13 May Integration of Knowledge and Public Officials: Keys to Advancing the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries in Chile

A recent study by researchers from the Millennium Institute SECOS revealed that, following the recognition of the ecosystem approach principle in the General Law on Fisheries and Aquaculture in 2013, the implementation of this principle in Chilean fisheries has made significant progress. These advances include the development of participatory spaces for fishers and scientists through the creation of Scientific and Management Committees, the inclusion of sustainable management criteria in decision-making, and the recognition of traditional knowledge and resource use practices. However, the implementation of the ecosystem approach still faces major challenges—particularly the need to further incorporate multiple types of knowledge in fisheries management, improve institutional coordination, develop mechanisms to systematize institutional memory, and build the capacities of public officials to lead participatory decision-making processes.

The year 2013 marked a turning point for Chile’s national fisheries sector. Following the enactment of amendments to the General Law on Fisheries and Aquaculture, one of the most significant developments was the formal recognition of the Ecosystem Approach principle applied to national fisheries. This approach, promoted internationally by the United Nations, represents a path toward integrated management of these socio-ecological systems for their conservation and sustainable use, aiming to balance the ecological and social well-being of fisheries.

Principles such as the protection of biological and ecological systems, the social impacts of natural resource use, the integration of scientific and traditional knowledge, as well as a better understanding of the interests and motivations of social actors, are promoted by the Ecosystem Approach. However, its implementation is a complex process.

In Chile, a 2016 FAO study recognized progress in the new regulatory framework, but also highlighted limitations, recommending the inclusion of social, economic, and institutional dimensions in the implementation of the ecosystem approach. Rodrigo Estévez, researcher at the Millennium Institute SECOS, explains: “Our study is based on the FAO’s 2016 recommendations for Chile, which aimed to strengthen the implementation of the ecosystem approach to fisheries. Thus, we set out to assess the current state of the Ecosystem Approach to fisheries in Chile, using the knowledge of public officials to identify gaps and priorities,” says the researcher, who is also affiliated with the Research and Innovation Center for Climate Change at Universidad Santo Tomás.

Gaps and challenges

The recent study, published in the journal Sustainability and co-authored by Stefan Gelcich, director and researcher at the Millennium Institute SECOS, provides an updated overview of the major advances and remaining gaps for the institutional implementation of the Ecosystem Approach in fisheries management. “I would say that Chile is at an intermediate stage in its implementation,” explains Rodrigo Estévez.

Progress includes mechanisms for ecosystem conservation—such as the Discard Law—and greater protection of biological resources, as well as the creation of multi-species Management Committees in areas like Ancud Bay and Corral, which already acknowledge the multi-species nature of fisheries.” Estévez also points to another key advance: the formal integration of scientific knowledge through the establishment of Scientific Committees. These bodies provide frameworks for action and determine allowable catch ranges for the Management Committees.

In turn, Management Committees strengthen and complement other important participatory spaces for artisanal fishers, such as co-management systems like the AMERBs. The study also recognizes progress in integrating traditional knowledge into decision-making, particularly within the Management Committees, where the opinions and expertise of fishers are valued in establishing measures. However, gaps remain in the incorporation of scientific knowledge into fisheries management—for example, in data-poor fisheries—and in the coordination between Scientific Committees and Management Committees.

Regarding these gaps, the SECOS researcher identifies several within the ecological and biological dimensions. “For example, resource management is still focused on quotas, but a quota doesn’t necessarily ensure sustainable management, especially given the presence of illegal fishing. We also face gaps in the social dimension, since the law does not provide clear indicators on how to incorporate socioeconomic variables into fisheries management.”

Keys to move forward

With several recommendations for advancing the implementation of the Ecosystem Approach, Estévez highlights some that emerged from the study. “One relevant aspect is institutional capacity, where there is significant room for improvement with a modest effort, by strengthening the teams in charge of the management committees. There are people making major efforts to lead these committees, but we have public officials responsible for four, five, or even six committees, and that is an extremely complex workload. So there is a clear need to strengthen these teams in terms of resources, to enable them to manage something as complex as participatory decision-making spaces.”

The study also identified a critical area for progress in inter-institutional coordination. Institutions need to coordinate effectively in areas such as combating illegal fishing, enforcement, and the delivery of training and other benefits at the territorial level. For the authors, this is a gap that could feasibly be addressed in the short term. According to Stefan Gelcich, co-author of the study, “it is key to establish mechanisms to systematize and make use of the knowledge that exists within the public sector, and to build institutional memory in order to advance the implementation of the ecosystem approach.”

“One of the main recommendations from the study is the integration of multiple types of knowledge that inform ecosystem-based management,” reinforces Rodrigo Estévez. “That includes scientific knowledge, traditional knowledge from communities, and also—and this was the focus of our study—the knowledge held by public service officials. These officials often have one foot in science without being scientists, and one foot in the territory without being members of the community, and that gives them a unique and rich understanding of what’s happening. It’s important to value and enhance that knowledge and create opportunities for it to be used in decision-making. The main recommendation is to recognize and promote the diverse forms of knowledge that exist, including that of public officials.”

The authors ultimately recommend continuing to build the capacity to systematically and rigorously include social components in fisheries management, and to develop mechanisms to address trade-offs between management objectives. “Sometimes we need to make progress on a social or economic goal, but that can mean a step back in a biological or ecological objective. So there is an important need to design participatory and science-based methodologies that allow us to build better management plans to resolve these kinds of trade-offs between objectives,” Estévez concludes.