries governance to ensure that it is not just the stakeholders that benefit from the learning process but the very institutions of governance as well.
Assessment √√√ √√ √ Definition of characteristics Issue Exploration Dialogue Stakeholder mix Engagement of fishermen Feedback Common understanding
Practical action
187
Strong Moderate Weak Complexity and severity of issue(s) Scope and thoroughness of knowledge and information gathering Frequency of meetings (single workshop or series) Range and diversity of stakeholders involved Extent to which working fishermen are involved Detailed feedback of outcomes to stakeholders Achievement of common understanding and shared vision amongst stakeholders Extent to which substantive action flows from agreed stakeholder initiatives
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Hazel Curtis, Mark Gray, Jon Harman and Bill Lart (Seafish), Jennifer Russell (Anderson Solutions), Jeremy Phillipson (Newcastle University) and Duncan Shaw (Aston University) for their constructive comments on earlier versions of the paper. References Allen, G.M., Gould, E.M., 1986. Complexity, wickedness and public forests. Journal of Forestry 84, 20–23. Beck, U., 1999. World Risk Society. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Berkes, F., 2010. Shifting perspectives on resource management: resilience and the reconceptualisation of ‘natural resources’ and ‘management’. Maritime Studies 9, 13–40. Bradbury, H., Mainemelis, C., 2001. Learning history and organizational praxis. Journal of Management Inquiry 10, 340–357. Burnes, B., 2004. Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: back to the future? Journal of Change Management 4, 309–325. Commission of the European Communities, 2009. Green Paper: Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. COM (2009) 163 Final. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium. Daw, T.M., 2008. How fishers count: engaging fishers’ knowledge in fisheries science and management. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., Nicolini, D., 2000. Organizational learning: debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies 37, 783–796. Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., 2009. Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Marine Policy 33, 553–560. Haggan, N., Neis, G., Baird, I.G. (Eds.), 2007. Fishers’ Knowledge in Fisheries Science and Management. UNESCO, Paris, France. Kay, J., Regier, H., 2000. Uncertainty, complexity, and ecological integrity: insight from an ecosystem approach. In: Crabbe, P., Holland, A., Ryszkowski, L., Westra, L. (Eds.), Implementing Ecological Integrity: Restoring Regional and Global Environmental and Human Health. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Kilvington, M., 2007. Social Learning as a Framework for Building Capacity to Work on Complex Environmental, Management Problems. Landscape Research, New Zealand, http://www.landscaperesearch.co.nz/publications/researchpubs/ Social learning review pdf. Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., Pullin, R. (Eds.), 2005. Fish for Life: Interactive Governance of Fisheries. University of Amsterdam Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Lassen, H., Sissenwine, M., Symes, D., Thulin, J., 2008. Reversing the Burden of Proof for Fisheries Management: Managing Commercial Fisheries Within Sustainable Limits. ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark. Mackinson, S., Wilson, D.C., Galiay, P., Deas, B., 2011. Engaging stakeholders in fisheries and marine research. Marine Policy 35, 18–34. Manring, S., 2007. Creating and managing interorganizational learning networks to achieve sustainable ecosystem management. Organization and Environment 20, 325–346. Nye, J.S., 1987. Nuclear learning and US-Soviet regimes. International Organization 41, 371–402. Sissenwine, M., Symes, D., 2007. Reflections on the Common Fisheries Policy, Report to the General Directorate for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K., Obstfeld, D., 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science 16, 409–421.