Resilience-based steps for adaptive co-management of Arctic small-scale fisheries

We did a narrative review that considers, through an informal process, a mix of quantitative and qualitative literature (e.g. Berrang-Ford et al 2015, Xiao and Watson 2019), to broadly describe how fisheries management has used resilience across the North. First, using the search engine Web of Science, we gathered English peer-reviewed literature at the intersection of Arctic fisheries management and resilience, including literature from the eight Arctic Council member countries that cover both Arctic and boreal fisheries. We conducted the search in October 2020 (see table S1 for the search string used). The initial output included 210 unique publications. We screened all titles and abstracts to determine which publications to analyze based on the inclusion criteria (table S2). Then we conducted a full-text screening if needed. In the end, we kept 72 articles (figure 1; complete list of the 72 articles is in data table DS1).

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Second, we developed 43 coding questions (table S3) to guide the literature review analysis, structured around key themes (box S1) relevant to the topic areas: adaptive co-management and resilience. Developing coding questions to extract data from literature is common in systematic literature review and can be based on preexisting concepts (i.e. deductive coding; Xiao and Watson 2019). Here, these coding questions allowed us to extract important information as related to resilience, management, and their interaction (box S1).

As a quality assessment of the literature review, we assigned a 'relevance score' to each coded article based on its level of relevance to the review questions (e.g. Teufel and Moens 2002, Xiao and Watson 2019). The criteria for assigning relevance scores were based on the total score to seven coding questions deemed most critical to the topic areas (adaptive co-management and resilience; table S4). Articles had the highest relevance score if their total score was >6, a medium score for a total of 4 or 5, and a low score if their total was <4.

Third, using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis, we analysed literature review data. We provide descriptive information, expressed as percentages of articles (relative to the total sample size of 72), to give an overview of the sample in terms of geographic areas, scope, and approaches used. Then, we carried out a qualitative content analysis, widely used to analyse selected text (Graneheim and Lundman 2004, Yow 2014, Vaismoradi et al 2016, Krippendorff 2018). The key techniques were 'manifest' and 'latent' content analysis (Krippendorff 2018) supplemented with 'critical discourse' analysis (Fairclough 2010) to develop themes and their linkages emerging from the studies (figure S1). Manifest content analysis is aimed at the objective, surface, or concrete content. For example, assume that the phrase 'climate change' appears many times in a text. Latent content analysis is aimed at the underlining or implicit meanings, e.g. whether 'climate change' is mentioned in the text in an approving or disapproving manner. Critical discourse analysis explores the connections between the use of language and the social and political contexts in which it occurs. It explores issues such as cultural differences, gender, ethnicity, ideology, and identity, and how these are all constructed and reflected in texts.

In the second part of the paper, we revisit the steps developed by Kristofferson and Berkes (2005) to implement adaptive co-management of Arctic Char fisheries. Our conceptual lens to expand the steps is resilience thinking, and we build on insights from the literature review as well as from seminal research and guidelines on adaptive co-management and resilience (e.g. Folke et al 2005, Armitage et al 2011, Biggs et al 2012, 2015, Arctic Council 2016). We aimed to gear the steps more specifically to building resilience within fishery social-ecological systems, thus modifying the original names of the steps to better reflect the revisited scope. The original five steps were: (1) dialogue, (2) field study and analysis, (3) design of alternative management actions, (4) monitoring and assessment of management actions, and (5) evaluation. For example, we renamed one of the steps 'place-based social-ecological participatory research' instead of 'field study and analysis' to emphasize the importance of using, as part of adaptive co-management, place-based and participatory research approaches that recognize the linkages between ecological and social systems. We further added broad and adaptable management action items to help implement the steps in ways that support resilience.

Finally, we applied our proposed steps to implementing resilience-building adaptive co-management to two case studies in the Canadian Arctic, where the largest commercial fisheries for Arctic Char in Nunavut operate: Cambridge Bay and Pangnirtung. We broadly used peer-reviewed and grey literature, including government reports, related to these two fisheries to assess the extent to which the different steps are already being implemented and how they could be further applied in these contexts to foster social-ecological resilience.

Based on how studies defined the notion of resilience in the context of fisheries management in the North, we identified four resilience categories: social-ecological (36%, n = 26), community (28%, n = 20), capacity (19%, n = 14), and ecological (18%, n = 13) resilience (table 2). For example, to assess Indigenous governance and stewardship to build resilient northern abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) fisheries in northwest Canada, Lee et al (2019) defined resilience as an ability to adapt or transform in the face of social-ecological change in ways that continue supporting human well-being, which we categorized as social-ecological resilience.

Four themes emerged as supporting important relationships between marine fisheries management and resilience. First, identifying and understanding specific drivers of change shaping fishery social-ecological systems is critical. This involves developing locally relevant indicators to monitor the influence of drivers of change on fisheries. For example, regular observations of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) through scale growth analysis could enable to manage a species with complex life history and growth patterns in the Situk River in Southeast Alaska (Catterson et al 2020). Second, using learning as a central vehicle to navigate change is important. We identified different but overlapping ways of learning in Arctic marine fisheries management (table S6). For example, Indigenous-led conservation strategies to steward marine resources (e.g. fish, shellfish, marine mammals, and algae) in Central Coast First Nations of British Columbia (Wuikinuxv, Heiltsuk, Kitasoo/Xai'xais, and Nuxalk Nations) primarily build on culturally transmitted Indigenous learnings that developed over thousands of years of observation (Eckert et al 2018).

Third, a sound understanding of enablers and barriers to building resilience in a specific fishery context is critical for effective management. For instance, drawing on Indigenous governance and stewardship of northern abalone fisheries in Canada's northwest coastal communities, Lee et al (2019) identified features of First Nations fisheries governance regimes that could enhance resilience, including managing social connectivity, encouraging learning and experimentation, and broadening participation. In the same abalone fisheries, Lee et al (2019) also identified potential barriers to resilience, such as little learning from management actions due to ineffective monitoring of fisheries closures and limited participation of resource users in management processes for over two decades. Although stakeholders, managers, and researchers should work to uncover resilience barriers and enablers specific to their fishery context, we identified general enablers and barriers of fishery resilience (table 3). Resilience enabling factors included close collaborations with Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) holders for effective decision-making, flexible participatory management that can confront unexpected change, and collective action to manage risk. Barriers to building resilience included limited data and information on social and ecological systems to inform management, lack of inclusion for different perspectives, and limited local management capacities (table 3).

The fourth theme is the importance of bringing together different knowledge systems and fostering knowledge co-production to manage fisheries and advance their resilience. Many studies documented ILK's contribution to fisheries management (61%, n = 44). Most (94%, n = 32) of the high relevance studies reported collaborating with various types of ILK in fisheries management. Yet only 36% (n = 12) of medium and none (n = 0) of the low relevance studies documented ILK. Articles documenting ILK used various terminologies, including local (or place-based) knowledge, Traditional Knowledge, Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, and Traditional Ecological Knowledge. ILK informed fisheries management in many ways, such as to improve understanding of natural environments through monitoring, as a source of resilience, to contribute directly to fisheries co-management, and to contribute to knowledge co-production to develop innovative fishing gear (table S7).

The five revisited resilience-based steps to implement adaptive co-management that we propose are: (1) discussion forum, (2) place-based social-ecological participatory research, (3) design of resilience-building management actions, (4) collaborative monitoring, and (5) joint process evaluation (table 4). We make three major modifications to the original five steps. First and overall, we make resilience-building an explicit goal of this guideline and fine-tune the original steps (Kristoffersen and Berkes 2005) with a resilience thinking lens that is built on insights from the literature review (including the four themes identified as supporting important relationships between fisheries management and resilience) and foundational scholarship in the topic areas. More specifically, we sought to add explicit resilience-building notions (e.g. Biggs et al 2012, 2015, Arctic Council 2016) to the adaptive co-management steps. Second, we propose action items under each step to inspire managers, policy-makers, stakeholders, and scientists on ways to implement adaptive co-management. The proposed action items are broad and adaptable because there is no single exact way to implement adaptive co-management, and it is essential to modify and develop context-specific plans. Third, we further emphasize the importance of an iterative approach to implement adaptive co-management where the steps can be repeated periodically. This way, outcomes from step 5—joint process evaluation—and the learning gained throughout the process, can continually help improve how the fishery social-ecological system is monitored and managed adaptively to advance resilience.

To explore how our revisited steps can reinforce adaptive co-management of Arctic fisheries, we focus on two case studies: Cambridge Bay and Pangnirtung, both in Nunavut, Canada (figure 3). These represent two of the largest commercial fisheries for Arctic Char in the Canadian Arctic, meaning that a wealth of published information is available about the management of these fisheries. In particular, the two fisheries feature adaptive co-management characteristics (Roux et al 2011, Galappaththi et al 2021). In fact, Kristofferson and Berkes (2005) developed their steps to implement adaptive co-management in Cambridge Bay. Moreover, both communities are in regions where ILK and Western science have reported important environmental changes (NTI2001, Idrobo and Berkes 2012, Galappaththi et al 2019, Falardeau et al 2022).

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

3.3.1. Case study contexts

3.3.2. How are the revisited steps currently applied?

Through a narrative review of peer-reviewed literature from the natural and social sciences and an assessment of foundational scholarship on adaptive co-management and resilience, we conceptually revisited the steps that Kristofferson and Berkes (2005) introduced some years ago to implement adaptive co-management of Arctic Char fisheries. The original steps consisted in an 'outline' of an adaptive co-management process that initiated a reflection on how to approach uncertainty, complexity, and collaboration among multiple stakeholders and their different knowledge systems. Thus, there was already room to expand the steps back then. In recent years, calls for new ways to manage Arctic resources in the face of rapid environmental change (e.g. Arctic Council 2016, Meredith et al 2019), the emergence of novel guidelines for evaluating and building resilience (e.g. Biggs et al 2012, 2015), and calls for reconciliation through research and management (e.g. Reid et al 2021), have all further expanded the room for improving the initial guideline. Therefore, we push forward steps that propose novel ideas for how adaptive co-management can support knowledge plurality and co-production, with the common goal of building resilience in fishery social-ecological systems. Our steps encourage paradigm shifts that promote a better fit between management, ecological dynamics, and social dynamics, deeper interweaving of knowledges, as well as concrete ways to foster more resilient fisheries through management.

Given the pace of change in the Anthropocene, shifts away from conventional approaches to management that maintain top-down dynamics as well as a mechanistic view of uncertainty—seen as something to quantify through models and to minimize—are needed (e.g. Arctic Council 2016). While modelling is essential to guiding management, uncertainty is, and will be, inherent to rapidly changing Arctic systems. Rather than viewing it as daunting, adaptive co-management embraces uncertainty through an experimental process of fostering transdisciplinary learning and collaboration among co-managers and stakeholders (e.g. Plummer et al 2012). For example, co-managers of the Cambridge Bay fishery regularly meet to discuss and assess fish stocks' status in light of jointly defined goals, including sustainability and shared stewardship (DFO 2014). In this discussion space, new management actions can be defined for the next iteration. Adaptive co-management thus seeks to gather as much information as possible on the system through regular monitoring via both Western science and ILK. It also experiments with new management actions (the revisited step 3 propose that actions are jointly identified by co-managers as actions to foster resilience) as part of an iterative process acknowledging uncertainty as inherent to complex systems.

While the original steps proposed to test alternative management options, there was no explicit focus on resilience in defining management actions, merely to 'analyze management actions in relation to outcomes predicted by ecological theory' (Kristofferson and Berkes 2005, p 265). We suggest moving beyond ecological theory which, although relevant to assess ecosystems and fisheries, can miss social-ecological feedbacks and cascading effects that are hardly captured by quantitative models focused on the ecological system (e.g. Kutz and Tomaselli 2019, Falardeau and Bennett 2020). Rather, we bring forward, under revisited step 4 (Collaborative monitoring), that management outcomes are assessed via collaborative, transdisciplinary approaches (such as Two-Eyed Seeing) that embrace a resilience thinking lens, better suited to unravel the wider social-ecological implications of management actions.

Indeed, our proposed steps prompt a shift towards participatory decision-making and bottom-up approaches where local fishing communities have the lead role in monitoring and managing their fisheries. In these participatory, bottom-up processes, learning-by-doing and knowledge co-production are instrumental (Armitage et al 2011, Berkes 2018, Conway et al 2019, Schatz et al 2019). Given that most Arctic fisheries are placed within Indigenous Territories, adaptive and participatory approaches together with Two-Eyed Seeing—a framework to interweave Indigenous Knowledge and Western science (Reid et al 2021)—are more appropriate than conventional fisheries management. In these post-colonial contexts, ethical considerations prompt the inclusion of ILK and Indigenous methodologies to move away from the mould of top-down science and management. Community-based participatory approaches can also generate outcomes beyond research and management, such as capacity building and community healing (Drawson et al 2017, Bernauer 2022).

There are additional practical considerations in shifting towards participatory, bottom-up approaches, including the co-production of more integrative and usable knowledge for management (e.g. Ford et al 2013, Tengö et al 2017), and a better understanding of problems through improving the spatial and temporal scale of knowledge (e.g. Kutz and Tomaselli 2019). The original steps were at the forefront by proposing to 'document Inuit knowledge' and 'incorporate traditional ecological knowledge' in a time where management was largely driven by Western science. But the revisited steps build on major progress and novel propositions made to foster reconciliation through research and management (e.g. Pederson et al 2020, Reid et al 2021), by proposing to interweave knowledges in ways that maintains their integrity, and by encouraging the use of Indigenous methodologies (table S8).

Importantly, our proposed adaptive co-management steps have the explicit goal of fostering resilience within Arctic Char and other small-scale fisheries in the Arctic and more widely. The original steps did not articulate how the adaptive co-management process can contribute to resilience-building. However, as Plummer et al (2012) highlighted, a clear purpose is critical for assessing and evaluating the outcomes from adaptive co-management. This expansion to deeper and more explicit considerations for resilience building is timely, given the pace of Arctic climate change (e.g. IPCC 2019), the increasing demand for fisheries products at local (e.g. GN 2016) and global levels (e.g. Niiranen et al 2018, Naylor et al 2021), and thus the urgent need for management to cope, adapt, and transform in ways that ensure sustainable access to fish. As such, we revised each of the original steps with a resilience thinking lens. For instance, the action item of 'understanding resilience barriers and enabling factors' was included under step 3 (Design of resilience-building management actions). This was meant to ensure that, when developing new management actions, co-managers first aim to understand barriers to, and enablers of, resilience within their system so that the chosen actions do not unintentionally increase vulnerability. Opportunities for building resilience could also be jointly identified by co-managers during this step, by using the seven principles for building resilience (Biggs et al 2012, 2015). This could include, for example, monitoring and managing the diversity, redundancy, and connectivity that underpins productive fisheries. The original step 'design of alternative management actions' did not bring up the importance of considering the resilience implications of different management options, thus missing a critical dimension that could create risk in the system.

Finally, to prompt management improvements and inspire co-managers regarding the practice of adaptive co-management, we propose action items associated with the steps and based on examples from the literature review (table S8). The action items provide initial guidance for those involved in fishery co-management processes; they are intentionally broad so that they can adapt to local contexts. For instance, community-based monitoring efforts could investigate a range of social-ecological indicators, as well as the drivers affecting them and resilience factors that can mitigate these drivers (e.g. see Burgass et al 2019 for a good example of such social-ecological indicators). Participatory monitoring could examine barriers to, and enablers of, resilience. Along these lines, Whitney and Ban (2019) feature a concrete example of how stimulating participatory monitoring efforts can improve social-ecological resilience and adaptation to climate change in coastal British Columbia.

Overall, Cambridge Bay and Pangnirtung in Nunavut are two examples of adaptive co-management of small-scale Arctic fisheries that provide important reference points for other Arctic fisheries to move towards adaptive co-management. Records of adaptive co-management were being featured in the Cambridge Bay Arctic Char fishery up to three decades ago (McDonald 1988, Kristofferson and Berkes 2005), and management is continuously progressing towards more adaptive and ILK-based approaches. This highlights how adaptive co-management of Arctic small-scale fisheries is a long-term journey requiring mutual trust, respect, joint effort, and co-learning among co-managers and resource users—a journey that will likely involve challenges and compromises. This journey also requires long-term commitment from all the actors involved, which is fundamental to building trust as well as strong, long-lasting relationships needed to jointly navigate adaptive co-management.

Indeed, while the two fisheries already featured some adaptive co-management steps and many resilience-building practices, assessing these cases also provided an opportunity to examine means of further improvement. For instance, the Ikaarvik youth recently developed the SciQ concept along with 45 recommendations for researchers to achieve more meaningful engagement with Inuit communities and IQ (Pedersen et al 2020). This stresses that improvements are required regarding how science interacts with IQ. Moreover, resilience building has yet to become a formal goal of adaptive co-management in these regions. For instance, while the Cambridge Bay fishery does feature resilience-building practices, the IFMP does not mention resilience explicitly (DFO 2014). Featuring resilience-building as an explicit goal of management would be important to formalize discussions and learnings on resilience barriers and enablers specific to that fishery and foster concrete actions to act upon them. For instance, deeper collaborations with IQ for monitoring and management would correspond to a resilience-building action, as knowledge plurality arose among the four resilience-building themes we identified.

Adaptive co-management is recognized as a multipurpose, flexible approach (Plummer et al 2012). Thus, we argue that it can be easily connected to, or merged with, different ways of conceptualizing social-ecological systems, resilience, and other management approaches. This is especially relevant in the multifaceted Arctic (e.g. Larsen and Fondahl 2015, Arctic Council 2016), where multiple socio-cultural contexts, knowledges, and management dynamics co-exist and interact (e.g. management of other wildlife has implications for Arctic Char fisheries if people turn to more fishing in response to changes in other wildlife). For instance, we approached resilience through an overarching definition of social-ecological resilience including other ways of conceptualizing resilience, such as resilience of hunting skills and practice (Berkes and Jolly 2001), livelihood resilience (Nuttall 2007), and Indigenous resilience. The latter encapsulates how cultural factors such as knowledge and learning, along with the broader political ecology, determine how Indigenous Peoples understand, deal with, and adapt to environmental change (Ford et al 2020, Berkes et al 2021).

Furthermore, adaptive co-management can function in collaboration with other management approaches. Our proposed adaptive co-management steps build on and echo other guiding principles to improve resource management processes in the face of human-driven perturbations of ecosystems and natural resources, including the eight design principles for commons management (Ostrom 1990), the 'ten commandments' for ecosystem-based management (Francis et al 2007), and community-based monitoring (Danielsen et al 2020). Thus, while our resilience-based steps for adaptive co-management bring unique elements for managing resilient fisheries, they can easily function in synergy with other management schemes. For instance, adaptive co-management of Arctic Char fisheries could be connected to existing ecosystem-based management (Thrush and Dayton 2010, McLeod and Leslie 2009) such as the Integrated Ocean Management Plan for the Beaufort Sea (Beaufort Sea Planning Office 2009). Moreover, adaptive co-management is part of a continuum and can accommodate Indigenous communities whose ultimate aim is self-management, that is, communities having jurisdiction over the management of their resources in a process whereby power shifts from top-down to bottom-up and local stakeholders jointly learn how to fully take on research, monitoring and management tasks.

Adaptive co-management is thus adaptable to multiple contexts, making it especially appropriate to the multifaceted Arctic and beyond. However, flexibility also presents the risk of lack of clarity in goals, and thus difficulty in evaluating whether specific outcomes are attained, which can be a setback in adaptive co-management (Plummer and Armitage 2007). We thus propose a guideline for implementing adaptive co-management with the specific goal of building resilience—resilience being proposed as a unifying concept to orient and assess adaptive co-management outcomes (Plummer and Armitage 2007). While we conceptually developed the steps for guiding the management of small-scale Arctic fisheries in ways that build their resilience, we believe the steps could be applied to any co-management context in which drivers of change such as climate change and overfishing put fisheries at risk, and where different knowledge systems coexist.