Draft Syllabus 9-22-13
Rights-Based Fisheries Management
MRM 535 Fall 2013, 3 Credits, CRN 199915
Mondays 5:00-7:50 PM, Wilkinson 207
Dr. Holly Campbell, 541 740-9716, 320 Strand, hcampbel@coas.oregonstate.edu
Marine Resource Management, College of Earth, Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Mailbox 104 OAB, Oregon State University; Corvallis OR 97330
Professor Flaxen D.L. Conway, Director, Marine Resource Management, 541 737-1339, 316 Strand
fconway@coas.oregonstate.edu
Special Guest Lecturer: Professor Carmel Finley, Historian of Science, New Media Communications,
Oregon State University, 541 961-5739, http://carmelfinley.wordpress.com/, finleyc@peak.org
This graduate course presents the historical context and fundamentals of contemporary marine
fisheries management. Focusing on rights-based management strategies (including catch share
programs, quotas, and similar techniques) the course provides students with the ability to
evaluate the relative effectiveness and sustainability of current fisheries management methods.
We will employ cross-disciplinary analyses including historical, legal, ecological, policy,
economic, and sociocultural perspectives.
The course format will feature classroom lecture, interactive projects, and discussion, and online
short, analytical writing via weekly discussion board responses to a posed question followed by
group exchange. There is a research paper in lieu of a final examination.
Course is suitable for those working toward the OSU Fisheries Management Certificate. There
are no prerequisites. There is no required textbook for this course. Our Black Board course site will
provide links to most assigned readings; further resources may be on reserve at Valley Library.
Learning Objectives
Through various instructional activities course participants will practice and enhance these
skills:
• Analysis and sophisticated evaluation of issues and solutions to the challenge of managing
fisheries resources on the high seas
• Critical reading, thinking, speaking, and writing through engaging and synthesizing assigned
and supplementary texts, as well as ideas, and trends emerging through discussion
• Analysis and evaluation of contemporary fisheries management issues from a range of
disciplines (history, policy, economics, social/cultural and scientific)
• Understanding and articulation of perspectives including from the viewpoints of industry,
environmental organizations, government agencies, coastal/fishing communities and
other stakeholders
• Creative thinking through which participants use imagination and creativity to develop
positions on (and potential solutions to) fisheries management challenges
Course Objectives
On completion of the course participants will be able to:
1
• Understand and articulate the history of fisheries management and the significance of the
evolution of property rights management regimes in US and abroad
•
Define, explain, compare various types and rationales of rights-based management
strategies
• Identify strengths and limitations of different rights-based management systems and their
appropriateness to different social, cultural and economic contexts
• Articulate the conditions necessary for the effective co-management of fisheries resources in
commercial fisheries
• Identify potential impacts that property rights regimes may have on environmental, economic,
and socio-cultural sustainability
Important OSU Dates: http://catalog.oregonstate.edu/ChapterDetail.aspx?key=148#Section3804
Grading Bases:
•Classroom Participation and Leadership: 30%
•Blackboard Discussion Board Participation and Leadership: 20%
•Final Research Paper: 50%
Classroom and Blackboard Participation and Leadership (50%); Preparation, Engagement, Creativity,
Collegiality, and Contributions:
Professor Campbell will post brief questions each week on Blackboard about the assigned readings.
When each member contributes, the quality of the course experience—and the benefits we take away—
increase for all. Three (related) ways in which you demonstrate your participation are preparation
(familiarity with assigned readings and ability to relate them to class discussions and contrast them with
other readings), engagement in our discussions (attentive reading, asking questions, thoughtful analysis,
and responding to your classmates’ comments) and creativity/collegiality/contributions: where you
use critical and creative thinking, and your supplemental research to contribute thoughtfully and
constructively to the class. Participate each week by the following Sunday at midnight.
If you have any questions at any time, please ask! hcampbel@coas.oregonstate.edu
Guidelines for the FORMAT and SUBMISSION of Final Research Paper:
Choose a research topic related to fisheries management methods, particularly limited-access and
property-rights programs, and one on which adequate published peer-reviewed research exists.
Please submit your proposed topic BY 5:00 PM PST Tuesday, September 8 via e-mail to
hcampbel@coas.oregonstate.edu
Final papers you submit to Dr. Campbell should have the following:
Cover (Title) Page
Abstract (300 words)
Table of Contents
Body of paper should be no more than 10 double-spaced (or 1.5 spaced) pages plus references
References: Aim for at least 25
Appendices: Charts, Figures, Tables, Maps, or Other Illustrations
Citation format: Use a citation format with which you are familiar and comfortable. If you want
suggestions, follow a simple format. Within the text, use the name of the author (or both authors if there
are only two) and the year (Campbell, 2013). For more than two authors, use et al. (Campbell et al.,
2013). At the end of your essay or your paper, provide an alphabetized list where you write the full
reference citation with authors’ initials and last names, the journal title, the volume number (if there is
one), the first page number and the year.
2
If you are using an internet reference, you must provide the name of the organization, the name of the
page or document, the date you visited the website, and the URL (http: etc.) – not the URL alone!
Fictitious Example for Article Citation: H.V. Campbell, R.A. Boone, and Z.H. Zhou, The Ecology of Law,
Journal of Innovations in Applied Environmental Science and Law, 40, 780 (2017).
LABELING OF YOUR R ESEARCH PAPER FILE: your first initial and last
name.MRM.535.2013Paper.pdf
Example: hcampbell.MRM535.2013Paper.pdf
SUBMITTING YOUR final paper: Please submit your research paper as a PDF as an attachment to
hcampbel@coas.oregonstate.edu
Example of Grading Scheme for a Final Research Paper, Campbell
Final Written Research Paper (50 Possible)
Consistent With Proposal
2
Strong Abstract
3
Organization
5
Rationale/Why Topic Important
4
Ties to Course Materials and Topic
4
Research Effort, Scope/Quality, References
10
Insight or Original Analysis, Beyond Facts
5
High Quality Writing
5
Conclusion/Recommendations
7
Effective Photos/Maps/Graphs, etc.
5
Comments: In addition to the numeric points, I will provide constructive comments about your paper.
Key to the Criteria:
Consistent with Proposal means you researched and wrote on the topic I approved or notified me of a
change.
Strong Abstract means the abstract accurately reflects the content of the paper, including your results or
conclusion, as a synopsis and the abstract is succinct and well crafted.
Organization means that the paper has an engaging introduction and research questions and the paper’s
content flows logically from idea to idea, and section to section. It also means that by the conclusion you have
maintained consistency; i.e. you answered the research questions and followed the roadmap you established in
the introduction.
Rationale is an important part of papers, grant proposals, and oral presentations. Convince us why should we
care about topic.
Ties to Course Materials and Discussion: your research paper thoughtfully, meaningfully and effectively
analyzes your topic in the context of what you learned in class, and is not just a platform to talk about your
thesis research or other personal topic of interest with a dash of course discussion tacked on.
Research Effort, Scope, and Quality measures the time you invested and depth of inquiry, and synthesis
evidenced by your ideas, writing as well as the quality and range of the references you chose.
Insight or Original Analysis (Beyond Facts Alone): your paper is not a superficial journalistic style account
but is on par with what is expected of graduate students and professionals because it analyzes and
synthesizes all of your reading on the topic and presents your own ideas and conclusions with their foundations
(showing how you arrived at them—don’t assume we know).
High Quality Writing means you have crafted your communication thoughtfully to your topic and audience;
includes concise explanations with varied sentence structure, free of jargon and fluff or padding. Provide
3
definitions, examples or analogies; express your assumptions, the research gaps, and explain complex
information stepwise. Make it fun to read instead of a chore. Proofread with your eyes, read it aloud to
yourself, or ask a friend to provide constructive criticism. Spell check is useful but misses many errors, so don’t
rely on spell check exclusively.
Conclusion and Recommendations: A well/tightly written conclusion is an art and presents your paper in
miniature. Learn to write excellent conclusions as opposed to a last minute, tossed-off, or cut-short effort. A
good conclusion quickly and coherently summarizes your main points (the points you would most like your
audience to take away from reading your paper). Busy legislators, fellow scientists, and managers might have
fifty documents on their desk to read daily. They might cheat and only read your abstract and conclusion.
Learn to write conclusions attentively and effectively.
Continued on next page
Effective Photos etc. means that your visuals are well chosen to illustrate your points and help readers
understand.
Grading Scheme for Final Research Paper:
A
Exceptional
Outstanding work, in-depth research, analysis or thought and very well written using
highly persuasive arguments and displaying much originality. A pleasure to read
using superior sentence variety and vocabulary. Should be published or become a
“how to” example for other students.
A-
Generally excellent to very good research, analysis or thought and well written with
some originality making good use of appropriate vocabulary, sentence structure and
well organized.
B+
Good research, analysis or thought, well written using effective sentence structure and
appropriate vocabulary but does not display in-depth research or much originality.
B
Superior
Good research, analysis or thought to support main points and soundly written.
B-
Competent research, analysis or thought and soundly written but approach,
supporting research or aspects of writing could be improved.
C+
Fair research, analysis or thought, has worth but approach and/or writing need
improvement.
C
Work demonstrates an understanding of the topic or question but fails to address all
dimensions adequately and/or writing style and organization limits the reader’s ability
to take on board ideas and concepts.
Average
Barely acceptable work from a graduate student. Research, thought and analysis
may be inadequate and flawed and/or use of language, sentence structure or
organization needs considerable improvement.
C-
D
Inferior
Unacceptable work from a graduate student. Demonstrates a lack of effort. Does not
demonstrate command of subject matter, approach and/or is poorly written and
difficult to follow.
F
Fail
Student barely managed to turn in something. The work may or may not address the
topic but it is so poorly written that the instructor cannot assign credit.
4
Some weeks the reading assignments are longer; please plan ahead to set aside adequate
time, read closely and make a list of notes and questions to bring to class, unless otherwise
indicated (some assignments you may skim for main ideas). The BREAK should occur around
7:15-7:30 in general and will be 15 minutes.
MRM 535 Course Schedule, Fall 2013, Mondays, 5-7:50, Wilk 207
Week/Date
Topic, Faculty Lead, Activity/ies, and Assigned Readings
1 9.30.13
Course Introduction (Campbell) 20 min. Professor Conway will pass around Rieser chapter
copies for you to read and bring to class on 10.7, 10.14, and 10.21.
VIDEO CLIP: Show in Class; followed by a quick dialogue:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2306582977001/regulations-hurting-the-deadliest-catch/
Neoliberalism and Fisheries (Conway) 30 min
BREAK
STUDENT EXERCISE: break into three groups. Each group summarizes its main
arguments, then presents and leads discussion to full class. 30 minutes
“Why Did We Build All Those Boats?” The Influence of Neoliberalism on Policy and Major
Fisheries Management Practices to 1976 (Finley) 30 min
Assigned Reading:
Harvey, D. 2007. Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction. 610 Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 22-44.
MRM 535 Blackboard: Participate in online Discussion by midnight 10.6.13.
2 10.7
The Evolution of Traditional Management, 1976 – 1996 (“Maggie to Stevens”)
Characterizing regulatory developments through 1996 (Campbell, 30 min.)
Management 1976-1996 (Finley, 30 min.) Conway will add socio-cultural points of this period
BREAK
STUDENT EXERCISE; terms and definitions from Buck (Professor Finley will select 10
terms [i.e. rationalization]). The students break into two groups and work for 15 minutes.
Group A will work on words 1-5; Group B will work on words 6-10. Teams A and B will
teach each other about these terms for the remaining 15 minutes.
Class 2 Readings:
Buck, Eugene H. 1995. Individual Transferable Quotas in Fishery Management.
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report Number 95-849; 21 pages.
Ch. 6 of Rieser et al. photocopied handout (pages 571-610 only)
(continued p. 6)
Please skim for main ideas: H. Scott Gordon, 1954. The Economic Theory of a CommonProperty Resource: The Fishery. 52:2 J. Political Economy 124-142.
5
Bromley, Daniel W. 2011. Abdicating Responsibility: The Deceits of Fisheries Policy.
Fisheries 34:6, 280-290.
Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R. and Walters, C. 1993. Uncertainty, Resource Exploitation, and
Conservation: Lessons from History, 260:5104 Science 17.
MRM 535 Blackboard: Participate in online Discussion by midnight 10.13.13.
3 10.14 From Open Access to Privatization, 1996 – 2006 (the “uh oh” period)
How Rights-Based Programs Began, Ted Stevens’ Appropriation Rider 2002 (Finley 30 min.)
STUDENT EXERCISE: First, pairing up to discuss the readings (15 minutes) with the
product of one question [per pair] to ask the other pairs/group. After 15 minutes, “pass
the question” to a different pair. Each pair then discusses the questions and relate their
answer to the reading and/or lecture. Repeat as needed. Lastly, we can have a large
group discussion about the questions, answers, and readings. 60 minutes total
BREAK
Eco-Legal Rationale of the Era; Three Definitions of EBM Slide (Campbell 10 min.)
Readings:
Please skim for main ideas: Ch. 6 of Rieser et al. handout, pages 610-614, 638-640. Optional
For Browsing: NMFS Report, 1999: Sustaining Marine Fisheries (readable or downloadable
free from the National Academy of Science/National Research Council Website), at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6032
Please skim for main ideas: PDF Provided of Excerpts (57 pages): Bailey, K.M. 2013. BillionDollar Fish: The Untold Story of Alaska Pollock. U. Chicago Press. Chapter Nine: Factories of
Doom: The Alaskan Pollock Industry Clashes With The Environment, pages 139-151. Chapter
Ten: All in the Family: Olympic Fishing and Domestic Strife in the Industry, pages 152-173.
Chapter Eleven: Bridge Over Troubled Water: Tranquility After the American Fisheries Act,
pages 174-198.
MRM 535 Blackboard: Participate in online Discussion by midnight 10.20.13.
4 10.21
Management 2006 - Present (the Rise of Conservation)
Eco-Legal Points of Interest (Campbell, 15 min.); Reconciling use with need for conservation
BREAK
Additional Rights-Based Developments During this Era (i.e. Trawl Rationalization Programs)
(Finley 30 min.)
(continued p. 7)
STUDENT EXERCISE: 45 min. “concept mapping” on substance of readings (links
between laws, programs, and social impacts).
6
The Social Impacts of Privatization (Conway 30 min. IF NEEDED after the exercise)
Preparing for next two weeks: unit on case studies (5 min.)
Readings:
Ch. 6 of Rieser et al. handout, pages 676-693.
Olson 2011. Understanding and Contextualizing Social Impacts from the Privatization of
Fisheries: An Overview. Ocean and Coastal Management 54: 353-363
Mansfield, B. 2004. Rules of Privatization: Contradictions in Neoliberal Regulation of North
Pacific Fisheries. 94:3 Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 565-584.
MRM 535 Blackboard: Participate in online Discussion by midnight 10.27.13.
5 10.28
Case Studies One: New Zealand, Falkland Isl., and Iceland
Guest Speaker: Dr. Michael Harte, International Fisheries Manager, World Wildlife Fund, and
Research Faculty CEOAS/OSU, How Rights-Based Fisheries Management Experience Has
Played Out Internationally
BREAK
Discussion and/or Activity
Readings:
Please skim all five readings, but select two of your choice to read more closely.
Gibbs, M.T. 2008. The Historical Development Of Fisheries in New Zealand With Respect to Sustainable
Development Principles, the Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development 1(2)
Haraldsson, G. and D. Carey (2011), “Ensuring a Sustainable and Efficient Fishery in Iceland”,
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Economics Department Working
Papers, No. 891, OECD Publishing.
Harte, M. and Barton, J. 2007. Balancing Local Ownership With Foreign Investment in a Small Island
Fishery. Ocean and Coastal Management 50:7, 523-537.
Benediktsson, K. and Karlsdóttir, A. 2011. Iceland: Crisis and Regional Development – Thanks for All
the Fish? European Urban and Regional Studies 18:228.
Memon, P.A. and Kirk, N.A. 2011. Maori Commercial Fisheries Governance in Aotearoa/New Zealand
Within the Bounds of a Neoliberal Fisheries Management Regime. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 52:1
MRM 535 Blackboard: Participate in online Discussion by midnight 11.3.13.
6 11.4
Case Studies Two: US and Canada (West Coast Groundfish)
Guest Speaker #1: Brad Pettinger, Oregon Trawl Commission (20-30 minutes - Skype)
BREAK
Guest Speaker #2: Suzanne Russell, Anthropologist, NOAA Fisheries (20-30 minutes - Skype)
7
STUDENT EXERCISE: Debate on the ecological changes of fishing down the food chain
AND/OR does it matter what the fishery is (tuna vs. pollock, or shrimp for example)?
Readings:
Pinkerton, E. 2013. Alternatives to ITQs in Equity-Efficiency-Effectiveness Trade-Offs: How
the Lay-Up System Spread Effort in the BC Halibut Fishery, Marine Policy 42:5-13.
Havice, E. 2013. Rights-Based Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Tuna
Fishery: Economic and Environmental Change Under the Vessel Day Scheme, Marine Policy
42:259-267.
Carothers, Courtney. 2013. A Survey of US Halibut IFQ Holders: Market Participation, Attitudes,
and Impacts. Marine Policy 38:515-22.
MRM 535 Blackboard: Participate in online Discussion by midnight 11.10.13.
7 11.11
Implementing Fisheries EBM: Impacts on Fish
(Back to the Big Picture. We’ve discussed history and case examples.)
Guest Speaker Lorenzo Ciannelli: Impacts on Fish and Their Ecology (TENTATIVE)
Followed by Student Q & A with Speaker (60+/- minutes)
BREAK
STUDENT EXERCISE: Concept map between the policies, management decisions, and
impacts on the fish. Split students into two groups. Work within small group first, then
present their concept map to other group and us.
Readings:
Chu C. 2009. Thirty Years Later: the Global Growth of ITQs and Their Influence on Stock
Status in Marine Fisheries. 10 Fish and Fisheries 217-230.
MRM 535 Blackboard: Participate in online Discussion by midnight 11.17.13.
8 11.18
Implementing Fisheries EBM: Impacts on People
Guest Speaker: Brett Tolley, Who Fishes Matters, 30 minutes via Skype; plus Q&A
STUDENT EXERCISE(s):
1.) Pass the question exercise: individually write down a question from the reading and
then exchange and answer in private first. Then in pairs. Now as a big group. 2) Add
People to the concept map.
BREAK
Readings:
Carothers, C. 2008. Rationalized Out: Discourses and realities of fisheries privatization in
Kodiak, AK American Fisheries Society Symposium 68:55–74
MRM 535 Blackboard: NO online Discussion questions this week!
8
9 11.25
Giving Concepts of Stewardship Legal Teeth
Public Trust Doctrine, Evolution and Lineages of Legal Concepts Imparting a Duty of Care
(Campbell)
Reading:
Soliman A. 2013. Duty of Stewardship and Fisheries Governance; A Proposed Framework
(Round-Table Discussion in Class) MRM 535 Blackboard: NO online Discussion this week!
10 12.2 Policy Conclusions: Mixed Results, Unintended Consequences
(Dead Week; LAST CLASS SESSION) Course Wrap Up: Review of Major Concepts and
Lessons Learned (ALL)
Ray Hilborn video. http://www.savingseafood.org/washington/video-fresh-from-capitol-hill-dr.-rayhilborn-discusses-the-status-of-federal-fisheries-manag.html
Or, try http://vimeo.com/74758206
Discuss the Sharecroppers of the Sea, and the Food and Water Report on Privatization.
Watch the Deadliest Catch video clip again. Discuss class response to this video post-MRM535
We know what the goals of rights-based were, but what have some of the unintended social
consequences been? (Conway leads discussion; 20 min.)
What are some of the changes in science and how it’s used? (Finley leads discussion; 20 min)
What regulatory/policy changes are needed? (Campbell leads discussion; 20 minutes)
Readings/Viewing:
1. Popular Press article: http://www.seattleweekly.com/2013-01-09/news/sharecroppers-of-the-sea/
2. Ray Hilborn video: http://www.savingseafood.org/washington/video-fresh-from-capitol-hill-dr.-rayhilborn-discusses-the-status-of-federal-fisheries-manag.html Or, try http://vimeo.com/74758206
3. Food and Water Watch. June 2011. Fish Incorporated: The Privatization of U.S. Fisheries Through
Catch Share Programs (pdf) 28 pages.
11
12.9 to 12.13 Good Luck on Finals!
Remember: Submit Final Research Papers by 5 PM T 12.10.13 to Campbell via Email
Statement Regarding Students with Disabilities
"Accommodations are collaborative efforts between students, faculty and Disability Access
Services (DAS). Students with accommodations approved through DAS are responsible for
contacting the faculty member in charge of the course prior to or during the first week of
the term to discuss accommodations. Students who believe they are eligible for
accommodations but who have not yet obtained approval through DAS should contact DAS
immediately at 737-4098."
9
Student Conduct Standards Link: Academic or Scholarly Dishonesty
http://oregonstate.edu/studentconduct/http:/%252Foregonstate.edu/studentconduct/code/index.php
10
Selected Course Resources - Expanded List on Blackboard
Glossary of Terms (Blackboard)
Books (followed by Valley Library Call Numbers):
Saving Global Fisheries: Reducing Fishing Capacity to Promote Sustainability, JS Barkin, ER
DeSombre 2013, MIT, Electronic Resource SH329 .S87 B37 2013eb
Managing the Commons, Baden et al. 1998, HC79.E5 M347
Property Rights and Natural Resources, Barnes, 2009, K3478 .B38 2009
Ecosystem-Based Management of Fisheries: Confronting Tradeoffs, Jason Link, 2010,
SH328 .L564 2010
Ecosystem-Based Management for Marine Fisheries: Evolving…,Belgrano & Fowler, 2011,
Electronic Resource SH328 .E28
Successful Fisheries Management: Issues, Case Studies, Perspectives, 2006
(Guin/HMSC can have sent for Reserve), SH328 .S833
All the Fish in the Sea: MSY and the Failure of Fisheries Management. M.C. Finley 2011. U.
Chicago Press. Electronic Resource SH221 .F56 2011eb
Useful URLs:
NOAA Fisheries (NMFS):
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/index.html
Who Fishes Matters: (http://namanet.org/our-work/who-fishes-matters-campaign)
NATIONAL STANDARDS, as mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/national_standards/index.html
Selected Articles (to Pique Curiosity and Start You on Your Own Bibliographies):
Arkhipkin A., Barton J., Wallace S., Winter A. 2013. Close Cooperation Between Science,
Management and Industry Benefits Sustainable Exploitation of the Falkland Islands Squid
Fisheries, Journal of Fish Biology, 1-16.
Hannesson R. 2011. Rights Based Fishing on the High Seas: Is it Possible? 35 Marine Policy
667-674.
Hughey K.F.D., Cullen R., Kerr G.N. 2000. Stakeholder Groups in Fisheries Management.
Marine Policy 24:119-127. (New Zealand)
Palsson G. and Hegason A. 1995. Figuring Fish and Measuring Men: the Individual
Transferable Quota System in the Icelandic Cod Fishery, 28:1-3 Ocean & Coastal Management,
117-146.
Stewart J., Callagher P. 2011. Quota Concentration in the New Zealand Fishery:
Annual Catch Entitlement and the Small Fisher, 35 Marine Policy 631-646.
11