Fishery Improvement Projects as a governance tool for fisheries sustainability: A global comparative analysis

Autoři: Beatrice Crona aff001;  Sofia Käll aff001;  Tracy Van Holt aff001
Působiště autorů: Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden aff001;  Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden aff002;  NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223054


Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs) are a form of private governance using seafood supply chains to reduce environmental impacts of fishing in some of the most challenged fisheries. Some FIPs are industry-led, others are championed by NGOs. They range across many different fishery types, in both high- and low-income settings. Their diversity is notable, and their proliferation remarkable. This rapid growth suggests FIPs are becoming a key feature of the fisheries governance landscape globally. Based on a global sample of 107 FIPs, we systematically examined their reported actions, the actors involved, and their achievements in terms of policy and practice outputs. The most common actions were dialogues with policy stakeholders, data collection, and educational efforts directed at fishers. Common policy outputs included development of management plans and/or a management body, and rules for limiting entry and increasing compliance. Practice related outputs were dominated by gear changes, and observer and traceability programs. Only crab and lobster FIPs engaged in sustained policy conversations as one of the most common actions. Shrimp and tuna fisheries report more engagement in testing and implementing changes to fishery practices. While supply chain actors are involved in all FIPs, retailers and 1st tier suppliers are relatively absent from FIP activities, and are primarily involved in rallying financial support or some policy engagement. Based on our analysis we discuss the opportunities and challenges FIPs will likely need to engage with to contribute to a global transition to more socially and environmentally sustainable fisheries. We outline key areas where further work is needed to understand how FIPs can improve their contribution to global fisheries governance in the future.

Klíčová slova:

Fisheries – Shrimp – Fisheries science – Sustainable agriculture – Crabs – Tuna – Regulations – Lobsters


1. Grafton Q, Hilborn R, Squires D, Tait M, Williams M. Handbook of marine fisheries conservation and management. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.

2. Kooiman J, Bavinck M. The governing perspective. In: Kooiman J, Jentorft S, Bavinck M, Pullin R, editors. Fish for Life: Interactive Governance for Fisheries. Amsterdam University Press; 2005. pp. 11–24. doi: 10.5117/9789053566862

3. Symes D. Fisheries governance: A coming of age for fisheries social science? Fish Res. Elsevier; 2006;81: 113–117. doi: 10.1016/J.FISHRES.2006.06.015

4. Falkner R. Private Environmental Governance and International Relations: Exploring the Links. Glob Environ Polit. 2003;3: 72–87. doi: 10.1162/152638003322068227

5. Van Holt T, Weisman W, Käll S, Crona B, Vergara R. What does popular media have to tell us about the future of seafood? Ann N Y Acad Sci. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111); 2018;1421: 46–61. doi: 10.1111/nyas.13613 29727023

6. California Environmental Associates. Summary findings from the Global Landscape Review of Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs) [Internet]. 2015. Available:

7. Cannon J, Sousa P, Katara I, Veiga P, Spear B, Beveridge D, et al. Fishery improvement projects: Performance over the past decade. Mar Policy. 2018;97: 179–187. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.007

8. Bush SR, Bailey M, van Zwieten P, Kochen M, Wiryawan B, Doddema A, et al. Private provision of public information in tuna fisheries. Mar Policy. Pergamon; 2017;77: 130–135. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.12.019

9. Deighan LK, Jenkins LD. Fishing for recognition: Understanding the use of NGO guidelines in fishery improvement projects. Mar Policy. Elsevier; 2015;51: 476–485. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.10.009

10. Duggan DE, Kochen M. Small in scale but big in potential: Opportunities and challenges for fisheries certification of Indonesian small-scale tuna fisheries. Mar Policy. Elsevier; 2016;67: 30–39. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.008

11. Tolentino-Zondervan F, Berentsen P, Bush S, Idemne J, Babaran R, Lansink AO. Comparison of Private Incentive Mechanisms for Improving Sustainability of Filipino Tuna Fisheries. World Dev. Pergamon; 2016;83: 264–279. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.01.011

12. Tolentino-Zondervan F, Berentsen P, Bush SR, Digal L, Oude Lansink A. Fisher-Level Decision Making to Participate in Fisheries Improvement Projects (FIPs) for Yellowfin Tuna in the Philippines. Rummer JL, editor. PLoS One. Public Library of Science; 2016;11: e0163537. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163537 27732607

13. Partners Context. FIP Network Guide. 2014.

14. California Environmental Associates. Progress Towards Sustainable Seafood–By the Numbers [Internet]. 2017. Available:

15. Sampson GS, Sanchirico JN, Roheim CA, Bush SR, Taylor JE, Allison EH, et al. Secure sustainable seafood from developing countries. Science (80-). American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2015;348: 504–506. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa4639 25931542

16. Thomas Travaille KL, Crowder LB, Kendrick GA, Clifton J. Key attributes related to fishery improvement project (FIP) effectiveness in promoting improvements towards sustainability. Fish Fish. 2019; 1–14. doi: 10.1111/faf.12357

17. Gibbon P, Bair J, Ponte S. Governing global value chains: an introduction. Econ Soc. 2008;37: 315–338. doi: 10.1080/03085140802172656

18. Glasbergen P. Setting the scene: the partnership paradigm in the making. Glasbergen P., Biermann F., Mol A, editor. Partnerships, Gov Sustain Dev Reflections Theory Pract. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2008; 1–25. doi: 10.1007/s12043-009-0037-4

19. Groeneveld RA, Bush SR, Bailey M. Private governance of ocean resources. In: Nunes P.A.L.D.; Svensson L.E. and Markandya A, editor. Handbook on the Economics and Management of Sustainable Oceans. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2017. pp. 416–428. doi: 10.4337/9781786430724.00031

20. Gulbrandsen L. Transnational Environmental Governance: The Emergence and Effects of the Certification of Forests and Fisheries. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2010. doi: 10.4337/9781849806756

21. Smith H, Basurto X. Defining Small-Scale Fisheries and Examining the Role of Science in Shaping Perceptions of Who and What Counts: A Systematic Review. Front Mar Sci. Frontiers; 2019;6: 236. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00236

22. Sutton M, Wimpee L. Towards Sustainable Seafood: The Evolution of a Conservation Movement. SEAFOOD Ecolabelling. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008. pp. 403–415. doi: 10.1002/9781444301380.ch20

23. Jacquet J, Pauly D. Funding Priorities: Big Barriers to Small-Scale Fisheries. Conserv Biol. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111); 2008;22: 832–835. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00978.x 18637910

24. Ward TJ. Barriers to biodiversity conservation in marine fishery certification. Fish Fish. 2008;9: 169–177. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00277.x

25. Gulbrandsen LH. The emergence and effectiveness of the Marine Stewardship Council. Mar Policy. 2009;33: 654–660. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2009.01.002

26. Jacquet J, Pauly D, Ainley D, Holt S, Dayton P, Jackson J. Seafood stewardship in crisis. Nature. 2010;467: 28–29. doi: 10.1038/467028a 20811437

27. Cashore B, Auld G, Bernstein S, McDermott C. Can Non-state Governance? Ratchet Up? Global Environmental Standards? Lessons from the Forest Sector. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law. 2007;16: 158–172. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9388.2007.00560.x

28. Auld G. Confronting trade-offs and interactive effects in the choice of policy focus: Specialized versus comprehensive private governance. Regul Gov. 2014;8: 126–148. doi: 10.1111/rego.12034

29. Gulbrandsen LH. Dynamic governance interactions: Evolutionary effects of state responses to non-state certification programs. Regul Gov. 2014;8: 74–92. doi: 10.1111/rego.12005

30. Pattberg P. Private Governance and the South: lessons from global forest politics. Third World Q. 2006;27: 579–593. doi: 10.1080/01436590600720769

31. Ponte S, Gibbon P. Quality standards, conventions and the governance of global value chains. Econ Soc. Taylor & Francis; 2005;34: 1–31. doi: 10.1080/0308514042000329315

32. Ponte S. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the Making of a Market for ‘Sustainable Fish.’ J Agrar Chang. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111); 2012;12: 300–315. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0366.2011.00345.x

33. Iles A. Making seafood sustainable: merging consumption and citizenship in the United States. Sci Public Policy. Oxford University Press; 2004;31: 127–138. doi: 10.3152/147154304781780127

34. Adolf S, Bush SR, Vellema S. Reinserting state agency in global value chains: The case of MSC certified skipjack tuna. Fish Res. Elsevier; 2016;182: 79–87. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2015.11.020

35. Vellema S, van Wijk J. Partnerships intervening in global food chains: the emergence of co-creation in standard-setting and certification. J Clean Prod. Elsevier; 2015;107: 105–113. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.090

36. Bansal P, Roth K. Why Companies Go Green: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness. Acad Manag J. Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510; 2000;43: 717–736. doi: 10.5465/1556363

37. Kelly R, Pecl GT, Fleming A. Social licence in the marine sector: A review of understanding and application. Mar Policy. 2017;81: 21–28. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.005

38. Leith P, Ogier E, Haward M. Science and Social License: Defining Environmental Sustainability of Atlantic Salmon Aquaculture in South-Eastern Tasmania, Australia. Soc Epistemol. Routledge; 2014;28: 277–296. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2014.922641

39. The Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solution. Guidelines for Supporting Fishery Improvement Projects [Internet]. 2015. Available:

40. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership. SFP Fisheries Improvement Project Tool Kit [Internet]. 2015 [cited 11 May 2015]. Available:

41. WWF. FIP handbook, Guidelines Developing Fishery Improvement Projects [Internet]. 2013. Available:

42. Marine Stewardship Council. Guidance for using the MSC Benchmarking and Tracking Tool (BMT) [Internet]. 2014. Available:

43. Fishery Progress | Fishery Improvement Project Progress Tracking Database & Tools [Internet]. [cited 5 Jul 2019]. Available:

44. Krippendorff K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 2013. pp. 18–96. doi: 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2

45. MAXQDA [Internet]. Berlin: VERBI Software–Consult–Sozialforschung GmbH; Available:

46. Tableau Software [Internet]. Available:

47. Telesetsky A. U.S Seafood traceability as food law and the future as of marine fisheries. Environ Law. Lewis & Clark Law School; 2017;47: 765–795. doi: 10.2307/44371403

48. Gilman EL. Bycatch governance and best practice mitigation technology in global tuna fisheries. Mar Policy. Pergamon; 2011;35: 590–609. doi: 10.1016/J.MARPOL.2011.01.021

49. Pramod G, Nakamura K, Pitcher TJ, Delagran L. Estimates of illegal and unreported fish in seafood imports to the USA. Mar Policy. Pergamon; 2014;48: 102–113. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.019

50. Van Holt T, Crona B, Johnson JC, Gelcich S. The consequences of landscape change on fishing strategies. Sci Total Environ. Elsevier; 2017;579: 930–939. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.052 27884521

51. Wilderness Markets. Blue Swimming Crab Value Chain Analysis Indonesia [Internet]. 2014. Available:

52. Brander K. Reconciling biodiversity conservation and marine capture fisheries production. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Elsevier; 2010;2: 416–421. doi: 10.1016/J.COSUST.2010.09.003

53. Ridgeway L, Rice J. International organizations and fisheries governance. In: Grafton QR, Hilborn R SD, Tait M WMJ, editors. Handbook of Marine Fisheries Conservation and Management. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. pp. 485–504.

54. Van Holt T, Weisman W, Johnson J, Käll S, Whalen J, Spear B, et al. A Social Wellbeing in Fisheries Tool (SWIFT) to Help Improve Fisheries Performance. Sustainability. 2016;8: 667. doi: 10.3390/su8080667

55. Van Holt T, Weisman W. Global production network mapping for transforming socio-ecological systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Elsevier; 2016;20: 61–66. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.06.003

56. Olsson P, Folke C, Hughes TP. Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proc Natl Acad Sci. National Academy of Sciences; 2008;105: 9489–9494. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706905105 18621698

57. Brown RR, Farrelly MA, Loorbach DA. Actors working the institutions in sustainability transitions: The case of Melbourne’s stormwater management. Glob Environ Chang. Pergamon; 2013;23: 701–718. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.013

58. Moore M-L, Riddell D, Vocisano D. Scaling Out, Scaling Up, Scaling Deep: Strategies of Non-profits in Advancing Systemic Social Innovation. J Corp Citizsh. 2015;2015: 67–84. doi: 10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2015.ju.00009

59. Hardt MJ, Flett K, Howell CJ. Current Barriers to Large-scale Interoperability of Traceability Technology in the Seafood Sector. J Food Sci. 2017;82: A3–A12. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.13796 28833156

60. Bailey M, Bush SR, Miller A, Kochen M. The role of traceability in transforming seafood governance in the global South. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2016;18: 25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.004

61. Grafton RQ. Social capital and fisheries governance. Ocean Coast Manag. Elsevier; 2005;48: 753–766. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.08.003

62. Partelow S, Abson DJ, Schlüter A, Fernández-Giménez M, Von Wehrden H, Collier N. Privatizing the commons: New approaches need broader evaluative criteria for sustainability. Int J Commons. 2019;13: 747. doi: 10.18352/ijc.938

63. Tekwa EW, Fenichel EP, Levin SA, Pinsky ML. Path-dependent institutions drive alternative stable states in conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116: 689–694. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1806852116 30567975

64. Garcia SM. Governance, science and society: the ecosystem approach to fisheries. In: Grafton Q, Hilborn R, Squires D, Tait M, Williams M, editors. Handbook of Fisheries Conservation and Management. Oxford University Press; 2010. pp. 139–149.

65. Rice J, Ridgeway L. Conservation of biodiversity and fisheries management. In: Grafton QR, Hilborn R, S. D. & Tait M WM, editor. Handbook of Fisheries Conservation and Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. pp. 139–149.

66. Nyborg K, Anderies JM, Dannenberg A, Lindahl T, Schill C, Schlüter M, et al. Social norms as solutions. Science. 2016;354: 42–43. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf8317 27846488

67. Gifford R. Environmental Psychology Matters. Annu Rev Psychol. Annual Reviews; 2014;65: 541–579. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048 24050189

68. Schultz PW. Strategies for Promoting Proenvironmental Behavior. Eur Psychol. Hogrefe Publishing; 2014;19: 107–117. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000163

69. Coffey C. What Role for Public Participation in Fisheries Governance? In: Gray Tim S., editor. Participation in fisheries governance. Springer, Dordrecht; 2005. pp. 27–44. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-3778-3_2

70. Béné C. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Discourse, Policy Controversies and the Role of Science in the Politics of Shrimp Farming Development. Dev Policy Rev. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111); 2005;23: 585–614. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7679.2005.00304.x

71. Fransen LW, Kolk A. Global Rule-Setting for Business: A Critical Analysis of Multi-Stakeholder Standards. Organization. Sage PublicationsSage UK: London, England; 2007;14: 667–684. doi: 10.1177/1350508407080305

72. Anh PT, Bush SR, Mol APJ, Kroeze C. The Multi-Level Environmental Governance of Vietnamese Aquaculture: Global Certification, National Standards, Local Cooperatives. J Environ Policy Plan. Routledge; 2011;13: 373–397. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2011.633701

73. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership [Internet]. 2018 [cited 26 Apr 2018]. Available:

74. Konefal J. Environmental Movements, Market-Based Approaches, and Neoliberalization. Organ Environ. SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA; 2013;26: 336–352. doi: 10.1177/1086026612467982

75. Foley P, McCay B. Certifying the commons: eco-certification, privatization, and collective action. Ecol Soc. The Resilience Alliance; 2014;19: 28. doi: 10.5751/ES-06459-190228

76. Foley P. The Political Economy of Marine Stewardship Council Certification: Processors and Access in Newfoundland and Labrador’s Inshore Shrimp Industry. J Agrar Chang. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111); 2012;12: 436–457. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0366.2011.00344.x

77. Thyresson M, Crona B, Nyström M, de la Torre-Castro M, Jiddawi N. Tracing value chains to understand effects of trade on coral reef fish in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Mar Policy. Pergamon; 2013;38: 246–256. doi: 10.1016/J.MARPOL.2012.05.041

78. Crona BI, Daw TM, Swartz W, Norström A V., Nyström M, Thyresson M, et al. Masked, diluted and drowned out: how global seafood trade weakens signals from marine ecosystems. Fish Fish. 2016;17: 1175–1182. doi: 10.1111/faf.12109

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 10