The philosophy: “What I hear, I forget. What I see, I remember. What I do, I understand.”
The GAP2 Project
Since 2012, 38 partner institutions from 11 European countries have been engaged in mutual ‘learning by doing’. This work has centred around 13 case studies, where fishers, scientists and sometimes policy makers, have worked together on research aimed at
‘Mutual benefits’ (c) Manuel Lemos
solving problems of shared interest in fisheries management and science. GAP2 has focused upon the ‘Participatory Research’ approach because:
- The evidence-base for management improves if knowledge of fishers and their experience is integrated in a meaningful way with scientific and policy knowledge.
- If knowledge is shared and co- constructed it improves the implementation and effectiveness of management measures and;
- If knowledge is shared and co- constructed it improves the support for policy and societal goals to achieve responsible, sustainable, productive fisheries.
The evidence to support this reasoning can be found within the results of the GAP2 case studies. Many case studies were already underway, having been established as part of the GAP1 project (2008-2011). The participatory processes in all 13 applied examples were studied and the learning journey and outcomes shared and communicated to policy makers and wider society.
This policy brief describes the tangible results and illustrates the value of embedding participatory approaches more widely in research and management.
Outcomes – for what and for whom?
The outcomes of GAP2 come in different forms relevant to different people, at different organisational levels. There are case-specific concrete outcomes at local levels (see Box 1) and there have been lessons learnt about the participatory process itself (Box 2).
Box 1 Specific concrete outcomes1. A long-term management plan for the red shrimp fishery in Palamós, Spain, endorsed by the regional and national Governments and an exemplar in the Mediterranean. Read more. 2. Facilitated a set of stock management rules for western Baltic Herring, mutually agreed by member states, Norway, the Pelagic and Baltic RAC. Read more. 3. Proposed, through a process of co-management, the adoption of new technical measure regulations (pop-up traps) for selective fishing on whitefish in Lake Vättern. Read more. 4. Developed an ecosystem modelling tool used by STECF to evaluate options for a North Sea multiannual plan, taking account of mixed fisheries and the landing obligation. Read more. 5. Contributed towards the revision of a summer trawl-fishing ban in the Adriatic Sea, as a result of providing GAP2 data to FAO Adriamed, and the GFCM. Read more. 6. New data on the distribution of IUCN Red List species around German coast, and the establishment of the ‘Sustain Seafood’ consortium. Read more. 7. Facilitated development of a strategic plan for FAD management in Indian Ocean tuna fisheries. Read more. |
The outcomes of GAP2 come in different forms relevant to different people, at different organisational levels. There are case-specific concrete outcomes at local levels (see Box 1) and there have been lessons learnt about the participatory process itself (Box 2).
Box 2 – Sharing lessons on how to do it1. Developed practical advice on how to do participatory research effectively, based on in-depth experience from examples around Europe. Read more. 2. Provided participatory researchers tools for the job. Read more. 3. Delivered courses for natural scientists to learn about social science methods in participatory research. Read more. 4. Highlighted collaborative research methods as a pathway to co-management. Read more. 5. Demonstrated how exchanging experiences can help to develop new ideas and strategies on how to make collaboration effective and useful to fishers, scientists and policy makers. Read more. 6. Showed how establishing a common language enables actors to share knowledge and build common ground. Read more.
|
Don’t push a rope, but cement change!
Releasing the value of GAP2 partners’ experience requires making local scale outcomes relevant and useful to regional and European level decision-making. It also requires evolving the institutional processes and structures that enable co-created knowledge to be applied and made useful. Rather than standing on the outside and trying to enact change externally, we have worked on cementing change from within by connecting outcomes with the institutional processes and structures that legitimise and enable them (Box 3).
Box 3 – Cementing change1. Established and sustained ToRs for Stakeholder and Scientist collaboration in ICES scientific working groups. Read more. 2. Tuna – ISSF across the world hold’s participatory approach GAP2-type meetings for skippers to discuss best selective fishing practices. Read more. 3. Channel Scallop – English and French fishermen agree to work towards joint, regional management plan for this economically important fishery. Read more. 4. Influenced European and regional research funding programmes – demonstrating good practice in Responsible Research and Innovation and evolving what it means in in practice. 5. Played a leading role in establishing new organisational structures championing collaborative research approaches (e.g. Fishing into the Future, UK. Read more |
Building successful participatory approaches is a necessity of good governance that requires the will and support from all actors: fishers, scientists, civil society (NGOs) and policy makers throughout Europe. We call upon you to participate in creating change!
Authored by Marloes Kraan and Steven Mackinson on behalf of the GAP2 team.
Contact: Dr Steven Mackinson, GAP2 Coordinator, steve.mackinson@cefas.co.uk
