Advertisement

Sustainable Development of Fisheries Communities: The Role of Community-Led Local Development Policies

  • Pedro Valadas Monteiro
  • Teresa de Noronha
Chapter
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

The environmental problems that dominate the present day are the result of increasing pressure on natural resources. It is therefore essential to understand what the reasons are why individuals and society make choices that lead to the depletion of natural resources and what are the guidelines that could/should be used to promote their sustainable management. For many communities around the world, the disturbance of these marine ecosystems impacts the local residents, both socially and economically. Fisheries management experts recognize that the underlying causes of fisheries resource overexploitation and coastal environmental degradation are often of social, economic, institutional and/or political origins. Around the world in recent decades, awareness has emerged that the management and governance of the ocean, coastal zones and human activities associated with it should be addressed as an ecosystem approach, not sectoral but integrated. Policy interventions, if they are to bring about lasting solutions, must address these concerns. With the growing emphasis on ecosystem-based management, there is an expanding need for measures of social well-being and sustainability, including resilience and vulnerability, for coastal fisheries and fishing communities. The Priority Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) focuses on the sustainable development of fisheries areas, and it was introduced into the EFF for the first time in the period 2007–2013. It provides accompanying measures aimed at the conversion of areas affected by the restructuring of the fisheries sector. In many cases, these cannot be dealt with by traditional policies and tools on their own. In this respect, Axis 4 is similar to the Leader ‘area-based approach’ to development in rural areas. Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund is a tool for fisheries communities to drive development locally. It is implemented by private–public partnerships called Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs). These groups are made up of representatives from fisheries and aquaculture and from all parts of the community. Together they prepare and implement a local development strategy for their area. Throughout Europe, more than 300 of these FLAGs have already generated several thousand projects adapted to local needs. In the Algarve region (Portugal) there are currently two FLAGs active, one in the ‘barlavento’ and the other one in the ‘sotavento’ area. With the current paper, we want to take stock of some of their emerging results and achievements. Given the increased prominence of community-led local development strategies in the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMMF) and other EU funding programmes for the operational programming period 2014–2020, we want to assess what Axis 4 has offered so far to those fisheries communities and the roles which FLAGs can and should be playing to address the challenges and opportunities facing their territories.

Keywords

Fisheries communities Resilience Local development FLAGs 

References

  1. Boyd, H., & Charles, A. (2006). Creating community-based indicators to monitor sustainability of local fisheries. Oceans and Coastal Management, 49, 237–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buck, B., Krause, G., & Rosenthal, H. (2004). Extensive open ocean aquaculture development within wind farms in Germany: The prospect of offshore co-management and legal constraints. Ocean and Coastal Management, 47, 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CCDR Algarve—Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Algarve. (2007). PROT ALGARVE—Plano Regional de Ordenamento Territorial do Algarve. Faro: CCDR Algarve.Google Scholar
  4. CE—Comissão Europeia. (2010). A Política Comum da Pesca em números: dados estatísticos de base (ed. 2010). Luxemburgo: Serviço das Publicações Oficiais das Comunidades Europeias.Google Scholar
  5. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. (1952). Resource conservation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. (1968). Resource conservation: Economics and policies (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. CNADS—Conselho Nacional do Ambiente e do Desenvolvimento Sustentável. (2001). Projecto de Reflexão sobre o Desenvolvimento Sustentável da Zona Costeira (GTZC—5ª versão prov.01.02.13). Lisboa: CNADS.Google Scholar
  8. EMAM—Estrutura de Missão para os Assuntos do Mar. (2007). Estratégia Nacional para o Mar. Lisboa: Ministério da Defesa Nacional.Google Scholar
  9. FAO. (2009). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2008. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.Google Scholar
  10. FAO. (2014). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture opportunities and challenges 2014. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.Google Scholar
  11. Garrido, A. (2001). Henrique Tenreiro—«Patrão das Pescas» e Guardião do Estado Novo. Análise Social, 36(160), 839–862.Google Scholar
  12. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jakobsen, E., Mortensen, A., Vikesland, M., & Cappelen, A. (n.d.). Attracting the winners. The competitiveness of five European maritime industries. Available from http://menon.no/upload/2011/09/28/attracting_the_winners.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2012.
  14. Krautkraemer, J. (2005, April). Economics of natural resource scarcity: The state of the debate (Discussion Paper 05-14, Resources for the Future).Google Scholar
  15. Lopes, F., & Cunha, P. (2010). A plataforma continental algarvia e províncias adjacentes: Uma análise geomorfológica. In J. Neiva, A. Ribeiro, M. Victor, F. Noronha, & M. Ramalho (Eds.), Ciências Geológicas: Ensino, Investigação e sua História (Vol. I—Geologia Clássica) (pp. 479–490). Lisboa: Associação Portuguesa de Geólogos/Sociedade Geológica de Portugal.Google Scholar
  16. McGrath, K. (2004). The feasibility of using zoning to reduce conflicts in the exclusive economic zone. Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, 11, 183–213.Google Scholar
  17. Ostrom, E. (2004). Understanding collective action. In R. Meinzen-Dick & M. Di Gregorio (Eds.), Collective action and property rights for sustainable development. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Pillay, T. (2004). Aquaculture and the environment (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Prabhu, R. (2011). Institutional dynamics in community-based Fisheries Resource Management for sustainable development of marine fisheries in Kerala. Kerala: Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT).Google Scholar
  20. SaeR—Sociedade de Avaliação de Empresas e Risco. (2009). O Hypercluster da Economia do Mar: Um Domínio de Potencial Estratégico para o Desenvolvimento da Economia Portuguesa. Lisboa: SaeR/Associação Comercial de Lisboa.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, S. L. (2012). Toward inclusive co-management: Factors influencing stakeholder participation. Coastal Management, 40(3), 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sørensen, H., Hansen, L., Hansen, R., Hammarlund, K., Thorpe, T., & McCullen, P. (2003). Social planning and environmental impact. Results from the work of the European Thematic Network on Wave Energy (WaveNet) (pp. 305–377). Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development Programme.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro Valadas Monteiro
    • 1
    • 2
  • Teresa de Noronha
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Regional Directorate for Agriculture and Fisheries of AlgarveFaroPortugal
  2. 2.Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics (CIEO), University of AlgarveFaroPortugal
  3. 3.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of AlgarveFaroPortugal

Personalised recommendations