Transformation of small-scale fisheries — critical transdisciplinary challenges and possibilities

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Transformation of small-scale fisheries — critical transdisciplinary challenges and possibilities Fred P Saunders1, Gloria L Gallardo-Ferna´ndez2, Truong Van Tuyen3, Serge Raemaekers4, Boguslaw Marciniak5 and Rodrigo Dı´az Pla´6 One way to confront the global marginalisation of small-scale fisheries (SSF) is to support a sustainable transformation of these coastal communities. In 2014/15, a network of researchers and SSF communities from four countries cooperated in a transdisciplinary research approach to examine governance shifts, fish stock collapses, power structures, future visions and transformation strategies. We combined a political ecology approach with transformation theory to: (i) consider how local context is affected by structural changes and (ii) identify place-based transformational strategies for each case. The global emergence of large-scale fisheries and associated free markets appeared as key factors negatively affecting SSF and coastal sustainability. Through envisioning exercises and context dependent analysis, SSF communities articulated possible and actual strategies towards sustainability that will require ongoing support.

to coastal sustainability. It presents co-design work undertaken by the JUSTMAR Network (Global Marine Governance Network-Co-constructing a Sustainable Fisheries Future), which includes researchers and fishers working collaboratively in different settings to understand, identify and enact transformation sustainability pathways. The work of the project described here was part of the ISSC Transformations to Sustainability Program’s seed grant phase. It focussed on enriching corelations between researchers and fishers in different settings, identifying SSF problems and preliminary mapping of envisioned futures and pathways to realise these futures.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 20:26–31

The paper is structured in the following way. First, a review is presented of SSF that describes the multidimensional character and magnitude of sustainability challenges that is facing this fishing sub-sector. We then introduce SSF communities in Poland, Chile, South Africa and Vietnam and present evidence that shows why these communities are well placed to participate in transdisciplinary approaches for sustainability. Next we outline the co-design process conducted with fishers that informed the preliminary mapping of historical and current problems as well as future visioning. Finally, we conclude with reflections on this initial research phase and the next steps required to deepen and extend the transformation for SSF sustainability approach presented here.

This review comes from a themed issue on Transformations and co-design

Review

Edited by Susanne C Moser

Sustainability problem

Addresses 1 School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, So¨derto¨rn University, Sweden 2 Centre for Sustainable Development, Uppsala University, Sweden 3 Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry, Viet Nam 4 Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences, University of Cape Town, South Africa 5 Freelance Researcher, Poland 6 Grupo de Investigacio´n de la Pesca Artesanal, Universidad Academia de Humanismo Cristiano, Chile Corresponding author: Saunders, Fred P. ([email protected])

For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Available online 26th May 2016 Received: 28-10-2015; Revised: 11-4-2016; Accepted: 27-4-2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.04.005 1877-3435/# 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Introduction This paper develops a transdisciplinary research approach with small scale fisheries (SSF) from around the world to generate new knowledge and solutions for transformation Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 20:26–31

Despite SSF contributing 66% of global catch for direct human consumption, they have become increasingly marginalised and vulnerable across the world [1,2,3]. Due to globalization, SSF have been subjected to the internationalisation of the food system [2,4] with the implication that fishers at the local level are now exposed to globalized market competition [5]. Since the 1960s, industrialisation of fisheries has altered the human–nature relationship with new technologies, long-range fleets and incorporation of previously unexploited waters [2,6– 8]. In this process local coastal resources have become high-value export commodities, which has resulted in adverse effects for many local communities and the larger population through acts that have been labelled global ‘ocean grabbing’ [9,10,11]. At the same time, around 40% www.sciencedirect.com

Transformation of small-scale fisheries Saunders et al. 27

of the world oceans have become severely affected by pollution, depleted fisheries, and loss of coastal habitats [12].

they confront resonate strongly with transformation for sustainability challenges found more widely in SSF. Theory

Over 90% of the fishing vessels and approx. 22 million fishers are considered small scale. Being mostly embedded within local communities, SSF play a key role as an ‘employer of last resort’ [3]. SSF also represent inexpensive protein, food security, and poverty relief for many, playing an important role in the fisheries sector as a whole [13], and in development more generally [14]. Among the complex challenges that characterize SSF are poor economic output, leakage of economic value, high levels of poverty, substandard governance, deficient management and lack of participation in decision-making processes [3,15,16]. Post-economic renovation Vietnam, post-Pinochet Chile, post-Apartheid South Africa and post-communist Poland have all adopted a neo-liberal economic model, subjecting SSF to the forces of globalization [17]. In Vietnam, export aquaculture generated resource pressure and conflicts [18–21]. In Chile, the export boom led to a benthic fisheries crisis [22,23]. In South Africa, SSF’s increasing dissatisfaction with the pace of change, post-apartheid, was linked with commercial inshore fisheries quota allocations, which prompted the SSF to sue the fisheries authority in 2004 [24,25]. In Poland, after economic liberalisation, SSF’s concerns were directed towards protecting the local fisheries and overseeing fishing access, and establishing rules and practices to avoid overexploitation [26,27].

Case-study material

Against this global background of transition to neoliberalism and its concomitant effects, all of our case study countries, except Poland, have adopted Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries (TURFs). While the performance of TURFs in practice has been mixed [28–32], and its (current) applicability is limited to coastal areas inhabited by high-value sedentary species, this model offers a hopeful venue to regain control over fisheries, helping to secure fishers’ livelihoods [33,22,34–37]. TURFs have the potential to redress key SSF challenges in the case studies examined in this article by (1) reasserting common property rights (Vietnam/Chile/South Africa); (2) enhancing women’s participation in fisheries (Chile/ South Africa/Vietnam), and (3) adding value through local distribution/direct sale (South Africa/Poland/Chile). Together, the four countries offer the possibility to engage in research across a number of different dimensions that are important for the sustainability of SSF and in doing so exchange transdisciplinary experiences across continents. While all of the SSF communities we include face unique sustainability concerns due to their varying historical, institutional and geographical contexts, the challenges www.sciencedirect.com

Given the enormity of the SSF challenges discussed above, a radical transformation approach was adopted for the research as a means to consider structural, agency, ecological and material dimensions of the different fishing settings [38–41,42,43,44]. Transformative institutional redesign must also be able to counteract the likelihood of unexpected adverse effects working unobtrusively to reinforce existing power structures [45,46]. To meet these challenges, we drew heavily on two approaches: (i) Wright’s transformation theory of ‘Real Utopias’ to deal with social justice and institutional redesign [44,47], and (ii) political ecology to analyse social power over access to, and control over resources [48,49,50–52]. Wright’s transformational strategies are: (i) ruptural (i.e., create new institutions through disruptive changes of existing structures); (ii) interstitial (i.e., build new — or rebuild old –– institutions in the capitalist society’s margins); and (iii) symbiotic (i.e., enable cooperation with the state and/or market) [44,47]. We focus on symbiotic and interstitial strategies as ways to support SSF’s transformation to sustainability. Enhancement of social power through both of these strategies can convert into increased power over resource allocation and control over production and distribution [44,47]. Transformative research needs to be praxis-based. A transformative learning dynamic needs to inculcate new ways of being and becoming [53,54]. It [55] ‘involves a dynamic interplay between reflection and action, between knowing and doing; between research and praxis (p. 887). Within a sustainability framework, this research advances the political standpoints and material welfare of SSF groups as a marginalised actor in fisheries and society. This necessarily involves challenging existing contingent power relations that work to constrain the existing conditions of SSF to contribute to sustainability in our different case study settings.

Methodology Our selected case studies offer a diverse array of transformational dimensions to conduct insightful analyses of how global and regional scale forces interact. The challenges faced by these SSF communities make them ideal empirical cases to negotiate the complexity of applying Wright’s criteria for situated transformation trajectories [44,47] (Table 1). The transdisciplinary approach adopted in this research maximises the possibilities of synergies between the more general and formalised scientific knowledge of academia with the experiential, context-based knowledge of fishers, in the pursuit of scientifically informed but Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 20:26–31

28 Transformations and co-design

locally grounded transformational strategies for sustainability. The project’s ambition is to develop insights for transformative learning in the diverse country case contexts in which transformative change must be realised. This is why emphasis is placed on bringing together normative and fact-based epistemologies within transformative learning-based co-production processes. It is in this way that we see that the collaborative research and co-dissemination of results approach adopted here is a key means to stimulate and inform the dramatic shifts needed for greater sustainability of coastal communities and regions. During the initial project period (September 2014–March 2015) there were numerous in-person and Skype meetings where JUSTMAR researchers from the partnering countries collaboratively engaged in research planning, theory building, field studies, analysis and writing. After an initial review of the literature on SSF and transformation approaches the co-design phase of this research was enacted. Workshops and meetings with resource users and other stakeholders in each country were pre-arranged by in-country partners. Some workshops attracted high rates of participation, while others were only attended by formal leaders. In each SSF setting, we drew on participatory data collection tools (brain storm, historical timeline etc.) to conduct workshops that lasted for ca. 3 hours. These workshops were held at locally convenient sites and times to maximise participation by fishers. Researchers facilitated workshops and conducted interviews by prompting discussion on (1) key past moments of change in fisheries; (2) the current problems with fisheries and how they are confronted (noting key obstacles/limitations/constraints); and (3) an envisioned ideal fishing future. We encouraged discussion among participants and noted down points of dissention as well as more consensual views that emerged during the meeting. We subsequently reviewed our accounts with the participants towards the end of the respective workshops. After this, with fishers’ consent, we filmed short summarizing sequences, where selected fishers from each workshop presented their envisioned fishing future. These individual clips from each SSF case study setting were then

compiled into a short film with English subtitles and distributed to all of the SSF communities that participated in the JUSTMAR co-design phase of the research as part of the research dissemination strategy (follow link to film: https://youtu.be/dAY75dLTEPw).

Reflections and possibilities Transformational pathways

The situated transformation pathways identified through the fieldwork with fishers was subsequently categorised by researchers into the Real Utopia analytical framework. This allowed for more systematic treatment of the data across case study settings as well as being an important prerequisite step for evaluating strategies in greater depth at a later research stage. Figure 1 shows that all of the SSF communities aspired to eradicate large scale fisheries (LSF) to enact sectoral transformation, which would revolutionise fishing. However, much more likely, through the aggregated effect of the other situated future pathways, would be a strengthening of the position of SSF in the fisheries sector. Adoption of TURFs featured as prominent pathway in all SSF cases, both in interstitial and symbiotic forms. In Poland this involved reviving the historical Kashubian maszoperias to give more autonomy and control to SSF. In Vietnam the co-management approach differed from the more pre-figurative design of TURFs in Chile. Symbiotic, value adding strategies, were also prominent, but differed among the SFF. For instance, in Chile fish and algae processing were emphasised as future strategies, while in South Africa ‘brand’ labelling for both national and export markets was envisaged. The adopted pathways were influenced by the political conditions in each country. In Chile and South Africa, fishers have actively participated in diverse political mobilisation strategies, while in Vietnam symbiotic pathways for reforming local political authorities have been the preferred means to bring about change. In both Chile and South Africa, alliances have already been built between fishers, NGOs (non-governmental organisations) and universities. In Poland, reframing the fisheries problem as one caused by LSF in a fragile ecosystem (the Baltic Sea) was seen as a way to develop new alliances with other fisheries stakeholders, such as conservation NGOs.

Table 1 Case studies of fishing communities Vietnam

Chile

South Africa

Poland

Tam Giang Lagoon Vinh Phu (TURF) - 126 members

Bio-Bio region Lo Rojas (association) - 265 members, - 35 boat owners Coliumo (TURF) - 65 members, all women

Cape south coast Struisbaai (impending TURF) 300 members, - 20 boats

Vistula Spit and Hel Peninsula Krynica Morska (association) - 14 boats

Vinh Giang (TURF) - 75 members

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 20:26–31

Wladyslawowo (association) - 36 cutters and 32 boats

www.sciencedirect.com

Transformation of small-scale fisheries Saunders et al. 29

Figure 1

TRANSFORMATIONAL PATHWAYS TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE SSF Research Approach

Chile, South Africa, Poland, Vietnam

Chile, South Africa, Poland, Vietnam

Political Ecology & Real Utopias

Chile, South Africa, Poland, Vietnam

Sectoral Transformation Eradication of LSF to stop ocean grabbing and ecosystem destruction locally and globally

Ruptual

Institutional Re-design

Interstitial & Symbiotic

Building new or reconstituting traditional institutions: e.g., TURF, Maszoperias

Re-positioning in the Market Improved market position, e.g selling fish as food, value adding through processing and cooperatives

Symbiotic

Chile, South Africa Poland, Vietnam

Political Mobilization

Interstitial

Strengthen sectoral role via different means, e.g., open protests or dialogue with authorities

Symbiotic

Alliance Building

Interstitial

Strengthen visibility through collaboration within and beyond fisheries, e.g., with MSF, NGOs, Universities

Symbiotic

Chile, South Africa Poland, Vietnam

Types of Transformation Strategies

Situated Future Pathways

Case studies

LSF = Large-scale fisheries; MSF = Medium-scale fisheries. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Transformational pathways towards sustainable SSF.

While these transformational strategies have been envisaged and to some extent enacted with the aim of enhancing social power over resource allocation, and control over production and distribution, it remains uncertain whether they can be fully realised under existing neoliberal conditions [56]. Many of the interstitial and symbiotic strategies articulated here point towards what Schweickart [57] calls a democratic economy and prefigure alternative future possibilities, that is, which do not necessarily entail capitalist relations of production. Reflections on the co-design phase

Since the TURFs had already set in motion a transformation process, this research further stimulated a discussion among the SSF to more precisely map strategies that move towards longer-term ideals, or at least improve the current situation. A common challenge encountered in this phase of the research was fishers’ difficulties to envision an ideal far future. Fishers were mired in existing problems where it became difficult for them to disconnect themselves from www.sciencedirect.com

current circumstances and articulate visions for a distant or long future. This conceptual problem is understandable as the future is framed (and realised) to a large extent by the past and present. Similar problems have been also found in other rural communities in the Global South where researchers adopted a shorter time period to envision the future [58]. Therefore, in the co-design phase researchers took the view that long-range envisioning disconnected from current problems was not pragmatic or ethical and instead focussed on shorter-term (within one decade) idealised SSF states. Employing techniques such as backcasting [58] may be useful to overcoming this issue as the research develops. Comparative research on transformations in the context of global sustainability crises, such as fisheries, entails interrelated ontological and epistemological challenges for the research and post-research process. In transdisciplinary projects, elaborating the different actors’ transformation ontologies is complex. It involves many partners rooted in different, cultural, political and economic contexts. Considering the relationship among these plural Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 20:26–31

30 Transformations and co-design

ontologies [59] is key to underpinning a systematic approach to examining the normative views and practicalities of transformations across diverse settings. Such a systematic approach also has great potential to generate knowledge applicable to a broader array of SSF settings and therefore scale up transformation possibilities.

3. Schuhbauer A, Sumaila UR: Economic viability and small-scale fisheries – a review. Ecol Econ 2016, 124:69-75.  This article reviews and describes the current discourse on the economic viability of small-scale fisheries. It argues that there is too much focus on the economic viability of SSF and that the social-environmental benefits generated should be given more consideration. 4.

Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations: The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: FAO; 2014.

5.

Gallardo-Ferna´ndez GL: Seascapes of Extinction, Seascapes of Confidence. Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries in Chile: El Quisco and Puerto Oscuro. Wales: Co-Action Publishing, Cambrian Printers Ltd.; 2008.

6.

Campling L, Havice E: The politics of property in industrial fisheries. J Peasant Stud 2014, 41(5):707-727.

7.

Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations: Fish Capture Technology. 2015:. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ fishery/topic/3384/en (accessed 15.10.15).

8.

White C, Costello C: Close the high seas to fishing? PLoS Biol 2014, 12:1-5.

9.

Benjaminsen TA, Bryceson I: Conservation, green/blue grabbing and accumulation by dispossession in Tanzania. J Peasant Stud 2012, 39(2):335-355.

Concluding remarks

This research took a practice-based approach to conducting transdisciplinary research on transformation for sustainability among several SSF communities around the world. Understanding the historical and contemporary conditions of each SSF community, as well visions for the future were crucial to the co-design phase of the research presented here. Linking to other knowledge for action networks in SSF such as Too Big To Ignore and Gender AquaFish, among others may also be useful in proliferating transformative SSF action for sustainability. Working with SSF in TURFs contexts provided promising results, showing the potential to extend and enrich the initial insights presented here to develop more detailed and longer-term transformational agendas. The transformation strategies outlined in this article also require further assessment concerning whether: (i) they can actually improve conditions without adverse unintended consequences (viability); and (ii) whether they are politically achievable (achievability) — to make them ‘Real’ in Wright’s terms. While we remain optimistic that the transformation approach described in the paper has merit to deliver sustainability, it remains unclear how it will fare in delivering the broader benefits of coastal sustainability in a wider context where ‘ocean grabbing’ is increasing and export-led growth is the dominant (inter)national development paradigm.

Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported by seed grants from the ISSC under the Transformations to Sustainability Programme. The Programme is funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and serves as a contribution to Future Earth. Supplementary support for seed grants is provided by the Swedish Secretariat for Environmental Earth System Sciences (SSEESS), the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) UK through the Newton Fund and the National Research Foundation of South Africa. We gratefully acknowledge the fishers of the studied communities for contributing their precious time in pursuing this research. We also thank our colleagues Hanh Tong, A. Espinoza and E. Friman, who helped in the field. We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Beto Isakson, Paula Lenninger and Iva´n Greco in assisting with the field-work for this research in Chile.

References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:  of special interest  of outstanding interest 1.

Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations: The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: FAO; 2014.

2.

UN General Assembly: Summary of the First Global Integrated Marine Assessment. 2015:. Available at: http://www.un.org/ga/ search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/112 (accessed 20.10.15).

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 20:26–31

10. TNI Agrarian Justice Programme: Masifundise Development Trust, and Afrika Kontakt. The Global Ocean Grab. A Primer; 2014. 11. Bennett NJ, Govan H, Satterfield T: Ocean grabbing. Mar Policy  2015, 57:61-68. This paper proposes a framework for ocean grabbing through the following criteria: (1) of inadequate governance, and (2) undermine human security and livelihoods, or (3) reduce social–ecological wellbeing. 12. UN: Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2016:. (UN Doc. A/RES/70/1). Available at: https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030% 20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf (accessed 22.03.16). 13. Kleiber D, Harris LM, Vincent ACJ: Improving fisheries estimates by including women’s catch in the Central Philippines. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2014, 71(5):656-664. 14. Choo PS, Nowak BS, Kusakabe K, Williams MJ: Guest editorial: gender and fisheries. Development 2008, 51(2):176-179. 15. Salas S, Chuenpagdee R, Seijo JC, Charles A: Challenges in the assessment and management of small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Fish Res 2007, 87:5-16. 16. Berkes F, Mahon R, McConney P, Pollnac R, Pomeroy R: Managing Small-Scale Fisheries, Alternative Directions and Methods. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre; 2001:. Available at: http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/ Publications/Pages/IDRCBookDetails.aspx?PublicationID=186 (accessed 15.10.15). 17. Klein N: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Henry Holt and Company; 2010. 18. Armitage D, Marschke M, Tuyen TV: Early-stage transformation of coastal marine governance in Vietnam? Mar Policy 2011, 35(5):703-711. 19. Ho NTT, Ross H, Coutts J: Power sharing in fisheries comanagement in Tam Giang Lagoon, Vietnam. Mar Policy 2015, 53:171-179. 20. Betcherman G, Marchke M: Coastal livelihoods in transition: how are Vietnamese households responding to changes in the fisheries and in the economy. J Rural Stud 2016, 45:24-33. 21. Boonstra WJ, Hanh TTH: Adaptation to climate change as social-ecological – a case study of fishing and aquaculture in the Tam Giang Lagoon. Vietnam. Environ Dev Sustain 2015, 17(6):1527-1544. 22. Moreno A, Revenga C: The System of Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries in Chile. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy;  2014. A comprehensive review of the Chilean TURFs experiences since its implementation 20 years ago, which covers a wide range of natural www.sciencedirect.com

Transformation of small-scale fisheries Saunders et al. 31

sciences and social science articles assessing TURF development and present challenges. It also includes recommendation for TURFs implementation in other countries. 23. Gelcich S, Peralta L, Donlan CJ, Godoy N, Ortiz V, Tapia-Lewin S, Vargas C, Kein A, Castilla JC, Fernandez M, Godoy F: Alternative strategies for scaling up marine coastal biodiversity conservation in Chile. Marit Stud 2015, 14(5):1-13. 24. Sowman M, Sunde J, Raemaekers S, Schultz O: Fishing for equality: policy for poverty alleviation for South Africa’s smallscale fisheries. Mar Policy 2014, 46:31-42. 25. South Africa: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Policy for the Small Scale Fisheries Sector in South Africa. Government Gazette, 35455. Pretoria: Government Printer; 2012. 26. Marciniak B: Vanished prosperity poverty and marginalization in a small Polish fishing community. In Poverty Mosaics: Realities and Prospects in Small-scale Fisheries. Edited by Jentoft S, Eide A. New York: Springer; 2011:125-146. 27. Bavinck M, Jentoft S, Pascual-Ferna´ndezc JJ, Marciniak B: Interactive coastal governance: the role of pre-modern fisher organizations in improving governability. Ocean Coast Manage 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.05.012. (in press), (accessed 20.10.15). 28. Gallardo-Ferna´ndez GL, Friman E: Capable leadership, institutional skills and resource abundance behind flourishing coastal marine commons in Chile. In The Wealth of the Commons: A World Beyond Market and State, 2012. Edited by Bollier D, Helfrich S. MA, USA: Levellers Press; 2012:258-264. 29. Zu´n˜iga S, Ramı´rez P, Valdebenito M: The socioeconomic situation in managed areas of the Coquimbo region, Chile. Latin Am J Aquat Res 2008, 36:63-81. 30. Gonza´lez JW, Stotz J, Garrido JM, Orensanz A, Parma AM, Tapia C, Zuleta A: The Chilean turf system: how is it performing in the case of the loco fishery? Bull Mar Sci 2006, 78(3):499-527. 31. Marı´n A, Berkes F: Network approach for understanding smallscale fisheries governance: the case of the Chilean coastal comanagement system. Mar Policy 2010, 34(5):851-858. 32. Hauck M, Gallardo-Ferna´ndez GL: Crises in the South African abalone and Chilean loco fisheries: shared challenges and prospects. Marit Stud 2013, 12:3. 33. Barner AK, Lubchenco J, Costello C, Gaines SD, Leland A, Jenks B, Murawski S, Schwaab E, Spring M: Solutions for recovering and sustaining the bounty of the ocean: combining fishery reforms, rights-based fisheries management, and marine reserves. Oceanography 2015, 28(2):252-263. 34. Gutie´rrez NL, Hilborn R, Defeo O: Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 2011, 470(7334):386-389. 35. Litsinger E: Sustainable Fishing is Now Within Reach for Two Fishing Communities in the Philippines. 2015:. Available at: http:// blogs.edf.org/edfish/2015/09/22/sustainable-fishing-is-nowwithin-reach-for-two-fishing-communities-in-the-philippines/ (accessed18.10.15). 36. Wilen JE, Cancino J, Uchida H: The economics of Territorial Use Rights Fisheries, or TURFs. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2012, 6(2):237-257. 37. Telesetsky A: Fishing moratoria and securing TURFs: creating opportunities for future marine resource abundance in the face of scarcity in Western Africa. Ga J Int Comp Law 2014, 42:35-67. 38. Garcia SM, Rosenberg AA: Food security and marine capture fisheries: characteristics, trends, drivers and future perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 2010, 365(1554):2869-2880. 39. Rauschmayer F, Bauler T, Scha¨pke N: Towards a Governance of Sustainability Transitions: Giving Place to Individuals. Leipzig: UFZ – Helmholtz-Centre; 2013. 40. Smith A, Fressoli M, Thomas H: Grassroots innovation movements: challenges and contributions. J Clean Prod 2014, 63:114-124. www.sciencedirect.com

41. Stirling A: From sustainability, through diversity to transformation: towards more reflexive governance of vulnerability. In Vulnerability in Technological Cultures: New Directions in Research and Governance. Edited by Hommels A, Mesman J, Bijker W. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014. 42. Worm B, Hilborn R, Baum JK, Branch TA, Collie JS, Costello C, Fogarty MJ, Fulton EA, Hutchings JA, Jennings S et al.: Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 2009, 325:578-585. 43. Mansfield B, Biermann C, McSweeney K, Law J, Gallemore C, Horner L, Munroe DK: Environmental politics after nature: conflicting socioecological futures. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2015, 105(2):284-293. 44. Wright EO: Transforming capitalism through real utopias. Am  Sociol Rev 2013, 78(1):1-25. This paper succinctly makes two key points that (1) human suffering is primarily caused by existing institutions and social structures and (2) transforming existing institutions and social structures through social science approaches has the potential to expand the possibilities for human flourishing. 45. Seyfang G, Haxeltine A: Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environ Plan C: Gov Policy 2012, 30(3):381-400. 46. Scha¨fer S, Steizer H, Mass A, Lawrence MG: Earth’s future in the anthropocene: technological interventions between piecemeal and utopian social engineering. Earth’s Future 2014, 2(4):239-243. 47. Wright EO: Envisioning Real Utopias. London/New York: Verso; 2010. 48. Bennett J: Vibrant Matter A Political Ecology of Things. Durham/ London: Duke University Press; 2010. 49. Bryant R: Political ecology: handbook topics and themes. In  The International Handbook of Political Ecology. Edited by Bryant R, Cheltenham. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.; 2014. An anthology that captures the breadth and depth of political ecology studies by drawing on a variety of theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches to address a wide range of sustainability related topics. 50. Bryant RL: Political ecology: a critical agenda for change. In Social Nature: Theory Practice and Politics. Edited by Castree N, Braun B. London: Blackwell; 2001:151-169. 51. Mansfield B: Modern industrial fisheries and the crisis of overfishing. In Global Political Ecology. Edited by Peet R, Robbins P, Watts M. London: Routledge; 2011:84-99. 52. Khan MT: Theoretical frameworks in political ecology and participatory nature/forest conservation: the necessity for a heterodox approach and the critical moment. J Polit Ecol 2013, 20:460-472. 53. Lotz-Sisitka H, Wals AEJ, Kronlid D, McGarry D: Transformative, transgressive social learning: rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of systemic global dysfunction. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2015, 16:73-80 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.cosust.2015.07.018. 54. Christie M, Carey M, Robertson A, Grainger P: Putting transformative learning theory into practice. Aust J Adult Learn 2015, 55. 55. Given LM. Los Angeles: Sage; 2008. 56. Ruddle K, Davis A: Human rights and neo-liberalism in small scale fisheries: conjoined priorities and processes. Mar Policy 2013, 39:87-93. The paper examines the role of collective communal values in a SSF context as an alternative way to secure human rights and justice. 57. Schweickart D: Is sustainable capitalism possible? Procedia – Soc Behav Sci 2010, 2(5):6739-6752. 58. Wieners E, Neuburger M, Schickhoff U: Adaptability of backcasting for sustainable development: a case study from Nepal. Int J Asian Bus Inf Manage 2015, 6(3):16-27. 59. Archer MS: The ontological status of subjectivity: the missing link between structure and agency. In Contributions to Social Ontology. Edited by Lawson C, Latsis J, Martins N. London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis; 2007:17-31. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 20:26–31