~-~;‘- n4“

mt‘vs

A}- LIBRARY
2009 Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORK STRUCTURE IN THE
GOVERNANCE OF GREAT LAKES TRANSBOUNDARY
FISH STOCKS

presented by

Nancy Jacynthe Leonard

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph. degree In Fisheries and Wildlife

 

 

Mafia,

Major Professor’s Si ure

/n / 1.56%

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

lALl 0 g

 

JHIV

9“
Lu

-I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KilProyAccauPres/ClRC/DateDueIndd

 

ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORK STRUCTURE IN THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT
LAKES TRAN SBOUNDARY FISH STOCKS

By

Nancy J acynthe Leonard

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Fisheries and Wildlife

2008

ABSTRACT

ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORK STRUCTURE IN THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT
LAKES TRANSBOUNDARY FISH STOCKS

By

Nancy Jacynthe Leonard

Governance of fish stocks that cross-political boundaries (transboundary)
generally involves individuals representing different institutions and jurisdictions, and
varying socio-cultural and expertise backgrounds. At times, these individuals are required
to collaboratively make decisions in the absence of social ties, which inhibits the
effectiveness and efficiency of group decision-making. The importance of social ties
among participants involved in the governance of transboundary fish stocks is recognized
as being important, however, there is limited research on the importance of social ties in
the governance of transboundary fish stocks. In this dissertation, I discuss how
recognition of the ineffectiveness of governing transboundary fish stocks through
uncoordinated actions of individual jurisdictions has resulted in the adoption of
collaborative governance institutions for transboundary fish stocks. I present a case study
on lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes that illustrates how the lack of a coordinated and
collaborative governance approach results in conflicting management actions being
implemented, which can hinder the sustainability of these lake sturgeon. Next, I evaluate

the perceptions of individuals involved in the implementation of the Joint Strategic Plan

on governance of transboundary fish stocks in the Great Lakes, as well as the role of their
social ties and social network structure in enhancing fishery management decision-
making in the Great Lakes. Overall, participants of the Joint Strategic Plan are supportive
of coordinated governance of transboundary fish stocks in the Great Lakes, and believe it
is essential to assure sustainability of transboundary fish stocks. The two different social
network structures detected by depicting the flow of Great Lakes fish stocks information
and the flow of lake sturgeon information, revealed that both networks have an even flow
of information throughout the network. This means that the information is not restricted
to any given individuals or pairs of individuals. In summary, governance institutions for
transboundary fish stocks should emphasize the need to nurture social ties among
participants. Social ties and related social structures contribute to governance institutions
by facilitating the flow of information or other resources, and thereby influencing the

effectiveness of the institution in sustaining transboundary fish stocks.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife at Michigan State University provided the needed support for the development,
implementation, and completion of my dissertation research. I greatly benefited from and
appreciated the contribution of my major professor, Dr. William W. Taylor, who
provided me with great support through contacts and thoughtful discussion, and by
keeping me focused throughout the writing process. Dr. Chris Goddard had an important
role in assisting me in clearly communicating my thoughts and keeping me on track. Dr.
Ken Frank and Dr. Mike Schechter were also critical to the completion of this
dissertation and were always willing to make the time to provide me with guidance and
feedback throughout the process. Dr. Ann Krause assisted me greatly by assisting me
with the KliqueFinder software and the Evenness of Information Flow measures for the
social network analysis. All aforementioned individuals provided insightfirl comments
that greatly improved the content of this dissertation.

The social network analysis would not have been possible without the strong
support of the survey respondents who invested their valuable time to provide me with
the information I needed. I am very appreciative of and grateful for the hard work that all
survey respondents invested in this research project.

The support and attentive listening provided by my family, Mom, Dad, Helene,
Brandon, and Jean-Paul, as I progressed through this degree was invaluable to my

successful completion. Thank you for all the long phone conversations, great home

iv

cooking, and the fine wines that accompanied stimulating conversations during my visits
home. Merci pour tout!

I also appreciate my friends and colleagues who provided me with the
intellectual and emotional support I needed throughout this dissertation. All were willing
to listen, provide me with insightful comments, and encouragement when I needed it
most: Abigail Schroeder, Ann Krause, Cecilia Lewis, Dana Infante, Jo Latimor, John
Dettmers, Katrina Mueller, Kerry Waco, Matt Klungle, Nancy Schwalm, and Tim Hiller.

I leave you with a strange quote I came across in the book A Dry White Season by
Andre Brink that resonated with me while I was struggling to accomplish everything I

wanted to complete for my dissertation while meeting a looming deadline:

There are only two kinds of madness one should guard against,
One is the belief that we can do everything.

The other is the belief that we can do nothing.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE

Prologue - Collaborative Governance of Transboundary Fish Stocks in the

Great Lakes ......................................................................................................................... 1
Study System .................................................................................................................. 7
Dissertation Format ...................................................................................................... 17
References .................................................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER TWO

Global Fisheries Governance ............................................................................................ 26
From Fisheries Governance to Global Fisheries Governance ...................................... 30
Selected Actually Existing Global Fisheries Governance Institutions ......................... 36
Regional Fishery Bodies ............................................................................................... 55
Evaluation of Actually Existing Global Fisheries Institutions ..................................... 73
Moving Toward Ideal Global Fisheries Governance .................................................... 75
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 79
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... 8 1
References ..................................................................................................................... 82

CHAPTER THREE

Multijurisdictional Management of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence

River .................................................................................................................................. 91
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 91
Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River ................................................ 92
International Joint Commission .................................................................................... 93
Protection of Endangered/Threatened Species ............................................................. 95
Successes of Cooperative Management for Lake Sturgeon ........................................ 101
Barriers and Fishways ................................................................................................. 101
Sea Lamprey Control Program ................................................................................... 102
Current Management of Lake Sturgeon ...................................................................... 104
The Potential for Multijurisdictional Management of Lake Sturgeon ........................ 109
International (Perspective on Lake Sturgeon ............................................................... 112
Managing a Threatened and Endangered Species Globally ....................................... 113
Future Outlook ............................................................................................................ 116
Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................... 1 19
References ................................................................................................................... 120

CHAPTER FOUR

Role of Social Network Structure and Social Ties on the Effectiveness of A Joint

Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries .............................................. 128
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 128
Methods ....................................................................................................................... 133
Case Study Group ....................................................................................................... 133
Survey Respondents .................................................................................................... 135

vi

Survey Design ............................................................................................................. 140

Analysis of Respondents’ Attributes and Perceptions ................................................ 145
Respondent Attributes ................................................................................................. 145
Respondent Perception to Coordinated Governance of Great Lakes Transboundary
Fish Stocks and Transboundary Lake Sturgeon Stocks .............................................. 146
Analysis of Significant Social Network Subgroups .................................................... 147
Social Network Evenness of Information Flow and Density of Social Ties .............. 152
Results ......................................................................................................................... 158
Survey Response Rate ................................................................................................. 158
Analysis of Respondents’ Attributes and Perceptions ................................................ 159
Respondent Attributes ................................................................................................. 159
Respondent Perception Towards Coordinated Governance of Great Lakes
Transboundary Fish Stocks and Transboundary Lake Sturgeon Stocks ..................... 164
Analysis of Significant Social Network Subgroups .................................................... 173
Fish Stocks Information Exchange Network .............................................................. 174
Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange Network ......................................................... 177
Social Network Evenness of Information Flow and Density of Social Ties .............. 185
Discussion ................................................................................................................... 191
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 204
References ................................................................................................................... 207

CHAPTER FIVE

Conclusions and Implications of Social Ties and Social Network Structure

for Governance Institutions of Transboundary Fish Stocks in the Great Lakes ............. 211
References ................................................................................................................... 219

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 222
APPENDIX A: Letters Supporting Participating in Survey ...................................... 223
APPENDIX B: Email and Letter Invitation Explaining Purpose of Survey .............. 225
APPENDIX C: Survey Reminder Emails and Letters Sent ....................................... 228
APPENDIX D: Survey Questions and Answer Choices for Part One ....................... 232
APPENDIX E: Survey Questions and Answer Choices for Part Two ...................... 281

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 319

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Lake sturgeon status by jurisdiction ................................................................. 103

Table 2: Federal, state, provincial, and aboriginal entity with authority over lake sturgeon
in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. ........................................................ 105

Table 3: Recreational fishing and commercial fishing regulations for each state and
province located along the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River. Tribal fishing
regulations may differ from State fishing regulations. Official state and provincial
abbreviations are used. Status is indicated as SC for special concern, Th for
threatened, and E for endangered ............................................................................ 106

Table 4: Signatory agencies to A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes
Fisheries. The federal agencies, although not having fisheries management authority
in the Great Lakes, are signatory to the Joint Strategic Plan primarily because of the
role they have in protecting, rehabilitating, and conserving the Great Lakes fish
stocks ....................................................................................................................... 135

Table 5: Committees and groups involved in the implementation of A Joint Strategic
Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (Joint Strategic Plan), either directly
through the Agency-Appointed committees, or indirectly as part of the support
provided by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission organizational structure.
Unmarked institution names signify that they are both members of committees and
signatory agencies of the Joint Strategic Plan. A ‘*’ identifies institutions that are
only signatory agencies of the Joint Strategic Plan, not official members of the
committees. A ‘**” indicates institutions that only are an official member of the
committees. Other participants of this governance process but that are neither Joint
Strategic Plan signatory agencies nor official members of committees are identified
with a ‘**"". ............................................................................................................ 138

Table 6: Attribute information requested from respondents. .......................................... 140

Table 7: Information regarding respondents’ perceptions towards activities related to
coordinated governance of transboundary fish stocks, the effectiveness of A Joint
Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries and its implementation
through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission organizational structure ................. 144

Table 8: Codes used to represent committee membership and employer type in the
statistical analysis. This information can be used to interpret the median value for
the results of the committee membership and employer type dominating the
subgroups based on the median values reported in Table 9 and 10. ....................... 179

viii

Table 9: Employer type per each subgroup. The dominating employer type, based on
frequency of occurrence (percent), within each subgroup is identified by “*”, and is
placed first with others placed in decreasing frequency of occurrence (percent). The
sample size (N), mean and stand deviation (s.d.) and the median values for each
subgroups are also provided .................................................................................... 180

Table 10: Committee membership per each subgroup. The dominating committee
membership, based on frequency of occurrence (percent), within each subgroup is
identified by “*”, and is placed first with others placed in decreasing frequency of
occurrence (percent). The sample size (N), mean and stand deviation (s.d.) and the
median values for each subgroups are also provided .............................................. 181

Table 11: Comparison of Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network’s subgroups’
perception to topics related to the coordination of governance of transboundary fish
stocks. Kruskall Wallace (KW) test was used to detect significant difference among
all subgroups. Non-significant differences indicated by ‘ns’. ................................ 185

Table 12: Evenness of Flow of Information measures and Density of social ties measure
for the Fish Stocks Information Exchange network. The evenness of information
flow based on weighted social ties for the entire network, H(x,y), across
respondents, H(x), and across chosen, H(y) is reported in the table (for calculations
see equations two to four in the methods section). The H(x,y), H(x), and H(y) values
are normalized by taking the exponential value, natural log, and dividing by the total

_ number of social ties, number of respondents, and number of chosen, respectively.
The closer the normalized value is to zero the less even the flow of information,
meaning that the flow of information is being dominated. The Density measure for
the entire network, Density, is calculated using the non-normalized values of H(x,y),
H(x), and H(y) as described in equation five in the methods section. The closer the
Density value is to zero the less even the flow of information, meaning the more
specialized the flow ................................................................................................. 186

Table 13: Evenness of Flow of Information measures and Density of social ties measure
for the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network. The evenness of information
flow based on weighted social ties for the entire network, H(x,y), across
respondents, H(x), and across chosen, H(y) is reported in the table (for calculations
see equations two to four in the methods section). The H(x,y), H(x), and H(y) values
are normalized by taking the exponential value, natural log, and dividing by the total
number of social ties, number of respondents, and number of chosen, respectively.
The closer the normalized value is to zero the less even the flow of information,
meaning that the flow of information is being dominated. The Density measure for
the entire network, Density, is calculated using the non-normalized values of H(x,y),
H(x), and H(y) as described in equation five in the methods section. The closer the
Density value is to zero the less even the flow of information, meaning the more
specialized the flow ................................................................................................. 188

ix

Table 14: Evenness of Flow of Information measures and Density of social ties measure
for the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network’s subgroups. The evenness of
information flow based on weighted social ties for the entire network, H(x,y), across
respondents, H(x), and across chosen, H(y) is reported in the table (for calculations
see equations two to four in the methods section). The H(x,y), H(x), and H(y) values
are normalized by taking the exponential value, natural log, and dividing by the total
number of social ties, number of respondents, and number of chosen, respectively.
The closer the normalized value is to zero the less even the flow of information,
meaning that the flow of information is being dominated. The Density measure for
the entire network, Density, is calculated using the non-normalized values of H(x,y),
H(x), and H(y) as described in equation five in the methods section. The closer the
Density value is to zero the less even the flow of information, meaning the more
specialized the flow ................................................................................................. 189

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The political boundaries dividing the Great Lakes among the eight Great Lakes
states and the province of Ontario. The political boundary between Canada and the
United States is located approximately in the middle of the four shared Great Lakes,
Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario. The headquarters’
locations of the two tribal organizations that have management authority of fish
stocks within their ceded territories in the United States side of the Great Lakes are
also indicated. ........................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2: Organizational structure of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission ................... 15

Figure 3: Percentage of major marine resources in various phases of fishery development.
The numbers on the x-axis (or bottom axis) is the year, and the numbers on the y-
axis (left axis) is the percentage of number of resources. Phase 1, the pale grey color
in the bottom left, represents undeveloped resources. Phase 2, medium grey color,
represents developing resources. Phase 3, white color, represents mature resources,
which equates to fully exploited fisheries. Phase 4, dark gray color in the upper
right, represents senescent, which equates to over-exploited fisheries. Modified from
the 1994 State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (FAO 1996). ........................... 28

Figure 4: Map of the current jurisdiction of Regional Fishery Bodies. Modified from
FAQ—Fisheries and Aquaculture Department’s map of Regional Fishery Bodies
(FAQ—Fisheries and Aquaculture Department 2008). ............................................ 57

Figure 5: Simplified example of two social network structures with (a) showing a well-
connected network in which individuals are all directly connected to one another
without subgroups being present; and (b) a network where individuals are well-
connected within their subgroup, but isolated from the other subgroups. Individuals
are denoted by ‘smiley face’ and connections by solid lines. ................................. 131

Figure 6: Simplified social network structure consisting of well-connected individuals
forming three subgroups. Individuals within subgroups are connected to the other
subgroups by individuals that bridge one or more subgroups. Individuals are denoted
by ‘smiley face’, connections within a subgroup by solid lines, and connections
between subgroups by dashed lines. ....................................................................... 131

Figure 7: Organizational structure of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. ................ 137

Figure 8: Illustrating the flow of information through two different network structures
(simplified from illustration in Krause and Frank in prep). Network A illustrates an
even flow of information within the network, as the weight of social ties is the same
among all individuals (same thickness of line). Network B illustrates an uneven flow
of information, with one social tie being thicker and dominating the flow of
information. The thicker social tie in Network B, in this scenario, also indicates that

xi

the flow of information is specialized between that respondent and the chosen
receiving the information, as that chosen receives all his/her information from that
respondent. .............................................................................................................. 1 5 3

Figure 9: Pic chart illustrating the percentage of respondents being of a certain age
category. .................................................................................................................. 160

Figure 10: Pie charts illustrating the percentage of respondents being of a certain race
category. .................................................................................................................. 161

Figure 11: Pic charts illustrating the percentage of respondents having a certain level of
education. ................................................................................................................ 1 62

Figure 12: Pie charts illustrating the percentage of respondents employed by a given
employer type .......................................................................................................... 163

Figure 13: Pie charts illustrating the percentage of respondents that have been associated
with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and related committees and boards for a
given range of years. ............................................................................................... 164

Figure 14: Percent of respondents that perceive the need for a unijurisdictional (uni. )
management approach versus a transboundary (trans. ) management approach to
assure the sustainability of transboundary fish stocks and of lake sturgeon in the
Great Lakes. ............................................................................................................ 166

Figure 15: Percent of respondents that perceive their committee as balancing the
committee’s, or lake-wide, perspective versus the individual jurisdictions’
perspective when making a decision on fisheries issues. Respondents could select
from an answer scale starting with decisions made by their committee being based
100% on the committee’s perspective to being based 100% on individual
jurisdiction’s perspective. ....................................................................................... 168

Figure 16: Respondents’ perception on the effectiveness of A Joint Strategic Plan for
Management of Great Lakes Fisheries in achieving inter-jurisdictional coordinated
fishery management in the Great Lakes are presented as percentage per answer
choice (white bars). Respondents’ perception on the effectiveness of their
committee’s Fish Community Objectives in attaining the desired fish community
structure is presented as a percentage per answer choice (dark bars). .................... 169

Figure 17: Respondent’s perception of lake sturgeon population status within their

committee’s jurisdiction. Percentage of respondents selecting each answer choice is
shown. ..................................................................................................................... 171

xii

Figure 18: The priority level that respondents perceive is given by their lake committee
and their organization, dark bars, to lake sturgeon related issues, white bars. ....... 172

Figure 19: How respondents perceive the adequacy of the priority level that they perceive
is given by their lake committee, white bars, and their organization, dark bars, to
lake sturgeon related issues ..................................................................................... 173

Figure 20: Sociogram for the Fish Stocks Information Exchange network, depicting flow
of information (lines) among individuals. A total of 276 respondents provided
information, of which 274 made weighted connections with others in the network.
There are a total of 455 unique individuals in this network. Distances between
individual are interpreted relative to one another and are unit-less. ....................... 176

Figure 21: Sociogram for the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network, depicting
flow of information (lines) among the significant subgroups of individuals (circles)
identified by the KliqueFinder program. There are 366 unique individuals in this
network. A total of 274 repondents provided information, of which 234 actually
made a weighted social tie with others in the network. Distances between subgroups
are to be interpreted relative to one another and are unit-less. Subgroups A to L in
the sociogram refer to subgroups 1 to 12 in the text, respectively. ........................ 182

Figure 22: Sociogram of within subgroups flow of information for the Lake Sturgeon
Information Exchange network. Lines depict flow of information among individuals
within the 12 subgroups (circles) as identified by the KliqueFinder program. There
are a total of 366 unique individuals in this network. Distances between subgroups
are to be interpreted relative to one another and are unit-less. ............................... 183

xiii

CHAPTER ONE
Prologue - Collaborative Governance of Transboundary Fish Stocks in the

Great Lakes

Agencies with authority for the management of fish stocks that migrate across
jurisdictional boundaries (transboundary fish stocks) have recently begun to collaborate
to ensure enhanced management of these stocks. The impetus for this collaboration has
generally been related to two main factors (1) the decline or collapse of fish stocks valued
by society, and (2) the realization that this downward trend in fish abundance cannot be
resolved by one jtuisdiction’s independent actions. The decline or collapse of
transboundary fish stocks is a concern shared worldwide, as evidenced globally by the
dismal state of the numerous marine fisheries that are harvested by multiple nations.
Today, 35% of the world’s fisheries are classified as being overexploited and 25% as
being fully exploited (Myers and Worms 2003, F AO-F isheries 2007). Inland fisheries are
not exempted from this fate, as many populations throughout the world are in serious
states of decline (F AO-Fisheries 2007). Recognition of the complexity of the challenges
faced by agencies with management authority over declining or collapsed transboundary
fish stocks has made it evident that a collaborative approach is needed to ensure
sustainable fish stocks. This collaboration allows for overcoming the limitations of
individual institutions, such as lack of funds, specialized skills (Van de Ven and Ferry
1980, Wimpfliemier et al. 1991), or more simply, lack of governance authority over all
pertinent components influencing the status of the fish stock, such as habitat quality and

harvest regulations in all fishing jurisdictions.

The increase in the number of governance1 institutions established during the last
half of the 20th century for transboundary fish stocks, such as the Inter-American Tropical
Tuna Commission, International Pacific Halibut Commission, Pacific Salmon
Commission, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, and Atlantic States Marine
Fishery Commission, are well-noted outcomes of collaboration among fishery
management agencies to address the challenges of managing transboundary fish stocks
(Cole 2003, Kooiman et a1. 2005, Schechter and Leonard 2008). These governance
institutions for transboundary fish stocks, however, have varied greatly in their
effectiveness and success in governing transboundary fish stocks in sustainable manners
(FAO 2001 , Schechter and Leonard 2008). This variability is due to numerous factors,
one of which is whether the processes used to make decisions and have them
implemented are effective and efficient (Schechter and Leonard 2008). Two examples of
this factor are The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries (Code), and the World Bank’s fisheries sector. The Code is
recognized as being the global framework for fisheries, however, its effectiveness is
variable because it is implemented on a voluntary basis and is not enforceable (FAO
2004, IMM 2007). The World Bank is in the opposite situation because it could leverage
its other sectors and financial resources to implement beneficial changes to fish stock

sustainability, e.g., reducing fishing pressure by providing alternative employment in

 

’ Governance is not a synonym for management or government. This term includes
governmental actors, non-state actors, “hard laws” such as treaties, “soft laws” such as
codes of conduct, formal and informal rules, understandings that influence behavior, and
private governance such as market mechanisms. A governance institution focuses more
on the sharing of responsibility and setting the policy agenda then on the actual process
for implementing management actions (Rosenau 1995, Sissenweine and Mace 2003,
Schechter and Leonard 2008).

development in fishing communities, but has chosen not to use that leverage (World
Bank 2004).

Another factor that contributes to the variability observed in the effectiveness and
success of governance institutions for transboundary fish stocks is the spectrum of
personalities and expertise of individuals participating in the development and
implementation of the governance institution. These individuals are often selected to be
part of the ‘team’ because they can contribute different expertise, have different
disciplinary backgrounds, or because they represent different cultures, societal groups,
and sovereign jurisdictions. The diversity among the ‘team’ participants can be an added
challenge to the governance of transboundary fish stocks, because participant diversity
has been found to have both positive and negative impacts on group effectiveness and
work quality (Shaw and Barrett-Power 1998). Diversity in team participants’, for
instance, can decrease group effectiveness (Campion et al. 1993, Pitts and Jarry 2005),
whereas, other studies have found that diversity can enhance team performance (Magjuka
and Baldwin 1991), as well as producing more creative decisions (McLeod et a1. 1996).

Most studies to-date that assess existing governance institutions for transboundary
fish stocks have not focused on the participants engaged in the institution, but instead
have focused on the institution’s structure and framework. Of these studies, most have
focused on the decision-making processes, the authorities delegated to the institution, or
the management tools used, such as stocking fish and setting harvest regulations, to
understand how these may be contributing to the effectiveness2 of the institution (Taylor

and Ferreri 1999, Kooiman et a1. 2005, Schechter et al. 2008). Studies that assessed the

 

2 The term ‘effectiveness’ in this chapter is used as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

9“

defines the word ‘effective , producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect” (1974).

3

role of participants on the effectiveness of the institution have found that social relations
(hereon referred to as social ties’) can be effectively used to achieve the governance
institution’s desired outcomes. The use of sanctions by members of a fishery to stop
individuals engaging in behaviors that are perceived as negatively impacting the fish
stock (Grafton 2005), such as occurs in the Maine lobster fishery (Acheson 1975) and in
the Turks and Caicos Island spiny lobster fishery (Bennett and Clerveaux 2003), has been
very effective in stopping unsustainable fishing practices. Studies also have found that
social ties can be used to learn about the location of desired fish species and thereby
increase fishing success, such as with Great Lakes salmonid charter-boat fishing captains
(Mueller 2004) and with the Alaska commercial seine skippers (Gatewood 1984, 1987).
Studying social ties among a defined group of individuals also can reveal the social
network4 structure and how resources, such as information on preventing the spread of
fish pathogens, flow among participants of that social network through their social ties.
This understanding can then reveal if a subset of the social network’s participants are not
receiving information, or which subset of participants should be targeted to assure
efficient flow of new information to all other participants. For instance, the flow of
information among fisheries stakeholder groups can be revealed by studying their social
ties and social network structure (Lynch 2001). This knowledge can then be used to

enhance the flow of information, such as information on new regulations, among

 

3 Social tie is defined as the relationship linking two individuals together. This
relationship may be based on individuals respecting one another, exchanging resources,
belonging to the same affiliation or association, formal relationship such as employer and
employee, biological relationship such as siblings, and so forth (Wasserrnan and Faust
1994)

4 Social network is defined as consisting of “a finite set or sets of actors and the relation
or relations [i.e., social ties] defined on them” (Wasserrnan and Faust 1994).

4

stakeholder groups as well as between stakeholders and agency personnel (Maiolo and
Johnson 1992), by assuring that the information is provided to individuals that are well-
connected to others within the social network structure. Generally, even though the
importance of social ties among participants is recognized in fisheries governance (e.g.,
Decker and Krueger 1999, Acheson 1975), few studies have examined the role of social
ties and their social network structure on the effectiveness of the institution in developing
and implementing fisheries policies.

The role that social ties may have on the effectiveness of governance institutions
with responsibilities for transboundary fish stocks deserves closer examination, as these
institutions are increasingly used to resolve fisheries disputes, i.e., the Food and
Agriculture Organization’s Regional Fisheries Bodies. In these governance institutions, it
is common for a diversity of fisheries professionals and stakeholders to be selected to
work together on governance issues of mutual concern. Once selected to participate in
such ‘teams’, the individuals need to establish social ties to facilitate effective decision-
making. Establishment of social ties generally requires individuals to develop a level of
trust and respect for one another (Jones and George 1998, Newell and Swan 2000).
Frequently, these social ties must be newly established so that the needed working
relationships are present to effectively and cooperatively tackle issues of concern
(Dodgson 1993, Jones and George 1998, Newell and Swan 2000). In the absence of
establishing social ties, the group may fail to meet its objectives in a timely fashion, if at
all, as the individuals will not be able to work together to make needed decisions (Jones
and George 1998, Newell and Swan 2000). The importance of social ties among group

participants for successful, cooperative interaction and exchange of information, such as

is needed for decision-making, has long been recognized and often studied in disciplines
such as sociology, psychology, and organizational development (e.g., Jones and Georges
1998, Newell and Swan 2000).

The social ties of individuals participating in the governance of transboundary
fish stocks, and the structure of their social network, also contribute to the group’s
success by restricting or enabling access to needed resources, such as information on a
given fishery or access to technological expertise (Wasserrnan and Faust 1994). The
ability of individuals to access needed material, i.e., computers, or a non-material
resource, i.e., expertise, through their social ties is referred to as an individual’s social
capital (F rank et al. 2007, Rudd 2000). The larger an individual’s social capital the more
resources that individual will be able to access. If individuals participating in a
governance institution have low social capital, they may not have the resources available
to be effective, as they will not be able to gain access to individuals that have the
resources that they need. The social ties linking the individuals, as well as the level of
trust among individuals of the social network, all contribute to the amount of social
capital to which an individual has access (Frank and Yasumoto 1998, Pretty and Ward
2000, Grafton 2005). The development of social ties among individuals working together
is important because of the resources contributed by participants to the group as well as
it’s facilitation of group progress in making decisions. Surprisingly, although the
governance of transboundary fish stocks has become increasingly dependent on
cooperative multijurisdictional efforts, the importance of social ties in fisheries
governance has not received the level of attention observed in other disciplines where

collaboration is also essential for success.

In this dissertation, I assessed the need for more effective governance institutions
with responsibility over transboundary fish stocks using case studies from all regions of
the world. I conducted a specific case study on the fishery policies governing lake
sturgeon (Acipenserfulvescens) in the Laurentian Great Lakes, using it as an illustration
of the conflicting management actions that are implemented when coordination among
fisheries management agencies is lacking. Lastly, I assessed the role of the social ties
among participants of a governance institution for the governance of transboundary fish
stocks, and their social network structure, on the effectiveness of that institution. I
selected as my case study the governance of the Laurentian Great Lakes fishery for two
main reasons: (1) the formal adoption and implementation of a governance institution for
transboundary fish stocks, A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes
Fisheries, and (2) the diversity, such as education level, employer, culture, and country of
residence, of participants involved in the implementation of this institution. In the next
section I provide an overview of the system I studied for the case study on the

governance of the Laurentian Great Lakes fishery.

Study System

The Laurentian Great Lakes fish stocks span the binational boundary between
Canada and the United States. These fish stocks are collaboratively managed through A
Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (Joint Strategic Plan) by
eight state, two tribal, and one provincial fisheries management agencies. The Joint
Strategic Plan and the participants involved in its implementation are an ideal system for

which to study the role of social ties and social network structure on the effectiveness of

this governance institution for two reasons: (1) the perceived success of this governance
institution in governing transboundary fish stocks in the Great Lakes based on signatory
agencies collaboratively implementing management decisions (Stein and Goddard 2008,
Gaden 2007), and, (2) the diversity in participants involved in the implementation of the
Joint Strategic Plan. Below I describe the historical background leading to the
implementation of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the enactment of the Joint
Strategic Plan, and the Joint Strategic Plan’s perceived success. I also describe the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) structure, and the committee structure facilitated by
the GLFC through which the Joint Strategic Plan is implemented to provide an
understanding of its framework. Lastly, I describe the diversity of participants involved in
the Joint Strategic Plan, both official signatory agencies and unofficial participants, as
this diversity can affect the effective implementation of the Joint Strategic Plan.

The Great Lakes fishery is a well-documented case study that has faced a history
of declining fish stocks and failed attempts to reverse this decline through unilateral
decisions. This history of failures is the precursor to the eventual successful
establishment of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the Joint Strategic Plan. When
the Europeans first colonized the Great Lakes, fisheries governance consisted mainly of a
laissez-faire approach with few if any fisheries regulations (N ielson 1999). This approach
arose from fishers and managers believing that the Great Lakes fish resources were so
abundant that it was inconceivable that these fish stocks could ever be depleted (Bogue
2000)

This belief was soon shattered, as increasing harvest pressure (Brown et al. 1999,

Bogue 2000) facilitated by improved harvest technologies (Stein and Goddard 2008),

compounded by the negative impacts of aquatic habitat degradation and pollution
(Beeton et al. 1999, Brown et al. 1999, Bogue 2000, Stein and Goddard 2008), and later,
aquatic nuisance species (Eshenroder and Bumham-Curtis 1999, Leach et a1. 1999), all
contributed to the decline of Great Lakes fishery stocks. By the mid-19th century the need
for fishery management5 became apparent in the Great Lakes.

Declining fish stocks and the increasing pressures on these stocks, lead to the
implementation of first local, then regional approaches to management, and ultimately to
a binational fishery resources governance approach (Brown et al. 1999, Dochoda 1999,
Bogue 2000). The local and regional approaches, historically, consisted of fisheries
managers from the eight Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario with
management authority for Great Lakes fish stocks, focusing their efforts exclusively on
fish stocks within their fisheries management jurisdiction (Dochoda 1999, Cole 2003).
This management approach usually occurred only after the stocks were declining or had
collapsed (N ielson 1999). This local and regional approach was, therefore, divided based
on the political boundaries of the eight Great Lakes states and by the international
boundary dividing the four Great Lakes shared with the Canadian province of Ontario

(Figure 1).

 

5 Fisheries management is defined as: “the manipulation of aquatic organisms, aquatic
environments, and their human users to produce sustained and ever increasing benefits
for people” (N ielson 1999).

 

Ontario

Ontario

Mlchigan New York

lIIlnois ~ ———-

 

i
j Indiana

Figure 1: The political boundaries dividing the Great Lakes among the eight Great Lakes
states and the province of Ontario. The political boundary between Canada and the
United States is located approximately in the middle of the four shared Great Lakes, Lake
Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario. The headquarters’ locations of the
two tribal organizations that have management authority of fish stocks within their ceded
territories in the United States side of the Great Lakes are also indicated.

Efforts at establishing a binational, basin-wide, collaborative fishery resources
governance institution during the late 19th and 20’'1 centuries for these inherently
transboundary fish stocks in the Great Lakes were marked by several failed attempts
(Brown et al. 1999, Gaden 2007, Stein and Goddard 2008). The eventual collapse of
commercial and recreational fisheries from the combined effects of overharvest, habitat

destruction, ineffective fisheries management, and the establishment of the invasive and

parasitic sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinas), provided the needed impetus for Canada

and the United States to create by treaty, the binational GLFC in 1955 (GLF C 1955,
Christie and Goddard 2004).

The GLF C was established to undertake and coordinate fisheries research, to
provide advice to governments about the measures necessary to ensure the maximum
productivity of fish stocks of common concern, and to implement a sea lamprey control
program (Dochoda and Jones 2002). Taking advantage of the international framework
provided by the GLFC, the eight Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario
established five Lake Committees — one for each of the Great Lakes, under the auspices
of the commission to better facilitate cooperative fisheries management for these
transboundary fish stocks (Figure 2). Established in 1965, these Lake Committees were
composed of fishery managers from each of the state and provincial agencies with fishery
resources authority on each of the Great Lakes (Eshenroder 1987). Representatives from
Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission were subsequently included in the Lake Committees in 1989. The Lake
Committees do not include members from the federal fishery management agencies, as
the fisheries management authority in the Great Lakes resides solely with state,
provincial and tribal agencies in the Great Lakes basin. Members of the Lake Committees
currently make the fishery management decisions by consensus and are each representing
for implementing the decisions within their respective jurisdiction (Stein and Goddard
2008)

The Council of Lake Committees, comprised of the Lake Committees’
representatives, addresses basin-wide Great Lakes fisheries issues and facilitates

information exchanges between the Great Lakes Law Enforcement Committee and the

11

Lake Committees. The Law Enforcement Committee addresses fishery resources law
enforcement topics of common concern within each Great Lake and basin-wide. Within
the GLF C’s framework, there are two additional committees that are Agency-Appointed,
the Council of Great Lakes Fishery Management Agencies and the Great Lakes Fish
Health Committee (Figure 2). These two committees, unlike the others include
representation from all signatory agencies, including the federal agencies signatory to the
Joint Strategic Plan (discussed in greater detail below). The federal agencies represented
on these two committees include Fisheries and Oceans Canada, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration —Fisheries (formerly named the National Marine Fisheries
Service), US. Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division, and the US. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The Council of Great Lakes Fishery Management Agencies serves to
guide the implementation of the Joint Strategic Plan, as well as a forum to which the
GLFC and the CLC can bring forth emerging or unresolved Great Lakes fishery issues of
concern. The Great Lakes Fish Health Committee coordinates basin-wide efforts to stop
the introduction and spread of fish pathogens that may threaten the health of the Great
Lakes fish stocks. This fishery resources governance decision-making process, which is
implemented through the Lake Committees, Council of Lake Committees (CLC) and its
Law Enforcement Committee, was formalized in 1978 with the enactment of the Joint
Strategic Plan (GLF C 1997).
The Joint Strategic Plan was signed by one province, two-tribes, eight states, and

four federal agencies:

0 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,

0 Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority,

12

0 Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission,

0 Illinois Department of Conservation,

0 Indiana Department of Natural Resources,

0 Michigan Department of Natural Resources,

0 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,

0 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
0 Ohio Department of Natural Resources,

0 Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission,

0 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,

0 Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans,

0 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries
0 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and

0 United States Geological Survey — Biological Resources Division.

The four federal agencies, although not having fisheries management authority in the

Great Lakes, are signatory agencies to the Joint Strategic Plan because of the role they

have in protecting, rehabilitating, and conserving the Great Lakes fish stocks, such as

through the Endangered Species Act. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

has conservation authority in the Great Lakes, which entails ecosystem based research,

the protection of fish habitat, and assistance with the implementation of the GLFC’s sea

lamprey population control, all of which impact the health of Great Lakes fish stocks

managed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Dochoda 1999). The National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US. Geological Survey-Biological Resources

Division, and the U. S Fish and Wildlife Services are all signatories to the Joint Strategic

l3

Plan due to the supportive role they provide Great Lakes fishery management agencies, in
areas such as fisheries and water quality research, protection and rehabilitation of
endangered species, implementation of the GLF C’s sea lamprey control program, and
fishery law enforcement (Dochoda 1999).

The Joint Strategic Plan serves as the framework for fishery resources governance
decision-making and is based on the best available science and achieving consensus. The
philosophy underlying the Joint Strategic Plan is that each of the Great Lakes fishery
resources governance agencies shares responsibility for the Great Lakes ecosystem and
that in the interest of the “common good,” fishery resources governance authority must
be cooperative, rather than unilateral. The GLFC, although not a signatory to the Joint
Strategic Plan, facilitates the operation of the Joint Strategic Plan. The Joint Strategic
Plan is now viewed by some as one of the most successful institutions for coordinated
governance of transboundary fish stocks (GLFC 1997, Gaden 2007, Stein and Goddard
2008). This perception is based on the Joint Strategic Plan signatory parties achieving
consensus on fisheries management decisions, sharing information with one another, and
implementing coordinated fishery management activities in the Great Lakes (Gaden
2007). This perceived effectiveness of the Joint Strategic Plan makes it an appropriate
case study for assessment of the role of its participants and their social ties on its

effectiveness.

14

 

Agency-Appointed Committees

 

 

Council of Great
Lakes Fishery
Agencies

 

 

 

 

Partners

- US. Fish and Wildlife Service
- US. Geological Survey

- US. Army Corps of Engineers
- Fisheries and Oceans Canada
- Michigan State University

- University of Guelph

 

 

 

Council of Lake
Committee

 

Great Lakes Fish Health
Committee

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement
Committee

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great Lakes Fishery Commission
(GLFC)

- U.S. Commissioners

- Canadian Commissioners

- U.S. Advisors

- Canadian Advisors

- Secretariat & Commissioners

Lake Superior
Committee

 

 

 

Lake Superior
Technical Subcommittees

 

 

 

Lake Huron
Committee

 

 

 

Lake Huron
Technical Subcommittees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GLFC-Appointed Boards

- Board of Technical Experts

- Sea Lamprey Integration Committee
- Sea Lamprey Research Board

Lake Michigan
Committee

 

 

 

Lake Michigan
Technical Subcommittees

 

 

 

 

Lake Erie
Committee

 

 

 

 

Lake Erie
Technical Subcommittees

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lake Ontario
Committee

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: Organizational structure of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission

The second component that makes the Great Lakes transboundary fish stocks an

15

appropriate case study for my dissertation is the diversity of participants involved in the
implementation of the Joint Strategic Plan. As stated above, the signatory members of the
Joint Strategic Plan represent tribal, provincial, state, and federal agencies. There are also

non-voting participants in the Joint Strategic Plan, representing academia, non-

 

 

 

 

 

 

governmental organizations, private sector, commercial fishers, and recreational fishers,
who provide input through invited expert presentations, formally established advisory
groups, and public comments, and thus may influence governance decisions. This
assemblage of individuals is diverse in terms of the organizations they represent, as well
as their expertise, personalities, beliefs, perspectives, values, disciplines, and cultures,
which can affect how these individuals interact together and hence affect the decision-
making process (e.g., Shaw and Barrett-Power 1998). Additionally, these individuals
vary in how long they have been participants, the frequency of interactions they have
with other participants, and the social ties they develop with one another, all of which
may affect the ability of the individuals to work effectively together as participants of the
Joint Strategic Plan, its Agency-Appointed committees, or GLFC groups. Furthermore,
individuals need to have a certain level of trust and respect for one another to effectively
and successfully work together (Jones and George 1998, Newell and Swan 2000, Grafton
2005), which is achieved by investing the time to get to know one another professionally
as well as personally, thereby developing social ties. This diversity among participants,
variability in how well they know, trust, and respect one another all adds to the challenge
of participants working together to reach consensus on governance decisions for
transboundary fish stocks as this variability may decrease group effectiveness (Campion
et al. 1993, Shaw and Barrett-Power 1998, Pitts and Jarry 2005). In this dissertation I
assess how the social ties and the social network structure of the Joint Strategic Plan
participants influence the effectiveness of the Joint Strategic Plan by affecting the flow of
information among participants. This understanding contributes to improving the

effectiveness of governance institutions increasingly being used to address transboundary

l6

fish stocks of concern and hopefully avoid negative impacts on these fish stocks which

may arise from unilateral decision-making.

Dissertation Format

This dissertation is composed of three central chapters, bounded by an
introduction chapter and conclusion chapter. I studied the governance of Great Lakes
transboundary fish stocks from three aspects that illustrate how (1) the need for more
effective governance of transboundary fish stocks is resulting in the implementation of
governance institutions for these transboundary fish stocks (2) lack of coordination on the
management of a transboundary fish stock, i.e., lake sturgeon (Acipenserfidvescens), can
lead to conflicting fishery resources governance policies, and (3) social ties among
participants governing transboundary fish stocks in the Great Lakes, and their social
network structure, affect the decision-making process. Each of these aspects is addressed
in a separate chapter of this dissertation.

The second chapter examines how the need for a better approach in addressing the
needs of transboundary fish stocks has giving rise to a diversity of governance
institutions for these transboundary fish stocks. This chapter evaluates the adequacy of
current governance institutions for transboundary fish stocks and explores potential
alternatives that may further improve governance of these fish stocks. This first chapter
has been published in International Governance of Fisheries Ecosystems: Learning from
the Past, Finding Solutions for the Future (Schechter et a1. 2008).

The third chapter illustrates the conflicting governance decisions and the lack of

coordination and cooperation in the management of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes. In

17

this chapter, an overview of the governance institutions and resulting variable harvest
management regulations across eight states and two provinces is presented. The need for
consistency among jurisdictions to assure the improved and sustained health of Great
Lakes lake sturgeon is discussed. The potential role of the Joint Strategic Plan
governance institution, as facilitated by the GLF C and implemented by the Lake
Committees, Council of Lake Committees and its Law Enforcement Committee, in terms
of achieving consistency in the management regulations is described. This chapter has
been published in Sturgeons and Paddlefish of North America (LeBreton et al. 2004).
The fourth chapter improves the understanding of the role of social ties among
participants of the Great Lakes fisheries governance institution, Joint Strategic Plan, in
the decision-making process. Social ties, although not often studied in fishery resources
governance, have been researched in both organizational and sociological fields to
enhance the understanding of how interactions among individuals affect group
effectiveness (Granovetter 1973, Magjuka and Baldwin 1991, Burt 1992, Campion et al.
1993, Wasserman and Faust 1994, McLeod et al. 1996, Abrahamsom and Rosenkopf
1997, Shaw and Barrett-Power 1998, Frank et al. 2004, Pitts and Jarry 2005). These
studies found that social ties likely determine the resources, such as information, that an
individual will have access to, how quickly these resources will be available to the
individual, whether a new idea will be accepted by individuals within a group, and may
potentially be related to the amount of influence an individual can exert on group
decisions. Hence, understanding the role of social ties within the social network of Great
Lakes fishery governance institutions can disclose how resources flow among individuals

within the governance infrastructure, e. g., whether uniformly or restricted to certain

18

subgroups, and how this may affect the decision-making process related to the
governance of transboundary fish stocks.

The Conclusion chapter, chapter five, reviews the main findings from the three
core chapters, and highlights how these chapters are connected with one another. In brief,
these chapters are connected by the implementation of governance institutions to address
concerns with transboundary fish stocks, which generally results in engaging participants
to collaboratively work together in coordinating governance efforts at all jurisdictional
levels. The need for these institutions is evident based on the multiple jurisdictions with
management authority over transboundary fish stocks, and the contradicting policy
decisions that can arise in the absence of coordination. These institutions, while relying
on the ability of participants to effectively and efficiently work together, must recognize
the importance of developing social ties among participants to achieve an effective group
dynamic. The role of social ties and social network structure, therefore, must be
considered in designing and implementing governance institutions for transboundary fish

stocks.

19

References

Abrahamson, E. and L. Rosenkopf. 1997. Social network effects on the extent of
innovation diffusion: a computer simulation. Organization Science 8: 289-309

Acheson, J. M. 1975. Fisheries management and social context: the case of
the Maine lobster fishery. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104 (4):
653-668.

Beeton, A. M., C. E. Sellinger, and D. E. Reid. 1999. An introduction to the Laurentian
Great Lakes ecosystem. Pages 3-54 in Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and
Management a binational perspective. Edited by W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Bennett E. and W. Clerveaux. 2003. Size matters: fisheries management and social
capital on the Turks and Caicos islands. 54‘" Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries
Institute: 136-146.

Bogue, M. B. 2000. Fishing the Great Lakes: an environmental history 1783-1933.
Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Brown, R. W., M. Ebener, and T. Gorenflo. 1999. Great Lakes commercial fisheries:
historical overview and prognosis for the future. Pages 307-354 in Great Lakes
Fisheries Policy and Management a binational perspective. Edited by W. W.
Taylor and C. P. F erreri. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University
Press.

Burt, R. 1992. Structural Holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.

Campion, M. A., G. J. Medsker, and A. C. Higgs. 1993. Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work
groups. Personnel Psychology 46(4): 823-850.

Christie, G. C. and C. I. Goddard. 2004. Sea lamprey international symposium (SLIS II):
advances in the integrated management of sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. Journal
of Great Lakes Research 29 (Supplement 1): 1-14.

Cole, H. 2003. Contemporary challenges: globalization, global interconnectedness and
that 'there are not plenty more fish in the sea'. Fisheries, governance and
globalization: is there a relationship? Ocean and Coastal Management 46: 77-102.

Colligan, M, T. Sheehan, J. Pruden, and J. Kocik. 2008. The challenges posed by
international management of Atlantic salmon: balancing commercial, recreational
and societal interests - the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization
(nasco). Pages 383-404 in International Governance of Fisheries Ecosystems:

20

learning from the past, finding solutions for the future. Edited by in M. G.
Schechter, N. J. Leonard, and W. W. Taylor. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.

Decker, D. J. and C. C. Kruger. 1999. Communication for effective fisheries
management. Pages 61-81 in Inland Fisheries Management in North America, 2nd
Edition. Edited by C. C. Kohler and W. A Hubert. American Fisheries Society,
MD.

Dochoda, M. R. 1999. Authorities, responsibilities, and arrangements for managing fish
and fisheries in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Pages 93-112 in Great Lakes
Fisheries Policy and Management a binational perspective. Edited by W. W.
Taylor and C. P. Ferreri. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University
Press.

Dochoda, M. R. and M. L. Jones. 2002. Managing Great Lakes fisheries under multiple
and diverse authorities. Pages 221-242 in Sustaining North American Salmon:
Perspectives Across Regions and Disciplines. Edited by K. D. Lynch, M. J. Jones,
and W. W. Taylor. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Dodgson, M. 1993. Learning, trust and technological collaboration. Human relations
46(1): 77-95.

Eshenroder, R. L. 1987. Socioeconomic aspects of lake trout rehabilitation in the Great
Lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society118: 309-313.

Eshenroder, R. L. and M. K. Bumham-Curtis. 1999. Species succession and sustainability
of the Great Lakes fish community. Pages 145-184 in Great Lakes Fisheries
Policy and Management a binational perspective. Edited by W. W. Taylor and C.
P. F erreri. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press.

FAQ (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2001. Indicators to assess the performance of
regional fishery bodies. Second meeting of FAO and non-FAO regional fishery
bodies or arrangements. Rome, Italy 20-21 February 2001. Available:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/OO3/x93 76e.htm (March 2007).

F AO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2004. The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture 2004; part 1: world review of fisheries and aquaculture. Rome: Food
and Agriculture Organization. Available
http://www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_en.htm (l 8 June 2007)

FAQ-Fisheries (Food and Agriculture Organization- Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department). 2007. State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Food and
Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Frank, K., K. Mueller, A. Krause, W. W. Taylor, and N. Leonard. 2007. The intersection

21

of global trade, social networks, and fisheries. Pages 385—423 in Globalization:
Effects on Fisheries Resources. Edited by W. W. Taylor, M. G. Schechter, and L.
G. Wolfson. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Frank, K. A. and J. Y. Yasumoto. 1998. Linking action to social structure within a

system: social capital within and between subgroups. American Journal of
Sociology 104 (3): 642-686.

Frank, K. A, Y. Zhao, and K. Borman. 2004. Social capital and the diffusion of
innovations within organizations: application to the implementation of
computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education 77: 148-171.

Gaden, M. E. 2007. Bridging Jurisdictional Divides — collective action through A Joint
Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. PhD Dissertation. The
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Gatewood, J. B. 1984. Cooperation, competition, and synergy: information-sharing
groups among Southeast Alaskan salmon seiners. American Ethnologist 11(2):
350-370.

Gatewood, J. B. 1987. Information-sharing cliques and information networks. American
Ethnologist 14(4): 777-778.

GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 1955. Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.

GLF C (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 1997. A Joint Strategic Plan for Management
of Great Lakes Fisheries. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI

Grafton, R. Q. 2005. Social capital and fisheries governance. Ocean & Coastal
Management 48: 753-766.

Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak tie. American Journal of Sociology 78:
1360-80.

IMM. 2007. Fisheries Code of Conduct. Available:
http: //www. innovation. ex. ac. uk/imm/CCRF. htrn (3 July 2007).

Jones, G. and J. George. 1998. The experience and evolution of trust: implications for
cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review 23(3): 532-46.

Kooiman, J ., M. Bavinck, S. Jentoff, and R. Pullin, editors. 2005. Fish for Life.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

LeBreton, G. T. 0., F. W. H. Beamish and R. S. Mckinley, editors. 2004. Sturgeons and
Paddlefish of North America. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston,

22

Massachusetts.

Leach, J. H. ands. J. Nepszy. 1976. The fish community in Lake Erie. Journal of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33: 622-638

Lynch, K. D. 2001. Formation and implications of interorganizational networks among
fisheries stakeholder organizations in Michigan’s Pere Marquette river watershed.
Michigan State University Ph.D. Dissertation.

Magjuka, R. J. and T. T. Baldwin. 1991. Team-based employee involvement programs:
effects of design and administration. Personnel Psychology 44(4): 793-812.

Maiolo, J. R. and J. Johnson. 1992. Determining and utilizing communication networks
in marine fisheries: a management tool. Proceedings of the 41" Gulf and
Caribbean Fisheries Institute: 274-296.

McLeod, P. L., S. A. Lobel, and T. H. Cox, JR. 1996. Ethnic diversity and creativity in
small groups. Small Group Research 247(2): 248-264.

Mueller, K. B. 2004. The role of a social network in the functioning of the grand haven
charter boat fishery, Lake Michigan, Master thesis. Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan.

Myers, R. A. and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish
communities. Nature 423(6937): 280-283.

Newell, S and J. Swan. 2000. Trust and inter-organizational networking. Human
Relations 53(10): 1287-1328.

Nielson, L. A. 1999. History of inland fisheries management in North American. Pages 3-
33 in Inland Fisheries Management in North America. Edited by C. C. Kohler and
W. A. Hubert. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.

Pitts, D. and E. M. Jarry. 2005. Ethnic diversity and organizational performance:
assessing diversity effects at the managerial and street levels. Working Paper 06-
33, Andre Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University. Available
http://aysps.gsu/publications/2006/index.htm (November 2009).

Pretty, J. and H. Ward. 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29
(2): 209-227

Rosenau, J. N. 1995. Governance in the twenty-first century. Global Governance: A
Review of Multilateralism and International Organization 1(1): 13—43.

Rudd, M. A. 2000. Live long and prosper: collective action, social capital and social
vision. Ecological Economics 34(234): 13 1-144.

23

Schechter, M. G. and N. J. Leonard. 2008. Global fisheries governance. Pages 3-33 in
International Governance of Fisheries Ecosystems: learning from the past, finding
solutions for the future. Edited by M. G. Schechter, N. J. Leonard, and W. W.
Taylor. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Schechter, M. G., N. J. Leonard, and W. W. Taylor, editors. 2008. International
Governance of Fisheries Ecosystems: learning from the past, finding solutions for
the future. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Shaw, J. B. and E. Barrett-Power. 1998. The effects of diversity on small work group
processes and performance. Human Relations 51(10): 1307-1325.

Sissenweine, M. P., and P. M. Mace. 2003. Governance for responsible fisheries: an
ecosystem approach. Pages 10—12 in Responsible Fisheries in the Marine
Ecosystem. Edited by M. Sinclair and G. Vladimarsson. CABI Publishing and
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Wallingford, UK.

Stein, R., and C. Goddard. 2008. Reconciling fisheries with rehabilitation in the
Laurentian Great Lakes. Pages 1731-1743 in Proceedings of the Fourth World
Fisheries Congress: fisheries with conservation. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.

Taylor, W. W. and C. P. F erreri, editors. 1999. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and
Management. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI.

Van de Ven, A. H., and D. L. Ferry. 1980. Measuring and assessing organizations. New
York: Wiley.

Wasserman, S. and K. Faust. 1994. Social network analysis: methods and applications.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wimpfheimer, R., M. Bloom, and M. Kramer. 1991. Inter-agency collaboration: some
working principles. Administration in Social Work 14(4): 89-102.

World Bank. 2004. Saving fish and fishers: toward sustainable and equitable governance
of the global fishing sector. Report No. 29090-GLB. The World Bank,
Washington, DC. Available:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/SavingFishandFishers.pdf
(26 November 2006).

24

CHAPTER TWO

This chapter was published in the book International Governance of Fisheries

Ecosystems: Learning fiom the Past, Finding Solutions for the Future and is copyrighted
by the American Fisheries Society. The formatting of the chapter was modified from the
published version to match Michigan State University dissertation formatting guidelines.

The full citation is:

Schechter, M. G., and N. J. Leonard. 2008. Global fisheries governance. Pages 3-33 in
lntemational Governance of Fisheries Ecosystems: Learning from the Past, Finding
Solutions for the Future. Edited by M. G. Schechter, N. J. Leonard, and W. W. Taylor.

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

25

CHAPTER TWO

Global Fisheries Governance

Fisheries management has existed in some form since prehistoric times, initially
arising as a response to local fishing pressures and the need for local management to
assure the sustainability of the fish stock (Coull 1993). During the 20th century, fisheries
throughout the world began expanding both horizontally to explore new distant stocks
and vertically to harvest deeper stocks, as technological advances in vessels, fish capture
gear, fish processing, and storage facilitated this expansion (Degnbol 2004). These
technological advancements were associated with new threats to global fisheries
including overfishing and habitat destruction. Overfishing became internationally
recognized as a serious threat to the sustainability of our world fisheries during the early
19003. It also was a major topic of discussion from the first days of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). It was discussed at the FAO’s
first Fisheries Technical Committee in 1946 (FAO 2006a), and was the focus of the 1947
London Conference on Overfishing.

The 1996 FAQ State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) report
substantiated the concern for the sustainability of fisheries. This report showed that since
FAO’s onset of data collection in 1950, that fishing pressures on fish stocks have been
intensifying leading to a large proportion, 35%, of the world fisheries being overexploited
(senescent) and 25% being fully exploited (mature) by 1994 (Figure 1). This evidence of
fishing activities’ impact on fish stocks created a worldwide concern for their

sustainability, and a desire to take action. The FAO called for this action by stating in its

26

1996 SOF IA report that over 60% of the fish stocks required management (FAO 1996).
Fisheries management is defined as: “the manipulation of aquatic organisms, aquatic
environments, and their human users to produce sustained and ever increasing benefits
for people” (N ielson 1993). Fisheries management was seen as the tool to respond to the
increasing international and global harvest pressure on fish stocks (Coull 1993).
Accordingly fisheries management became more prominent during the second half of the
20th century (FAO 2006a).

As the perspective on fisheries resources changed from this being an
inexhaustible to an exhaustible resource, so did approaches to management. Past
management strategies had proved ineffective in preventing unsustainable fishing of
targeted fish stocks (Degnbol 2004) and changes had to be made. Fisheries management,
mirrored by fisheries science and their fisheries modeling tools, shifted from the focus of
expanding and optimizing fisheries operations during the early to mid 19003, to a focus
on sustainable fisheries of targeted stocks, and then during the late 19905, to ecosystem
sustainability and applying the precautionary approach (Degnbol 2004). This change was
necessary as the narrower species-focus approach may lead to unsustainable decisions as
the underlying cause of the problem may go undetected. For instance, the narrow-focus
approach is likely to respond to the problem of declining fish abundance by stocking
hatchery reared fish instead considering that decreased abundance may be rooted in
habitat deterioration. The broader ecosystem approach brings a more holistic perspective
to fisheries management, in that the fish stock .of concern is no longer the sole or even the
main focus of management activities. This broader approach considers the fish stock, its

forage base, and their habitat requirements (Garcia et al. 2003), hereby taking into

27

account the entire ecosystem when addressing a problem versus only focusing on a small
component as in the case of the narrower, species-focus approach. In general, fisheries
management and its underlying science have changed during the past century, and
continue to change while seeking a better management approach to attain sustainable

fisheries.

100

80

60

40

2O

    
    

 

   

 

0 V I I T I
1951 1956 I961 I966 I971 I976 I981 I986 1991

Figure 3: Percentage of major marine resources in various phases of fishery
development. The numbers on the x-axis (or bottom axis) is the year, and the numbers on
the y-axis (left axis) is the percentage of number of resources. Phase 1, the pale grey
color in the bottom left, represents undeveloped resources. Phase 2, medium grey color,
represents developing resources. Phase 3, white color, represents mature resources, which
equates to fully exploited fisheries. Phase 4, dark gray color in the upper right, represents
senescent, which equates to over-exploited fisheries. Modified from the 1994 State of
World Fisheries and Aquaculture (FAO 1996).

28

Compared to the changes observed in fisheries management, however, fisheries
governance has been slow in responding to the increasing internationalization and
globalization of fish stocks. This difference in response rate may be due to the inherent
difficulties of bringing together the authoritative entities, i.e., sovereign states and other
actors that are needed to develop a successful, more holistic, ecosystem-like, ideal
governance structure for fisheries. Currently, the fisheries governance institutions for
shared (high sea, migratory, and straddling) fish stocks are structured similarly to those
used within a national boundary. There are however, some fisheries governance
institutions that have been established to coordinate among national governance
institutions and these differ somewhat from the national institutions. Still, it is our
contention that the persistence of the degraded status of shared marine fisheries illustrates
strongly the need for changes in fisheries governance institutions in addition to the
ongoing changes in fisheries management if the goal of sustainable fisheries is to be
attained. The 2005 FAO SOF IA indicates that the changes in fisheries management have
not been sufficient to improve the status of our marine stocks (FAO 2007a). About 52%
of the global marine fisheries stocks were considered fully exploited and therefore
producing catches that were at, or close to, their maximum sustainable limits, with no
room for further expansion (F AO 2007a). Additionally, 25% of the fish stocks remained
over-exploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion and thus yielding less than their
maximum potential owing to excess fishing pressure (F AO 2007a). Furthermore, it is
believed that the status for highly migratory species is in a worse state than the other
marine fish stocks, with nearly two-thirds of the stocks for which information is available

currently being classified as overexploited or depleted (F AO 2007a). In order to achieve

29

our goal of sustainable fisheries it is imperative for fisheries governance to evolve into a
form capable of addressing the challenges of shared fisheries.

There is global interest in improving global fisheries governance and there is
recognition that this is needed, as indicated by the opening remarks of the FAO Fisheries
and Aquaculture Department’s Assistant Director-General Ichiro Nomura in the 2006
FAO SOF IA. The lessons of the past clearly point to a need for the reordering of the
actually existing global fisheries governance institutions6. This reordering of institutions,
inter alia, must result in 1) adopting interdisciplinary and inclusive management
processes, including the views of all stakeholders; 2) possessing sufficient authority and
enforcement powers to address both intra- and inter-generational concerns; 3)
emphasizing soft law, social networks, and nonstate market-driven governance systems;
and 4) resolving controversial issues, e.g., subsidies. It is these actually existing global
fisheries governance institutions, and the need to evolve towards ideal global fisheries
governance institutions to achieve sustainable global fisheries that we will focus on for

the remainder of this chapter.

From Fisheries Governance to Global Fisheries Governance
Governance is not a synonym of the term management or of the term government.

Management, as defined by Sissenweine and Mace (2003), “is about action, about the

implementation—in a technical sense—of decisions and actions in accordance with rules

(these decisions and actions do not have to be restricted to the implementation of the

 

6 The term “actually existing” global governance is a take-off from the much more
frequently used phrase “actually existing socialism” to distinguish what existed in state
socialist countries from what theorists and advocates hoped could some day exist.

30

management tools per se, they can also relate to planning and assessment). ”
Governments can be viewed as a subset of governance that involves only the
governmental actors and associated governmental institutions (Rosenau 1995).
Governance “is about sharing responsibility and power; it is about setting the policy
agenda,” the decision-making process is “about the process of implementing management
actions” (Sissenweine and Mace 2003). Governance is more encompassing than
government because of the comprehensive focus on the various phases of the policy-
making process and because of the variety of institutions that are considered. These
institutions include nonstate actors; governmental actors; hard (binding, as with treaties)
and soft (nonbinding, as with the United Nations General Assembly resolutions and
codes of conduct) law; formal and informal rules; understanding or norms that influence
behavior; as well as so-called private governance, such as market mechanisms.
Governance is then extended to ‘global governance’ when it involves “. . .goveming,
without sovereign authority, relationships that transcend national frontiers” (Finkelstein
1 995).

Global governance departs from traditional international (interstate) relations in
numerous ways. For example, in global governance there is no assumed hierarchy of ac-
tors. World (global) politics is conceived of as a multilevel system in which local, nation-
al, regional and global political processes are inseparably linked; thus it is these interlink-
ages between the different policy levels that are of great interest in global governance. In
global governance it is hard, if not impossible, to discern a hierarchy among forces that
drive politics beyond the state level. These forces include power relations, interest-based

interstate bargaining, as well as norms and advocacy networks. Additionally, global

31

governance recognizes authority beyond the sovereign state, including universal (open to
all) and regional intergovernmental organizations, private actors like the Marine
Stewardship Council, and informal networks that include epistemic communities. Global
govemance’s central units of analyses include norms and rules in addition to actors and
the relations between them. Its analytical goal is to comprehend complexity rather than
seeking parsimony (Carin et al. 2006, Dingwerth and Pattberg 2006).

Actually existing global governance does not attain the ideal description of global
governance in that it remains state-centric. It is widely agreed, however, that the state-
centric elements of governance systems are starting to loosen their grip. This is occurring
in a number of ways. In some specific instances, states have agreed to allow
intergovernmental institutions to make decisions that will bind them, even when the
states do not specifically favor those decisions. For instance the World Trade
Organization (WTO) can make binding decisions regarding the use of fishery subsidies;
however, the WTO has yet to exercise its powers on this matter. More generally, the
delegation of fishery policy responsibility to the European Union (EU) can be viewed as
evidence, of declining state-centric governance. In practice, however, the EU states still
have considerable power in implementing (or not implementing) decisions made at the
EU headquarters in Brussels. For instance, EU member states can thwart those decisions
by trying to influence the Commission, the Council or, in legal cases, before the
European Court of Justice (ECJ). Alternatively, the EU states also can thwart them by
simply not passing national legislation called for by the EU or by not monitoring
compliance with the legislation that is passed. Currently, there are few global governance

institutions with the power to bind member states, indeed they are the exception rather

32

than the rule (Sarooshi 2005). This ability of global governance institutions to make
decisions that bind member states is an important distinction that we use to distinguish
existing global fisheries governance from the ideal global fisheries governance. The
distinctions outlined above for governance and global governance also apply to the
governance of fisheries, whose evolution we discuss below.

Fisheries governance—although this concept was not recognized as such until
1996—had its beginnings very early in human history with authority figures placing
fisheries access restrictions on other individuals. The earliest form of fisheries
governance most likely consisted of tribal leaders, imperial rulers, the crown, or local
constabulary (Coull 1993, Nielson 1993, Bogue 2000). As pressure on local fish stocks
increased, competing users interacted, and the doctrine that the ocean’s fisheries were
inexhaustible was disproved. With this realization, the attitude of mare librum (open sea)
and res nullius (property of none) started to change. In response to this change, sovereign
states started claiming ownership of the sea close to their shore (Knight 1975, Coull
1993). By 1982, states’ fishing limits were extended out 200 mi from their shoreline
under the revisions of the regime of the lntemational Law of the Sea (Knight 1975, Coull
1993). This shifted the governance of the majority of the most productive areas of the
ocean away from the res nullius and into the governance rights of sovereign states (Coull
1993). As the division of the ocean progressed, sovereign states with adjoining divisions
or faced with problems of regulating capture of straddling and highly migratory stocks
found both inside and outside the 200 mi limit began seeking means by which to address
these difficulties. In response to this need, states began signing agreements and forming

commissions or regional councils to determine how fish stocks that crossed these

33

divisions would be managed. The governance authority over these stocks, however,
resided with the sovereign state in which the fish are found at the time of harvest or the
flag state if the fish were seaward of the 200 nautical mile line (Coull 1993).

Today’s existing fisheries global governance institutions consist of sovereign
states; intergovernmental organizations (regional and global); global conferences;
nongovernmental organizations (N 005); other stakeholder groups (including fishers
themselves); epistemic communities; nonstate market mechanisms; as well as hard and
soft law. However, like most actually existing global governance institutions, global
fisheries governance remains largely state-centric. Thus states continue to decide whether
to agree to soft law declarations, sign international conventions, enforce and/or carry out
international commitments, and relinquish authority to intergovernmental institutions.
This state-centric nature of the actually existing global fisheries governance system
weakens the effectiveness of global fisheries governance institutions. For instance, many
fisheries treaties are undermined by key states either refusing to ratify them or not
fulfilling their obligations under them, e.g., only paying “lip service” to the concept of
sustainable fisheries (Garcia et al. 2003). An illustration of this problem is the crippling
of the 10 December 1982 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This Agreement was considered to be
the most important legally binding global instrument for the conservation and
management of fishery resources since the adoption of Third United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS). This Agreement, which is related to the
Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish

Stocks, established a comprehensive legal regime for the conservation and sustainable

34

use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. It also included provisions
related to the strengthening of flag state responsibilities, as well as the role of subregional
(e.g., West African Economic and Monetary Union) and regional (e.g., African Union)
fisheries management organizations and arrangements. However, fifteen of the top
twenty fishing states failed to ratify this agreement, significantly reducing the strength of
a potentially powerful agreement in improving governance of shared fisheries (Riscard
2002)

Another weakness of existing global fisheries governance concerns the fact that
many of the related governmental and intergovernmental fisheries structures were
institutionalized without sufficient concern for involvement of civil society and other
private sector actors. These omitted actors include those found throughout the fishery
supply chain (from fish stock, harvest industry, wholesaler, retailer to fish product
consumer), and voices articulating the interests of future generations, thereby
contributing greatly in reducing the effectiveness of existing global fisheries governance
systems. Although we can point to instances within the existing global fisheries
governance system where intergovernmental institutions, NGOs and other civil society
actors have affected fisheries policy and even where soft law is voluntarily adhered
to as if they were bound by it, these are exceptional cases. Governments, including those
most significant in the global fisheries regime, simply refuse to relinquish the degree
of state sovereignty necessary for such governance structures to take hold. As long as
states remain the primary authoritative and legitimate decision-making units in the world
order, achievement of the ideal global fisheries governance will be impossible.

Nonetheless, movement is occurring, some incremental, and some significant.

35

Similar to the management of fisheries, the global governance of fisheries is an ever-
evolving process. New legal accords are signed and ratified. Nongovernmental
organizations and intergovernmental organizations proliferate and some become obsolete.
States are relinquishing more and more authority to intergovernmental organizations, and
new norms are always in the process of transitioning from soft to harder law.
Additionally, there currently exists evidence that institutional innovation is moving us
towards a more authoritative global governance approach. This evidence is mainly in the
form of organizations with the ability to pass binding measures, most notably the
European Union and the World Trade Organization, which are both discussed later in the
chapter. The Food and Agriculture Organization and regional fisheries commissions also
remain central to existing global fisheries governance. In the next section we will use
examples of fisheries governance institutions that are part of actually existing global
fisheries governance to illustrate how this process has evolved so far, and, we hope, will

continue to evolve as humans continue to learn from the past, as well as from each other.

Selected Actually Existing Global Fisheries Governance Institutions

There are four main types of actually existing global fisheries governance
institutions that we will use to illustrate the various means by which an ideal, more
robust, global fisheries governance may evolve. In the discussion, we will present a
general overview of these institutions, their role in fisheries governance, provide
examples to illustrate their role as part of the actually existing global fisheries governance
system, and examine some of their successes and challenges. The four types of

institutions we will examine are: Universal Intergovernmental Organizations;

36

Regional lntergovemmental Organizations (open only to some states, often but not
necessarily geographically delimited); Nongovernmental Organizations (defined as not
governmental in terms of their membership rather than their funding source), and

Nonstate market-driven institutions.

Universal Intergovernmental Organizations

Universal intergovernmental organizations (IGO) are those intergovernmental
organizations that are open to all states that want to become members. We have chosen to
focus on the three most prominent IGOs that have played an important role in the global
governance of fisheries, but this is hardly an exhaustive list. The three that we have
selected are the World Trade Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and
the World Bank.

One of the most important intergovernmental actors involved in fisheries
governance is the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO was created following
the conclusion of The General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)’s 1986 to 1994
negotiation round, known as the Uruguay Round. Originally, the 1947 GATT served as
an agreement to negotiate and reduce barriers to the international trade of goods. GATT
gradually gave rise to an informal international organization also named GATT that
similarly dealt mainly with the trade of goods. However, the GATT’s Uruguay Round led
to the creation of the WTO whose trade agreement oversight includes GATT as well as
agreements concerning trade in services, inventions, and intellectual property. The WTO

provides a forum for the negotiation of world trade agreements, their administration and

37

monitoring, and dispute resolution. Its members consist of any state or customs territory
that has sovereignty over its trade policies and who agrees to abide by the terms of the
WTO. Decisions are normally made by consensus of the membership as a whole. The
WTO rules, which are enforced by each individual member’s government, include
imposing trade sanctions on governments that fail to enforce WTO rules. Additionally the
WTO assists economically less developed countries, and cooperates with other
international organizations, so as to facilitate international trade (World Trade Or-
ganization, no date).

The WTO can have an important role in global fisheries governance because,
unlike most other intergovernmental organizations, it can make rulings that can be costly
to member states and that are binding (Pigman 1998, Odell and Eichengreen 2000). Most
of its fisheries-related authority lies in settling disputes among member states over unfair
trade practices that may result in a fishery product from one state being preferred over
another. An example of this is the WTO’s members’ adherence to the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), an international
agreement that establishes minimum measures to be taken to assure food safety and
animal and plant health (World Trade Organization, no date). Because sanitary measures
requirements could be utilized by states to block the importation of goods so as to protect
domestic producers from competition, the SPS Agreement aims to ensure that health and
safety regulations are not being used as excuses for protection of domestic producers,
including those trading in fish and fish products (Lem 2004).

Subsidies is another area where the WTO can potentially have an important

impact on fisheries. While the WTO has already exercised its authority to address

38

subsidies on a number of issues, fisheries subsidies is a difficult one to address as it is a
very complex and contentious issue. Even the definition of fisheries subsidies is
contested, not to mention whether their effects are positive or negative. In this context,
the WTO Negotiating Group on Rules has experienced “heated debates” about the
elimination of fisheries subsidies. Members’ positions seem to fall into three opposing
approaches. The first, the “no need” approach, is taken by governments, including those
of Japan, South Korea and Canada, who believe that the fisheries sector is no different
from any other sector in the economy and therefore there is no need for any special
subsidy agreement. The second, the “traffic light approach” is taken by the EU, China
and the countries that make up the “Friends of the Fish” (Australia, Chile, Ecuador,
Iceland, New Zealand, Peru, the Philippines and the USA), who believe that there is an
emerging consensus among fisheries policy makers that effort and capacity enhancing
subsidies tend to exacerbate the most firndamental problem in most fisheries in the world,
thus most subsidies should be prohibited. However, there are exceptions to this belief, for
instance the EU believes that some subsidies are needed to mitigate the social and
economic consequences of restructuring the fisheries sector. The third, the “special and
differential treatment approach,” is held by some economically less developed countries
that believe that some forms of support, such as charging other states access fees and
providing development assistance to small vulnerable coastal states, are important to
them (Benitah 2004). Regardless of these debates, there is general agreement that the
elimination of subsidies is critical to meeting the challenges of unsustainable fishing.
Fishery subsidies currently have high priority on the WTO agenda, including

identifying what subsidies actually exist. Still, vested interests in member states are

39

strongly supportive of maintaining at least some subsidies. This support is not unexpected
given that most subsidies were implemented for reasons that governments deemed
legitimate and important, such as raising national income and maintaining coastal
communities and their culture. In the fisheries industry, subsidies have been used in a
variety of ways including direct government payments to the industry to purchase new
fishing vessels, vessel decommissioning payments, fishermen’s unemployment insurance,
compensation for closed seasons, gear development, and fisheries management. Other
types of fisheries related subsidies include price support payments; tax waivers and
deferrals such as special income tax deductions for fishermen and deferred tax programs;
government loans and loan guarantees; insurance; implicit payments such as payments
for fishing rights to foreign countries; and general programs that affect fisheries such as
tax waivers and depreciation schemes (Schrank 2003). Agreement to maintain some
subsidies for some countries obviously makes elimination of others that much more
difficult (Schrank 2003, Westlund 2004). Subsidies, not surprisingly, are difficult to get
rid of once they are put in place.

In spite of these obstacles, progress is being made in the WTO’s Doha Round
towards addressing fisheries subsidies. The Round is a part of the Doha Development
Agenda (DDA) Negotiating Group on Rules, which follows from the 20 November 2001
Doha Ministerial Declaration that mandated a clarification and improvement of WTO
disciplines on fisheries subsidies (Lem 2004, USTR 2005, USTR 2007, World Trade
Organization, no date). During the Doha Round the US. delegation has taken the lead by
submitting a proposal aimed at banning subsidies to enterprises that capture ocean fish

commercially and regarding the treatment of buyback programs, an example of so-called

40

“good subsidies” (USTR 2005, US. Mission 2007, USTR 2007). This proposal has
resulted in WTO members clashing on how to discipline fisheries subsidies, and other
countries combining to submit their own proposal. As of the 30 November 2007 WTO’s
Negotiating Group on Rules meeting, the WTO’s decision on this topic remains
undecided, with future meetings planned (World Trade Organization 2007). The Doha
Development Agenda has already exceeded its anticipated end date of 2006 (Doha
Development Agenda, no date). Hopefully, WTO members will reach a consensus on

means to protect marine fish stocks.

Food and Agriculture Organization

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) was founded following a meeting
of 44 governments in Hot Springs, Virginia during 1943. In 1945 the first session of the
FAO Conference established the FAO as a United Nations (UN) specialized agency
(FAO 2006a). The F AO Conference, which meets every two years, is the organization’s
supreme decision-making body. It has delegated considerable authority to the F AO
Council, which meets at least four times between meetings of the Conference.
Membership of the FAQ is open to any sovereign state that submits its application for
membership along with a formal declaration that it accepts the obligations of FAO’s
constitution (FAO 2006c). Regional economic integration organizations are also eligible
to apply for membership. Decision-making within F A0 is generally by a majority of the
votes cast. Each member receives one vote (FAO 20060).

The FAO’s mission is to lead international efforts to defeat hunger. It assists

41

economically less developed countries, and countries in economic transition, to
modernize and improve agricultural, forestry and fisheries practices, as well as seeking to
ensure good nutrition for all residents of these countries. Its four main activities consist of
1) being an information network and providing information in an easily accessible
format, 2) providing policy expertise to its members, 3) providing a neutral forum to
facilitate interactions among nations, and 4) providing technical knowledge to field
projects. Ongoing responsibilities for the FAO’s operations are carried out by a small
number of committees that are part of the FAO’s governing bodies, but that are
subsidiary bodies of the FAO Council. These committees serve to verify that the FAO’s
vision and policies are being properly carried out and thus contribute to FAO complying
with its mandate (FAO Governing Bodies 2007).

The FAQ is organized into eight departments, with the Department of Fisheries
and Aquaculture being one of them (FAO 2007b). The FAO’s Department of Fisheries
and Aquaculture’s mission “is to facilitate and secure the long-term sustainable
development and utilization of the world’s fisheries and aquaculture” (F AO—Fisheries
and Aquaculture Department 2007a). The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture’s
main function is to “ [promote] policies and strategies aiming at sustainable and
responsible development of fisheries and aquaculture in inland and marine waters,” by
providing, among other things, “discussion fora, information, legal and policy
frameworks, codes and guidelines, options for strategies, scientific advice, and training
material” (FAQ—Fisheries and Aquaculture Department 2007a). Fisheries bureaucrats
have described the F AO as the global organization concerned with the preservation of

living resources of the seas. This reputation comes from a number of phenomena,

42

including its activities in gathering world fishery production estimates and status of
commercially important fish stocks, which started in 1945 (FAO 1996), and that are used
by many organizations, academics, and people involved with fisheries.

The Committee on Fisheries (COF I) was established by the FAO in 1965, as a
subsidiary body of the F AO Council (FAQ—Fisheries and Aquaculture Department
2007b). Any country with FAO membership, or nonmembers that are eligible as FAO
observers, can become a COF I member. Other specified types of multi-national
organizations can also participate in the COFI discussions but do not have the right to
vote. This large membership renders COFI very slow in making decisions. However,
COFI is the only global intergovernmental forum where fisheries and aquaculture
problems are examined, and where recommendations are made to governments, regional
fishery bodies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), fish—workers, as well as the
international community. COFI has also served as a forum for negotiation of global
agreements and nonbinding instruments. COFI’s main functions consist of reviewing
fisheries and aquaculture related FAO programs and overseeing their implementation, as
well as periodically reviewing international fishery and aquaculture problems. COFI is
meant to complement the work of other fisheries and aquaculture organizations, not to
replace them (FAO 2006b). For example, COFI’s work complements and seeks to
implement the declarations and decisions of the periodic conferences convened by the
FAO. Notable in this regard are the 2001 Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries
in the Marine Ecosystem, and the September 2006 Bergen Conference on Implementing
the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries.

An illustration of the F AO’s authority in global fisheries governance is its 1995

43

Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, developed by its Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department and negotiated within COFI. The FAO’s Code is generally recognized as the
global framework for capture fisheries and aquaculture (F A0 2004, IMM 2007), whether
in marine or inland water, within the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) or the high seas
(National Marine Fisheries Service 1997). While the Code is voluntary, i.e. it is a soft
law, it has acquired considerable legitimacy over time; indeed many in the international
fisheries community refer to it as the bible of sustainable fisheries. What neither COF I
nor the FAO can do in a state-centric world is to force governments and their constituents
to alter practices that are contrary to the goals of fishery sustainability. Similarly, while
the FAO provides a venue for discussing the ways that fishery subsidies contribute to un-
sustainable fishing, and has conducted some basic research in support of such a conten-
tion, it cannot effectuate change in any direct way. Likewise, the F AO provides a venue
for the promotion of the widespread application of the precautionary principle to the

fisheries sector, but governments decide whether to apply this principle or not

The World Bank

The World Bank, formally named the lntemational Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, was agreed to in 1944 during the Bretton Woods conference (World Bank,
no date). It initially consisted of one institution and was established to facilitate postwar
reconstruction and then promote economic development. Over time the World Bank also
has evolved to consist of a coordinated group of development institutions that fall under

the title of the World Bank Group. These consist of five institutions: lntemational Bank

44

for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD); International Development Association
(IDA); lntemational Finance Corporation (IF C); Multilateral Investment Guarantee
Agency (MIGA); and lntemational Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes
(ICSID). The World Bank Group is run like a cooperative with member states being
shareholders (World Bank 2006). The number of shares held by a given member state is
related to the size of its economy. A Board of Governors generally consisting of
Ministers of Finance or Ministers of Development represents each of the shareholding
states (World Bank 2006). The Board of Governors meets annually and has the ultimate
decision-making authority. The 24 Executive Directors make the daily decisions such as
approving loans, new policies, and financial decisions (World Bank 2006). The World
Bank currently focuses on the alleviation of worldwide poverty and improvement of
living standards, and has 185 member states (World Bank, no date).

The World Bank first funded fisheries projects in 1964. Similar to other
intergovernmental organizations and development banks, the bulk of the World Bank’s
lending operations went to finance acquisition of fishing vessels for large- and small-
scale fishing industries, as well as to support fishing infrastructure for ports and harbors
(World Bank 2004). A number of the World Bank’s early fisheries projects were initiated
in the absence of satisfactory evidence as to the fishing resource’s harvest potential let
alone a legal framework for management (World Bank 1994). The World Bank’s 1984
review of its projects identified one of the common problems with its fisheries projects as
being “insufficient attention to exploitation” (World Bank 1992). This started to change
during the mid-19805 when the World Bank shifted some of its financial support from the

fishery section towards research on fish stock status. During the last decade, the focus of

45

the World Bank has been on coastal zone management and aquaculture operations, with
very little attention being given to funding sustainable fisheries activities (World Bank
2004). The World Bank’s candid explanation for its recent “paltry support” of the
fisheries sector, $420 million of which $10 million is invested in marine fisheries, is
worth quoting:

“One of the reasons for this paltry support is the disappointing performance of
fisheries projects. This is, in part, because of the erroneous approaches of the past, which
in the 19803 focused mostly on increasing productivity while [fishery] resources were
already declining, or in the 19903 on one species or types of fisheries, without the
required attention to the overall ecosystem and its governance” (World Bank 2004).

This lack of involvement in sustainable fisheries activities began to change
following adoption of the 2000 UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and of the
Johannesburg Plan of Action during the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD)7. The MDG and the WSSD both list among their goals the
alleviation of poverty. It is this common goal that provided World Bank staff seeking to
get the World Bank Group back into the fisheries arena a basis for action. The World
Bank’s involvement in fisheries now focuses on poverty alleviation and fishery
sustainability rather than on its past focus of maximizing yield (World Bank 2004). Much
of this involvement is part of its Program for Fisheries (PROFISH) that was started in
2005, and whose main activities include: 1) ensuring sustainable fisheries initiatives are

included in national plans and poverty reduction strategies (small-scale fisheries were

 

7 Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. Article 30(d) and 31 (a) Available:

http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/document/summit_docs/2309_planfinal.doc
(November 2006).

46

rarely taken into account when the strategies were first developed); 2) building national
and regional consensus on pro-poor sustainable fisheries initiatives and activities to
implement the FAO’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; and 3) aligning and
enhancing international assistance on fisheries and sustainable use of aquatic ecosystems.
Particular emphasis was to be on Africa, a long-standing priority region for the Bank
(PROFISH 2006).

The World Bank can take advantage of its multi-sectoral structure and significant
resource base to invest in providing economic alternatives to fishing communities with
degraded fisheries. For instance, if the World Bank cuts off support for artisanal fishers,
it can provide financial and technical aid for transition to alternative professions. The
World Bank can also try to have the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member
of the World Bank Group that is limited to funding projects in the private sector, invest in
developing alternative professions. Successful experiences with alternative livelihoods
exist in World Bank projects in China, where most alternative employment was found in
aquaculture; and in Indonesia, where most fishers found occupations outside of the
fisheries and aquaculture sector. The World Bank’s experience suggests that alternative
livelihoods to fishing can best be promoted through community-driven development and
microfinance programs (World Bank 2004). The World Bank also found that indigenous
and marginalized fishers are convinced that their children need new professions and thus
are receptive to alternatives, knowing that they are earning too little money for a
livelihood. The World Bank is less clear, however in how to cope with the current
generation of fishers.

Consistent with its past focus, but also innovatively, the World Bank has provided

47

funds to The World Conservation Union (IUCN) to develop a prototype for a database of
“irresponsible vessels” (i.e., a public listing of vessels as defined by the FAO’s
lntemational Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and
Unregulated Fishing, IPOA-IUU). The Bank sees this as a “market mechanism” to reduce
the capital value of irresponsible vessels. It also represents an innovative way in which
various islands of global governance can work together to curtail unsustainable fishing.
The list would assist Regional Fisheries Management Organizations as well as national
governments, and exemplifies IGO funding for an NGO, using the soft law developed by
yet another IGO, such as the FAO’s IPOA-IUU (Cohen 2007).

The importance of the re-entry of the World Bank Group in support of fisheries
sustainability cannot be overstated. It is also important to take note of the fact that the
Bank, especially in its PROFISH initiative, is moving from managing fish and fishing to
recognizing the need to manage people and social change (i.e., an ecosystem approach).
Indeed, there are some who suggest that the FAO’s Code of Conduct itself might have
been skewed toward the technical to the detriment of social solutions and thus the Bank’s

evolution is particularly promising and noteworthy (World Bank Group 2007).

Regional Intergovernmental Organizations

There are numerous regional (or subregional) intergovernmental organizations
that have a governance role in fisheries. The importance of their role in affecting fisheries
and the amount of time they have been involved in fisheries governance differs. The

European Union has had a long-standing role in European fisheries throughout its evolu-

48

tion; and the FAO’s Regional Fisheries Bodies continue to receive more responsibilities
in governing their respective fish stocks. Other regional fisheries bodies that are unrelated
to F AO also exist and have a varying degree of responsibilities and effectiveness in gov-
erning fish stocks within their jurisdictions. For instance there is the New Partnership for
Africa’s Development and its role in the African Union’s fisheries; Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation’s (APEC) governance role with Asian fisheries; and the
Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanisms (CRF M) with the Caribbean region’s
fisheries.

Although there are regional and subregional intergovernmental fisheries
organization that are diverse in their responsibilities and approach, we will focus the
remainder of this section on the fisheries governance roles of the European Union and the
FAO’s Regional Fisheries Bodies. Our rationale for picking these intergovernmental
regional organizations is based on the fact that no other regional IGOs have as long a
historical involvement with common fisheries policies as does the European Union or are

as centrally involved as FAO’s Regional Fisheries Bodies.

The European Union

The European Union (EU) with its current 27 members is the world’s biggest
market for fishery products and third largest fishing power (France 2006). The EU began
its existence when six states ratified the 1952 Treaty in Paris, thereby establishing the
European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The ECSC remained in effect until 2002.

On 25 March 1957, the Rome Treaty was signed and came into force on 1 January 1958

49

thereby establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European
Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM). These three organizations, ECSC, EEC, and
EURATOM merged in 1967 to form the European Communities with a single
commission and council. The Single European Act (SEA), which entered into force on 1
July 1987, established the basis for a common internal market. On 7 February 1992, the
Treaty on European Union was signed in Maastricht, and came into effect in 1993. The
Treaty of Amsterdam, signed in 1997 and effective in 1999, amended and renumbered
EU Treaties. The Treaty of Nice, signed on 26 February 2001 and effective 1 February
2003, reformed the Union’s institutions so they deal more effectively with the enlarged
EU. It also consolidated the previous treaties into one. Today the EU constitutes five
institutions: the European Parliament that represents citizens; the European Court of
Justice that is the guardian of the EU’s treaties and laws; the Council of Ministers, that
represents the member states; the European Council that defines the general political
guidelines of the Union; and the European Commission that represents the interests of the
Union. In 2004, the EU’s Heads of State and Government adopted a Constitution, but it
failed to get the necessary ratifications necessary for it to enter into force.

This structure of the five institutions makes the EU a unique intergovernmental
and supranational union that aims to enhance political, economic, and social cooperation
(Pollack 2006). To achieve these aims, the EU has divided its activities into three pillars:
1) the European Community with responsibility for internal market policies, agriculture,
competition policy, immigration, asylum, as well as economic and monetary union; 2)
common foreign and security policy; and 3) police and judicial cooperation in policy

matters. The decision-making styles differ among the pillars. The first is supranational;

50

the second is primarily intergovernmental; and the third is also usually intergovernmental
(Bomberg and Stubb 2003, European Union 2005).

Voting within the European Union’s institutions is conducted, as detailed in the
2006 consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty
Establishing the European Community3 and the 2001 Treaty of Niceg, by majority.
Depending on the specific situation and institution the definition of majority may
constitute qualified majority, two-third majority, four-fifth of majority of its members, or
the majority of votes cast. The directives, decisions, and regulations passed by the
European Union’s are binding on its member states, leaving up to member states the
means by which they are to be implemented. This can take any number of forms or may
require no action at all. (Folsom 1995, European Commission Ireland 2007).

Fisheries was recognized as an important resource that needed to be managed as a
common resource by the initial six founding states in 1957. These six states identified
fisheries as one of the few topics upon which a common policy was explicitly agreed, and
they included fisheries under the same heading as agricultural products (Rome Treaty,
Article 38). The first regulations pertaining to fisheries were issued in 1970 and consisted
of three measures: 1) creation of a common market organization for fisheries products; 2)

structural aids for the modernization of the fishery sector; and 3) guarantees of equal

 

8 European Union —— Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on European Union and of the
Treaty Establishing the European Community (consolidated text). Official Journal C
321E of 29 December 2006. Available: http://europa.eu.int/eur-
lex/lex/en/treaties/index.htrn (30 June 2007).

9 Treaty of Nice amending the treaty on European Union, the treaties establishing the
European Communities and certain related acts. Official Journal C 80, 10 March 2001.
Available: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/treaties/index.htrn (30 June 2007).

51

access for fishing vessels to the waters of all member states, subject to certain conditions
(Lequesne 2005). However, it took until 1983 for the Common Fishery Policy (CFP) to
evolve to something akin to its present format. The delay in instituting the current form of
the CFP is related to the slow, but positive, movement towards recognizing the need for a
CFP to assure the sustainability of fisheries resources as outlined below.

By the middle of the 19703, European governments became aware of the
consequences for overfishing of overcapitalization in the fisheries sector. As a
consequence, the governments transferred to the EU additional powers, notably the
power to conduct foreign policy in the fisheries sector (European Commission 2004) and
instigated the first fisheries regulations (Lequesne 2005). This new power was used by
the EU to alleviate the pressures on national fish stocks by encouraging efforts to be
refocused on distant stocks (Iudicello et al. 1999), and later during the 19803 to negotiate
access to previously harvested fish stocks that was now within the newly extended 200
mi Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of foreign states (European Commission 2004).
Thus the EU has signed, on the member states’ behalf, multilateral agreements for the
conservation and division of stocks in the high seas, and bilateral agreements with third
countries aiming to allow access of EU vessels to fish in their waters. For instance the EU
paid African countries $350 million annually in fees and grants to be able to harvest fish
resources from these countries. These agreements, which can be seen as subsidies to the
fishery sector, mostly helped the Spanish, Portuguese and French fleets (Iudicello et al.
1999)

The transfer of power over fisheries policy to the EU did not solve its members’

fisheries problems. By the early 19803, it became clear that the European Union’s own

52

policies, such as the above-mentioned bilateral agreements and more specifically its
structural policies, were contributing to unsustainable fishing within and beyond the
members’ national boundaries. Consequently, at the initiative of the European
Commission’s Director General (DG) for Fish, structural policies in the fishery sector
were linked more strongly to resource conservation. In the multi-annual guidance
programs (MAGPs), begun in 1983, the Commission’s DG for Fish set fleet reduction
objectives for each member state and each type of occupation before aid was granted for
cessation of fishing activities or employment retraining schemes. Additionally,
Regulation 170/83 was adopted in January 1983; it established for the first time a
Community system aimed at the conservation and management of fisheries resources
(Lequesne 2005). The objectives of this new system were to prevent unsustainable
fishing; to guarantee that fishers had sustainable livelihoods, and to ensure a regular
supply, at reasonable prices, to processing companies and consumers. Accordingly, each
year the EU set maximum quantities of fish called total allowable catches (TACs) that
could be harvested without risk of unsustainable exploitation. The TACs are divided
among the member states as national quotas (European Commission 2004, France 2006).
By the 19903, however, it was “recurrently acknowledged” that these national
quotas were not enough to curb unsustainable fishing. For example, the EU’s 1983
decision to reduce the size of members’ fleets was adopted even as the EU continued
subsidizing fleet construction and modernization at nearly twice the rate at which it was
scrapping or laying up vessels; thus social peace was achieved, but EU fleets continued
expanding (Iudicello et al. 1999). In 2002, the CFP underwent reform to better balance

the needs of sustainable management with the socio-economic needs of fisheries. The

53

2002 reformed CF P consists of four general components: 1) science-based management
of fish stocks for sustainable conservation; 2) development of the market and
modernization of vessels to increase its profitability while eliminating overcapacity; 3);
organization of the common fisheries market to assure inter alia product quality,
reasonable prices, and fisherrnen’s incomes; and 4) engage in third countries to gain
access to fish stocks falling within the 200 mi EEZ of foreign states (France 2006). More
specifically, the reform entailed: 1) matching the status of the fish stock to its regulation
including the use of recovery plans for at-risk fish stocks; 2) use of multi-annual TACs
and quotas to manage fish stocks; 3) a reinforced control policy for the systems; 4)
modification of the structural component of the CFP so as to eliminate building
assistance; 5) government aid for modernization only if it does not increase fishing
capacity; and 6) requests for increased participation by the fisheries sector in developing
policy (France 2006). The CFP’s overall goal is to “ensure exploitation of living aquatic
resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions”
(European Commission 2004). In line with this goal, it was agreed that government
assistance to building was to be eliminated as of 1 January 2005 (France 2006).
Complicating the achievement of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy objectives,
however, is the fact that the control over policy implementation still rests with national
institutions that vary considerably in terms of resources, effectiveness, and degree of
influence exerted by domestic interest groups. Moreover, states that saw the EU
Commission’s decisions as unfair, such as Spain whose fishers had a strong interest in
gaining access to the French, Irish and British EEZs, had no problem allowing violations

of quotas to continue (Lequesne 2004, Lequesne 2005). Spain’s noncompliance with the

54

European Union Commission’s decision regarding fisheries quotas is only emblematic of
the state-centric nature of the actually existing global governance system for fisheries. A
similar story could be told in each of the disagreements between the EU Commission and
the “Friends of Fishermen,” i.e. France, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Italy and Portugal
(Lequesne 2005), such as the disagreements over the reform of the Common Fisheries

Policy negotiated in 2002 (Andersson 2006).

Regional Fishery Bodies

There are a wide variety of diverse institutions aimed at managing and monitoring
that participate in high seas fisheries. Among these are dozens of Regional Fishery
Bodies (RFBs) worldwide. Traditionally most of these have had extremely limited
authority and, in effect, can only provide advice to member states. Some, however, also
referred to as Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), do have the
authority and technical capacity to assess, among other things, the status of fish stocks of
commercial value within their areas of jurisdiction; set limits on catch quantities and the
number of vessels allowed to fish; and regulate the types of gear that can be used.

Currently ten F AO RFBs under FAQ-COFI and 32 RFBs that do not directly
report to COFI exist. The F AO RFBs are: l) Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC);
2) Comission for Inland Fisheries of Latin America (COPESCAL); 3) General Fisheries
Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM); 4) South West Indian Ocean Fisheries
Commission (SWIOFC); 5) Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic
(CECAF); 6) Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC); 7) Western Central Atlantic

Fishery Commission (WECAFC); 8) Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa (CIFA); 9)

55

European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC); and 10) the Regional
Commission for Fisheries—Gulf States (RECOFI). The Indian Ocean Fisheries
Commission (IOFC) was dissolved in 1999. These FAO-RFBs serve multiple purposes
such as directly establishing management measures (GFCM and IOTC) and providing
members with scientific and management advice (APFIC, CECAF, CIFA, COPESCAL,
EIFAC, RECOFI, SWIOFC and WECAFC).

Some of the non-FAO RFBs are similar to the Advisory Committee on Fisheries
Research (ACFR) which are actually global in scope, but categorized as regional by the
FAQ. The 32 non-FAQ regional fisheries bodies also have as purposes the establishment
of management measures, providing members with scientific management advice, or
providing information and scientific advice. A 33rd non-FAO regional fishery body, the
South Pacific Fisheries Management Organization, is being contemplated as a gap
currently exists in the international conservation and management of non-highly
migratory fisheries and protection of biodiversity in the marine environment in high seas
areas of the South Pacific Ocean. As the proposed 33rd regional fisheries body suggests,
FAO intends to have a network of RFBs covering the globe (Figure 4).

Most RFBs have at some point wrestled with the notion that they should become
rule-makers aimed at managing unsustainable fishing. Indeed, there has been pressure on
the RFBs, from members of their research staffs and advisory committees who are linked
to the broader transnational fisheries scientific community, to become more proactive in
this area. Additional pressure for the RF Bs to become more proactive in unsustainable
fishing came in the aftermath of global United Nations-sponsored conferences beginning

with the Third Law of the Sea Conference, which finally concluded in 1982 with

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
   

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: Map of the current jurisdiction of Regional Fishery Bodies. Modified from

F AO—Fisheries and Aquaculture Department’s map of Regional Fishery Bodies (F AO—
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department 2008).

 

 

     

 

K
i
l?
I
l

 

agreement on the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
UNCLOS suggested additional activities to be taken on by the RFBs such as: 1)
protecting stocks associated with harvested stocks from depletion; 2) conserving stocks

outside the 200 mi zone; 3) providing advice to coastal states on the conservation of

57

stocks within the 200 mi zone; 4) pursuing compulsory dispute settlement options; 5)
providing coastal states with all relevant information regarding fishing activities in high
seas areas adjacent to their exclusive economic zones; 6) implementation by coastal states
of appropriate minimum standards; 7) providing a conduit through which coastal states
could fulfill their obligation to give due notice of their relevant conservation and
management of laws and regulations and make information available on the outer limits
to their exclusive economic zones; and 8) considering stricter regulations for marine
mammals than those required for other species.

In response to these pressures, many RFBs reviewed or amended their respective
' agreements or conventions. Notably, however, UNCLOS did not confer fisheries
management authority on RFBs. This has been explained by the fact that the general state
of world fisheries in the 19803 did not appear to be “particularly worrisome. . .,” thus
“many RF Bs remained virtually inactive with respect to effective fisheries management”
(FAO 2004). However, by the 19903, fuelled by growing awareness of the scarcity of
fishery resources and the development of a constituency for fish in powerful countries
including the U. S., e.g., owing to the collapse of the Atlantic groundfish (Iudicello et al.
1999), the absence of broad international agreement on the management authority of
RFBs began to receive increased attention. Accordingly, the need for strengthened
fisheries governance through RF Bs became a pressing issue. It was acknowledged that in
order to be effective, RFBs needed clear mandates to manage the fishery resources in
their convention areas in full conformity with international law.

During this same time period, UN member states, inspired by the 1992 United

Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), adopted numerous

58

fisheries instruments. Chapter 17 of UNCED’s Agenda 21 called for sustainable use of
marine living resources on the high seas, including through the promotion of the
development and use of selective fishing gear, as well as through practices that minimize
waste in the catch of target species and minimize bycatch of nontarget species. Among
the succeeding instruments, there are three that we want to highlight. The first is the Fish
Stocks Agreement, which introduces the precautionary approach, vessel monitoring
systems, and transparency in regional fishery management. The second is the 1993
Agreement to Promote Compliance with lntemational Conservation and Management
Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas that requires licensing of vessels on the
high seas, and that this licensing be conditioned with the abiding of international agreed
upon conservation and management measures. The third is the aforementioned FAO
Code of Conduct.

By the late 19903 RFBs had begun implementing the post-UNCED international
fisheries instruments, with the aim of trying to rebuild over-harvested stocks; preventing
unsustainable-harvest of other fish stocks; and stopping illegal, unregulated, and
unreported (IUU) fishing. Thus some RFBs are clearly making important contributions to
fisheries governance, inter alia, in the following areas: 1) promoting the development of
national research and management capacity; 2) improving and strengthening data
collection, handling and dissemination; 3) addressing new issues such as IUU fishing, the
management of fleet capacity, the effect of the payment of subsidies. and the reduction of
bycatch and discards; 4) adopting management measures and resolutions relating to such
issues as fishing effort reductions, the use of gear, minimum fish sizes, mesh restriction;

5) adopting rules and procedures for boarding, inspection and enforcement; and 6) taking

59

measures to enable the implementation of recent international instruments. The stature of
RFBs in fisheries governance began to grow following the implementation of the post-
UNCED international fisheries instruments. This growth resulted in expanding
obligations of states to cooperate through RFBs, in part fueled by a climate of increased
public demands for accountability and transparency (Swan 2004). All of these changes
are exemplified by the June 2003 adoption of the Convention for the Strengthening of the
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Convention.

The role of RFBs in the global governance of fisheries, and in protecting that
resource, is very important. When a RFB fails in its fisheries governance objectives, this
has repercussions on the fish resource as well as for relations among its members. A 1995
case in the Northwest Atlantic involving a non-FAO regional fishery body, the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), and its members serves as a good example of
repercussions linked to an RFB’s governance failure. NAFO has responsibilities for most
fishery resources of the Northwest Atlantic except salmon, tunas/marlins, whales and
sedentary species (e.g., shellfish). NAFO has 13 members, including four coastal
members bordering the convention area: U. 8., Canada, France (in respect to St. Pierre
and Miquelon), and Denmark, who represent the F aroe Islands and Greenland (NAFO, no
date). NAFO’s Fisheries Commission is responsible for the management and
conservation of the fishery resources outside the members’ EEZs. It annually decides on
the NAFO fisheries regulations, TACs and national quotas. NAFO also has a Scientific
Council, a General Council and a Secretariat. NAFO rules, however, allow member states
to object to specific quota decisions made by any of its member states (NAFO, no date),

resulting in the objecting state no longer being bound by the decision. NAFO is not a

60

supranational organization.

In 1995, as in the previous 10 years, NAFO members agreed to allocate the
largest turbot quota to Canada (16,300 tons) based on its proximity to the turbot stock.
The EU, representing Spain, objected to this allocation based on the fact that Spain’s and
Portugal’s vessels had in the past taken the largest catches, and should therefore be
allocated a larger quota than its 3,400 tons. By raising this objection the EU was not
legally bound by NAFO’s decision, and its vessels could harvest above the 3,400 tons.
Indeed the EU indicated that it would abide by a self-imposed quota of 19,000 tons
(DeSombre and Barkin 2002). Not surprisingly, it became apparent early during the 1995
season that the total catch of turbot in international waters would be unsustainably high.
Canada first attempted to deal with the problem through the appropriate channels of
NAFO, calling for a 60 day moratorium on turbot fishing. When this proved fi'uitless, as
the EU officials ignored the request for a moratorium, Canada resorted to unilateral
action.

In accordance with new fisheries legislation adopted in 1994 that allowed the
Canadian Coast Guard to take enforcement steps to protect straddling stocks from ships
operating beyond the ZOO-mi EEZ, the Canadian Coast Guard seized and impounded a
Spanish trawler outside Canada’s EEZ and arrested its crew. The Canadian Coast Guard
claimed that the Spanish trawlers were fishing in excess of the TAC, using illegal
equipment, and catching fish smaller than the minimum size allowed under NAFO rules.
The EU protested that because the trawler had been on the high seas, the seizure
constituted a violation of international law by the Canadian government. The EU further

stated that this action undermined NAFO because a regional IGO could not operate

61

effectively when faced by the unilateral use of force by one of its members. In the end,
after a failed attempt to have the lntemational Court of Justice (ICJ) hear the case, as the
ICJ ruled in 1998 that it lacked jurisdiction, a compromise was reached. This was initially
reached between the EU and Canada, but subsequently endorsed by all of the members of
NAFO. In this compromise, Canada agreed to give approximately 6,000 tons of its quota
to Spain, and in return the EU accepted the TAC and its division (Durnont et al. 1995).
The parties also agreed to more restrictive regulations on minimum mesh sizes for nets
and for fish, and, most importantly, for increased independent observer coverage and
satellite tracking of fishing vessels in the NAFO regulatory area. This latter was
presumably to compensate for NAFO’s historic weakness in monitoring (DeSombre and
Barkin 2002).

Improving NAFO’s governance and surveillance abilities might have prevented
the Canada-Spain tension. Assessments of RFBs’ performance, however, have shown
that improving their governance abilities does not automatically enable them to be more
effective at fisheries management. Any of several other constraints can hinder a RFB’s
management abilities. The first is their focus and structure. The single species focus of
four out of eleven international fisheries commissions established before 1977 is an
obvious problem when trying to address issues like unsustainable fishing. Similarly the
“tight compartrnentalization” within fisheries commissions makes issue-linkages
difficult, thus making it hard to induce cooperation among members through side-
payments. Furthermore, the lack of necessary authority is also a hindrance. All eleven of
the pre-1977 commissions are mandated to discuss implementation and propose

improvements for managing the fishery. This allows them to discuss the topic of

62

improving the currently lax enforcement (Peterson 1993). The commissions, however,
cannot monitor or evaluate whether or how members are trying to increase enforcement,
because the individual members report on their own actions (Peterson 1993). The NAFO
example underscores the serious consequences of ‘weak’ enforcement abilities of
commissions as this can result in unilateral action, including legislation; exploitation of
fish on the high seas; and the use of force; even by countries considered among the most
law abiding.

The personal goals and behavior of member governments within a RFB can also
influence whether a RFB will succeed or fail as a fisheries governance institution. Hall
(1998) believes that fisheries commissions tend to incorporate incompatible objectives,
such as the strict requirements for conservation through rational use, and the participants’
common objectives for maintaining employment within their domestic fishing sector. As
countries are under considerable pressure to meet their short-term political goals, even if
it is to the detriment of the overall conservation goal, this incompatibility in objectives
will often contribute to the failings of a fisheries governing body (Hall 1998). In many
ways NAFO’s quota disagreement between Spain and Canada exemplifies this point.
Other factors contributing to the success and failure of a RF B as a global fisheries
governing institution include: 1) the lack of willingness on the part of member states to
delegate sufficient decision-making power and responsibilities to RFBs; 2) institutional
arrangements; 3) mandate and functions; 4) data provided by members; 5) budget and
finance; 6) capacity; 7) authority and enforcement mechanisms; 8) nonparties
undermining measures; 9) cooperative management; 10) partnerships/stakeholder

participation; 11) collaboration with other RFBs; 12) political will to implement

63

decisions; 13) acceptance of international instruments; and 14) dispute settlement

mechanisms (FAO 1992).

Non Governmental Organizations

lntemational nongovernmental environmental groups are especially important in
the global governance of fisheries. They serve to bring together individuals that share a
common perspective on fisheries issues. Even though they do not have real authority over
fisheries stocks, they have played important roles in fisheries governance. For instance
NGOs were important in the politicizing of overfishing and lobbying governments and
intergovernmental organizations to act on the issue. NGOs also can be important in
helping shape the agenda and setting priorities as to which issues are to be attended to
first. A statement by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is emblematic of this ongoing
work by NGOs:

“You may not have noticed, but fish have gradually been getting smaller and
smaller. There aren’t enough adult fish in the sea to meet demand, so fishermen are
catching baby ones. The fish on your plate probably didn’t live long enough to reproduce;
as a result the stock it came from didn’t get a chance to recover. Scientists have been
warning the politicians about the disastrous effects of over fishing for years, but the
powers that be chose to stick their heads in the sand and think of the short term. Well
now it’s their last chance. This year [2002 ed note], ministers will vote on the future of
the EU common fisheries policy. Unless they make radical changes, marine eco-systems
will be destroyed and fish will become a rare delicacy. If we don’t stop over fishing now,

fishing will be over. . . ” (NAUI, no date).

64

NGOs have also been central in calling for less traditional global governance
institutional fora to address issues that they believe are festering. The call by the Deep
Sea Conservation Coalition, comprised of such NGOs as Greenpeace lntemational, Seas
at Risk, and the lntemational Oceans Network, for the UN General Assembly to take up
issues like the threat to deep-sea biodiversity from bottom trawl fishing in areas beyond
national jurisdiction on the high seas, exemplifies these general observations. Their
rationale for the use of the UN General Assembly, instead of regional fisheries
organizations, in this case was multi-faceted: 1) the UN General Assembly would be
more effective in facilitating a coordinated approach by the international community
given the current lack of effective governance over the high seas; 2) most of the high seas
areas of the world’s oceans are not covered by regional fisheries organizations with
competence to regulate bottom fisheries; 3) in the areas where such organizations exist,
with the exception of the CCAMLR, they have not regulated any bottom trawl fisheries
for the impacts on deep-sea corals and other vulnerable deep-sea ecosystems within their
area of competence; and 4) although the F AC has competence to advise on governments’
exploitation of high-seas species, it lacks the expertise to suggest needed action to
identify and protect the high-seas’ biodiversity in deep-sea areas (Deep Sea Conservation
Coalition 1994). Interestingly, the lntemational Coalition of Fisheries Associations
(ICFS), an NGO comprised of national fishing trade groups of the leading fishing
countries, called for the RF MOs to take up this challenge, with the General Assembly to
seek technical advice from the FAO (International Coalition of Fisheries Associations
2006)

Environmental NGOs also use more traditional fora to achieve their global

65

fisheries governance related objectives. They frequently use public pressure to have
national policy-makers change national regulations, or to have them create international
pressure to regulate fishing activities. This point is underscored in DeSombre’s (2000)
research on why the United States government pressed for international regulations
relating to krill and finfish when neither of these fisheries is economically important to
the US. She found the answer in terms of environmental concerns pressed by NGOs on
the US. government for the international regulations.

The Greenpeace Foundation, later joined by other environmental NGOs were
integral to the process culminating in banning purse seine to capture tuna (DeSombre
2000). Their success came from their ability to link the capture of tuna to mortality of
dolphin, a mammal for which US. citizens have such strong affinity that they treat it in a
kind of iconic way. Given the aforementioned lack of enforcement powers of the RFBs,
the US. NGO environmental group focused on pressuring the US. government into
pursuing a ban on the use of purse seines when harvesting tuna, including through U.S.
legislation restricting imports of tuna harvested that way. This success landed the US.
government into trouble with the GATT. A GATT, and subsequently WTO, dispute
settlement panel saw the ban of the sale of tuna caught by purse seines as an interference
with free trade, i.e., a kind of nontariff barrier. In order to comply with the GATT and
WTO, the US. government could not prohibit the sale of nondolphin-safe cans of tuna in
the US. As a consequence environmental NGOs adopted a market strategy of
encouraging a consumer boycott of tuna not marketed as dolphin-safe. Significantly,
foreign tuna fleets began to switch their techniques for catching fish because the cost of

the loss of the US. market was greater than the costs of changing the methods of capture

66

(Barkin and DeSombre 2000).

Similar pressures by environmental NGO lobbyists were also successful in the
establishment of The Agreement on the lntemational Dolphin Conservation Program
(IDCP). The IDCP is an international agreement that was signed in Washington on 15
May 1998 and entered into force on 15 February 1999, following ratification by the
required minimum of four states: Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, and the United States. This
Agreement was to a large extent simply forrnalizing two earlier voluntary agreements, the
1992 La Jolla Agreement and the 1995 Panama Declaration. The IDCP has three
objectives: 1) to progressively reduce incidental dolphin mortalities in the tuna purse
seine fishery to levels approaching zero; 2) to seek ecologically sound means of capturing
large yellowfin tunas not in association with dolphins, with the goal of eliminating
dolphin mortality; and 3) to ensure the long-term sustainability of the tuna (and related)
stocks within the Agreement area. DeSombre’s research also made clear that the US.
government was cognizant of potentially countervailing pressures from US. fishers and
groups lobbying on their behalf (DeSombre 2000). This awareness is illustrated by the
US. decision to pressure for international restrictions on driftnets, and later, for similar
restrictions on purse seines when used in the capture of tuna. Whereas, NGOs in the US.
and the US. government did not pressure for the implementation of similar regulations
regarding the severely depleted, and even endangered, fisheries like cod, haddock, hake,
plaice, herring, halibut, Pacific Ocean perch, or even sturgeon until after they had been
severely overfished (DeSombre 2000).

What these cases show is that NGOs are becoming increasingly important actors

in the global governance of fisheries. The success of NGOs, however, depends on

67

funding, which oftentimes means turning to governments, intergovernmental
organizations and foundations, all of which have their own set of priorities, at times not
coincident with the priorities of environmental NGOs. Additionally, the success of NGOs
continues to depend on their ability to garner widespread citizen support, and while the
communication revolution has assisted here, media interest remains critical and the
media’s interest is always focused on the sensational. Thus the extinction of fisheries gets
some media attention, but advocating the precautionary principle or the need to enhance

RFBs’ powers does not necessarily capture the media’s attention.

Nonstate, Market-Driven, Governance Systems

Private, market-based entities, such as multinational corporations, are becoming
increasingly important actors in global environmental governance, including fisheries
governance. This is not an entirely new phenomenon. During the 19th century, such
entities often set international norms that facilitated business in a liberal world economy;
although the norms they set were usually overtaken by states fairly soon after their
development. The recent increased growth of nonstate market-driven governance systems
(N SMD) has often been explained by the growing recognition of the inability of states to
meet the challenges of the 2 1 st century. This explanation is especially pertinent to the
establishment and implementation of global environmental norms (Clapp 1998).

In NSMD policy-making, authority is not derived from the state, but from the
manipulation of global markets and attention to or manipulation of customer preferences.

The popularity of NSMD comes from both a disappointment over the ineffectiveness of

68

state-derived solutions for sustainable fisheries, and also from growing interest in neo-
liberal policy ideas, including the use of voluntary compliance and market mechanisms.
The success of such undertakings seems to rely strongly on their perceived legitimacy by
key stakeholders such as consumers, suppliers, and other organizations in the supply
chain. These supporters then put pressure on producers to accept the rules, as well as
social interests including labor, and the media (Cashore 2002). This so-called .
privatization of governance seeks to use market—oriented consumerism to force policy
changes.

Market-based consumer boycotts are one example of NSMD governance systems
that are becoming a more popular and pervasive element in global fisheries governance.
Their goal is to rely on the market’s supply chain to create incentives and force
companies to comply with norms and/or legally binding accords. The idea is that
consumers will express their preferences for environmentally friendly products, spurring
producers to sustainable management practices (Gulbrandsen 2005). Two examples of
successful market-based consumer boycott applications, as NSMD governance, are the
use of eco-labels, and the voluntary ban of swordfish X iphias gladius by American chefs
to protect declining stocks.

Eco-labels are an evolving NSMD governance innovation that relies mainly on
the moral suasion of customers and strategic market moves made by producers and
professional purchasers. These types of programs normally establish environmental
performance standards, as well as establishing standards for socially and economically
responsible production. The use of eco-labels first began with the establishment of the

Forestry Stewardship Council (F SC) to address rampant resource depletion and

69

insufficient state action. In the fisheries industry, although dolphin-safe tuna and turtle-
safe shrimp labels existed, the first global multi-criteria and certification and labeling
scheme for fisheries came from the establishment of the Marine Stewardship Council
(MSC) in 1996. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) a NGO, partnering with one of the
world’s largest purchasers of fish, the Unilever food conglomerate, set up the MSC,
which was modeled after the Forestry Stewardship Council. The MSC is a not-for-profit
organization with a small budget, with established principles that are based on the 1995
FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and with established criteria for its
definition of “well-managed fisheries. ” The MSC’s prescription includes: to stop
overfishing; to respect laws and standards; to include consultations with stakeholders; to
encourage the use of dispute resolution mechanisms, as well as to assess research plans
and procedures for effective enforcement and compliance. MSC views its role as
complementing international regulations, not replacing or supplanting them. Some have
criticized the MSC’s standards for vagueness and perpetuating the status quo. Others
have argued that any standards accepted by MSC must be acceptable to multiple
stakeholders, and thus are inevitably flexible and compromised. As a consequence, in
2006, the MSC proposed a new standard setting procedure, one that was opened to
review and commentary by all stakeholders.

The MSC’s certification process is time-consuming, transparent, and now open to
stakeholder participation and objections. The MSC requires chain-of-custody tracking,
i.e. a paper trail, to ensure that products carrying its logo actually originated in a certified
fishery. It seeks to empower consumers. The WWF and Unilever have tried to encourage

leading retailers in target countries to stock MSC-labeled products, calling them “The

70

Best Environmental Choice in Seafood. ” As of 2007, over twenty fisheries had been
certified in Europe, Australasia and North America, totaling more than 1.8 million tons of
seafood. Given that the Asian (especially Chinese) seafood markets, which are by far the
world’s largest markets, have yet to see any MSC products, the accomplishments of the
MSC to date have been modest. Indeed, as with the FSC, the MSC’s most significant
impact may be the formal and informal understandings among states and private actors
regarding what should be regulated (McNichol 2006). Even though these
accomplishments have been relatively modest and nonmeasurable, this has not kept some
individuals and groups from accusing the MSC of coo-imperialism. Their accusation
arises from the fact that most of the fisheries in the developing world have not yet
acquired MSC certification. Indeed, some economically less developed countries have
complained to the WTO’s Committee on Trade and Environment that the MSC scheme is
a defacto barrier to trade. However, they do not seem to have much of a case against the
MSC, because all countries still permit the sale of nonlabeled fish. Additionally,
economically less developed countries’ internal markets have not been affected by the
MSC as the MSC products are produced for the export market.

The 1988—2000 “Give Swordfish a Break” initiative is another example of a
NSMD governance application (SeaWeb 2002, Knecht 2006, SeaWeb, no date). This
country-wide effort by chefs, in conjunction with the SeaWeb and Natural Resources
Defence Council NGOs, aimed to reduce the consumer demand for North Atlantic
swordfish in the United States. This campaign was a response by concerned chefs to the
decline in average swordfish size from 260-lbs in the 19603 to about 100-lbs in the 19803.

The campaign began with 27 US. East Coast chefs refusing to serve swordfish until a

71

recovery plan for the depleted stock was devised and implemented. The decline was
related to the shift in harvest method from traditional harpooning to the more effective
longlines. This change in harvest method resulted in much larger catches of adults, as
well as higher mortality of juveniles because longlines do not discriminate between adult
and juvenile swordfish. The increased mortality in both age groups resulted in decreased
numbers of swordfish, reduced catch size, and smaller swordfish being sold in the
market. This campaign resulted in over eight hundred chefs removing swordfish from
their menus (Knecht 2006). This NSMD pressure resulted in President Clinton banning
the sale and import of North Atlantic swordfish smaller than 33-lbs on 12 June 1998. This
Presidential ban was followed by the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) ban on
the importation of swordfish under 33-lbs, and support from 78 members of Congress in
the form of a letter to Secretary of Commerce William Daley on 12 March 1999 asking
for stronger government protection of swordfish. This culminated with the NMFS
finalizing and revising a swordfish recovery plan in 1999 and 2000. Additionally, this
attracted the interest of the lntemational Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas (ICCAT), which adopted quotas during its 1999 Rio de Janeiro meeting for a three
year period that could substantially contribute to the recovery of the population. The
campaign proved successful, as the ICCAT scientific committee estimated in 2002 that
the North Atlantic swordfish population had reached 94% of its full recovery (SeaWeb
2002, SeaWeb, no date).

These examples show that NSMD governance systems are often able to achieve
their ends. Specifically, doing what states are unwilling or incapable of doing. This,

however, obviously comes with risks. For instance, such governance structures are

72

largely unaccountable and can result in higher prices for goods with all of the
stratification consequences that this implies. Furthermore, actions resulting from private

governance processes can be based on poorly done scientific research or no science at all.

Evaluation of Actually Existing Global Fisheries Institutions

We began with a discussion of key intergovernmental organizations operating in
the fisheries regime. The examples we used illustrated both the positive and negative
aspects of actually existing global fisheries institutions. Below we summarize the key
limitations and strengths that our discussions of these institutions revealed.

The WTO and the F A0 are both actively engaged in addressing the critical and
contentious issue of fisheries subsidies, but, to date, they have merely set the stage for the
hard decisions. Were they to identify certain subsidies as clear interferences with free
trade and thus violations of the GATT, they could provide NGOs and other interested
parties with the potential for cases to be brought against the offending countries. We are,
however, not there yet. Furthermore, as the FAO operates within even greater constraints
of the state-centric world, its major contribution so far has been soft law. This is due to
FAO’s member states’ unwillingness to agree to a legally binding fisheries code of
conduct.

The huge resource base of the World Bank means that its impending return as a
major actor in fisheries governance could be quite significant. Those resources, of course,
mean that the World Bank is less beholden to member state pressures than are other
organizations. This is especially true as the IBRD’s funds are raised on the world’s bond

markets and not contributed by member states. To date, however, the World Bank’s

73

activities either have been “paltry,” contributed to unsustainable fishing, or contributed to
the expansion of aquaculture, which has its own serious challenges, including those
relating to health and safety.

The EU, like the World Bank, took some time in recognizing that its policies were
actually contributing to unsustainable fishing. More revealingly, however, our research
has shown that the almost unique supranational organization, the EU, was not always
capable of enforcing adherence to regional policies above individual state and local
interests. Not simply did some member states (and individual fishers) seek to undermine
EU policies that they found unfair, but these member states, as we saw in the turbot case,
were able to find the EU supportive of their attempts to increase their catch, even to the
point of being unsustainable.

The unwillingness of the RFBs’ member states to delegate some of their authority
over their fisheries, has resulted in the RFBs rarely receiving the sort of autonomy they
need to be able to effectuate the policy recommendations coming from their quite able
scientific advisors. Steps to empower the RFBs have been helpful, but as with
international conventions they are often undermined by nonparticipants or consistent
objectors. Moreover, these RFBs need to cooperate more effectively with environmental
governance bodies, including the United Nations Environmental Program’s (UNEP)
Regional Seas Commission.

On a slightly more positive note, we have found evidence of NGOs and NSMDs
trying to fill in where governments have been found wanting. Nevertheless, as of 2008,
the impacts of NGOs and NSMDs have been relatively limited. While it is good that

NGOs tie together fisheries bodies and environmental bodies on the national and

74

intergovernmental level (Riscard 2002), direct interactions would be preferable, akin to
the cooperation we noted in terms of the World Bank and the IUCN.

Each of these existing global governance institutions has its own shortcomings
regarding fisheries governance. They, however, also illustrate that we are moving away
from solely state-centric fisheries governance institutions towards more robust, ideal
global fisheries governance institutions as defined by us earlier in this chapter. The mere
fact that NGOs recognize the inadequacy of the actually existing global fisheries regime,
and thus search for alternative ways to obtain the desired effect that could more easily be
reached through an ideal global fisheries governance institution, illustrate that people are
realizing, at some conscious or subconscious level, that a holistic, integrated global
governance system is needed for some fish stocks to maintain or restore their
sustainability. This growing awareness should facilitate the eventual acceptance of ideal

global fisheries governance institutions, which is what we explore in the next section.

Moving Toward Ideal Global Fisheries Governance

While it is fair to suggest that the dominance of states in the actually existing
global fisheries governance is, in some places, on the decline. It would be naive and
unhelpful to suggest that the solution to the governance challenge is for the Westphalian
state-centric system of states to come to an end. That is not in the cards, or at least not in
any deck on the horizon, and it might not be welcomed in any event. More practical is the
call for changes in existing global fisheries governance institutions, which while not
limited to these suggestions, should include the following. First, there should be greater

inclusiveness in the key governance bodies. This means the inclusion of corporate and

75

other private actors in decision-making arenas, including the regional fishery bodies and
multilateral development banks and NGOs, truly representative of the interests of their
constituents, including individual fishers. Secondly, RF Bs should prioritize the
development of comprehensive, binding agreements relating to sustainable and quality
controlled aquaculture. This is imperative as the demand for fish is ever-increasing, while
the supply of capture fisheries is stable or declining. Thirdly, efforts need to be
undertaken to globalize nonstate market mechanisms like the MSC. Asian fisheries are
too important to be absent from such private governance schemes. Similarly, further
global attention needs to be focused on fisheries in Africa, including lobbying the
European Union to minimize the impacts of European fishing fleets on West African
marine resources. Furthermore, efforts need to be taken to concretize and codify what
heretofore have been important soft law concepts, including the precautionary principle
and sustainable fisheries. Only then can such concepts be meaningfully applied by key
global governance organizations, including the WTO. Additionally, better data on catch
and effort, costs, revenues, prices and employment are needed if effective policies are to
be devised. Lastly, the ecosystem orientation beginning to take hold in the World Bank’s
PROFI SH initiative needs to become pervasive, and cooperation between institutions,
such as the FAO, the World Bank and the IUCN, need to become the rule rather than the
exception.

Three somewhat more radical ideas are worthy of being fleshed out and warrant
further consideration if not actual adoption. One is based on the assumption that the
world doesn’t have much more time to address the challenges of the emptying ocean.

Riscard calls for building issue networks comprised of people from national

76

governments, international civil society and firms, whether they are part of the problem
or part of the solution. These individuals would be responsible for promulgating soft law,
which he considers significant because of its potential for compliance by key actors.
Lacking formal regulatory authority, such a network’s power and influence would depend
on how the participants’ reputations could be affected through exposure and disclosure of
their actions by the media. His model is based on the Financial Action Task Force that
was organized as a reaction of key global actors to the exposure of money laundering
related to terrorist acts (Kaul et al. 1999). This need for building a issue network could
also be accomplished as done by the Dublin Group, which brings together drug
enforcement agencies from the EU, USA, and other countries (Kaul et al. 1999). This, of
course, sounds much like the sorts of transnational advocacy networks that are described
by Keck and Sikkink (1998), the transgovemmental networks described by Keohane and
Nye (1974), and the government networks described by Slaughter (2004). Keck and
Sikkink’s networks (1998), like those called for here, involve civil society as well as
governmental and intergovernmental actors. Keohane and Nye’s (1998) and Slaughter’s
(2004) focus is more state-centric, but importantly, Slaughter underscores the key role
played by judges in contemporary global governance. The relevance of this latter in
fisheries governance has been noted by our earlier allusions in this chapter to the
European Court of Justice and the lntemational Court of Justice. Those, of course, are
simply the pinnacle judicial actors; judges in domestic courts and arbitrators are similarly
relevant.

The second suggestion, establishment of a UN Global Trusteeship Council, would

take more time to implement. This idea has taken a number of forms. The Commission

77

on Global Governance proposed transforming the UN’s moribund Trusteeship Council
into an oversight body responsible for insuring that the globe’s commons, including its
fisheries, were protected (Commission on Global Governance 1995). Here the focus of
attention would be on intergenerational issues (Kaul et al. 1999). It would also provide a
forum for key global actors to be creative in the means for achieving sustainable
fisheries. While the focus on intergenerational issues is valuable, it is also too limiting.
Inna-generational concerns also are critical and need to be incorporated.

A third idea, that is also suggested by others, and which is similar to the
suggestion by Kaul et al. (1999), consists of using the UN Global Trusteeship Council as
a “think tank” of creative and committed individuals or interlocutors, rather than as a
major intergovernmental organ of the UN. In their suggestion, there would be a new UN
Global Trusteeship Council that would act as an honest broker on behalf of more
sustainable and people-centered development (Kaul et al. 1999). Such a council’s
primary mandate would be to aid the UN Secretary-General in situations where
individual states, acting in their own self-interest, would be unable or unwilling to
implement the policies that could result in the long-term, collective benefit of all states
(Kaul et al. 1999). Their idea has a lot in common with what Cox fifteen years ago saw as
one of the key functions of intergovernmental organizations (Cox 1992).

The press of time suggests the need to pursue our practical agenda now, while
assessing the feasibility and desirability of a UN Global Trusteeship Council, either as a
major organ of the UN or as a kind of global think tank. Regardless of the selected
pathway used to move closer to achieving ideal global fisheries governance, the

overarching goal remains the same, sustainable use of all fisheries for the benefit of all

78

people.

Conclusions

Fisheries management and associated science have rapidly evolved in their
understanding of the needs for the successful, sustainable management of fisheries by
shifting from a species focus to an ecosystem approach. We have shown that fisheries
governance has been slow to mirror a similar evolution. This delayed, although necessary
shift towards a global fisheries governance is most likely due to the hesitance of countries
to forego significant elements of their sovereignty.

As this chapter suggests, however, the actually existing global governance system
is constantly evolving as it seeks to meet the challenges of a technologically-driven era of
increased globalization. Globalization may, in some situations, have a role in terms of
limiting a state’s sovereignty and autonomy, and thus assisting in moving towards the
ideal global fisheries governance. For instance the ability of the World Bank to include
provisions about fisheries management in their poverty reduction strategies, may make
economically desperate Countries agree to these fisheries provisions because of their
need for assistance. Conversely, at other times and places, globalization may actually
enhance the power, or at least not significantly weaken a state’s sovereignty, especially in
economically developed states, as seen in the case of the WTO and dolphin-free tuna.
While the responses to the increasing fishing pressures have been creative, in terms of
hard and soft law, NSMD mechanisms, and with major re-orientations of

intergovernmental organizations, the persistence of a state-centric governance system still

79

seems to fall short of confronting the tragedy of the commons. The scope of the threat to
fisheries resources requires a more, holistic, ‘ecosystem’ based governance approach, an
ideal global fisheries governance. We need to move towards a global fisheries
governance system that can more effectively address the needs of fisheries, especially
shared fisheries and those located outside of EEZs.

This need for an ideal global fisheries governance approach extends to the need
for better coordination and sharing of research findings from all levels of governance:
subnational, national, intergovernmental and supranational. UN global conferences have
been convened to try and address some of these gaps, linking fisheries and environmental
bodies, even setting ambitious time-bounded goals such as those in Johannesburg.
However, there appears to be a lack of interest by states to take the global leadership role
often needed to get the UN to convene such a conference, or leadership from NGOs and
media to spur this interest. Thus, we have yet to have a global ad hoc conference on
sustainable fisheries that is on a scale comparable to those dealing with other critical
global problems, such as human rights or the enviromnent. Additionally, the UN’s highly
touted Millennium Development Goals seemed to overlook fisheries as much as had the
African leaders when initially promulgating the New Partnership for Africa’s
Development (N EPAD).

The progress made towards a more global fisheries governance among the F AO’s
RFBs and the potential for the World Trade Organization to be a leader in banning
fisheries subsidies, are only a few examples providing hope. It is, however, too soon to
say whether something short of ideal global fisheries governance will be adequate to

achieve sustainable fisheries. We hope so, because we do not expect that this goal of

80

achieving the ideal global fisheries governance will be realized in the foreseeable future.

Acknowledgments
We wish to express our appreciation for the helpful suggestions on an earlier
version of this chapter made by our reviewers, Professors W. Andy Knight, M. J.

Peterson, Jan Aart Scholte, and Rorden Wilkinson.

81

References

Andersson, F. 2006. A policy for the fish or the fishermen? Summary of SLI-REPORT
2006: 3 (Full report in Swedish: En politik f‘dr fisken eller fisket?— en studie av
EU-fdrhandlingarna cm 2003 hrs reform av fiskeripolitiken). Lund, Sweden:
Livsmedelsekonomiska institutet. Available:
http://www.sli.lu.SE/eng_item_detail. asp?activity_id = 95 (June 2007).

Barkin, J. S. and E. R. DeSombre. 2000. Unilateralism and multilateralism in
international fisheries management. Global Governance 6(3): 339—360.

Benitah, M. 2004. Ongoing WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies. ASIL insights. The
American Society of lntemational Law. Available: http: //www. asil.
org/insights/insighl36.htm. (June 2006).

Bogue, M. B. 2000. Fishing the Great Lakes: an environmental history 1783—1933. The
University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Bomberg, E. and A. Stubb. 2003. The European Union: how does it work? Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

Carin, B., R. Higgott, J. Aart Scholte, G. Smith, and D. Stone. 2006. Global governance:
looking ahead, 2006—2010. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and
lntemational Organization 12(1): 193.

Cashore, B. 2002. Legitimacy and privatization of environmental governance: how
nonstate market-driven (N SMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority.
Governance: an International Journal of Policy 15(4): 503-508.

Clapp, J. 1998. The privatization of global environmental governance: ISO 14000 and the
developing world. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and
lntemational Organization 4(3): 297.

Cohen, H. 2007. Proposed establishment of a global list of irresponsible vessels.
PowerPoint presentation presented in Rome, March 9, 2007. Available:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/986366—

1 1 13566763061/21292871/PROFISH_GlobalList.pdf (May 2007).

Commission on Global Governance. 1995. Our Global Neighborhood: the report of the
Commission on Global Governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Coull, J. R. 1993. World Fisheries Resources. Routledge, New York.
Cox, R. W. 1992. Globalization, multilateralism and democracy. The John W. Holmes

Memorial Lecture. ACUNS (Academic Council on the United Nations System),
Providence, Rhode Island.

82

Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. 1994. Letter to Franz F ischler, (European Union)
Commissioner for Fisheries. Available www.3avethehighseas.org (May 2007)

Degnbol, P. 2004. Fisheries science in a development context. Pages 131—155 in
Fisheries Development: the institutional challenge. Edited: by B. Hersoug, S.
Jentoft, and P. Degnbol. Eburon Publishers, The Netherlands.

DeSombre, E. R. 2000. Domestic sources of international environmental policy: industry,
environmentalists and US. power. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

DeSombre, E. and J. S. Barkin. 2002. Turbot and Tempers in the North Atlantic. Pages
335-340 in Conserving the Peace: how protecting the environment today can
prevent conflict and disaster tomorrow. Edited by R. A. Matthew, M. Halle and J.
Switzer. lntemational Institute for Sustainable Development. Winnipeg, Canada.

Dingwerth, K. and P. Pattberg. 2006. Global governance as a perspective on world
politics. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and lntemational
Organization 12: 191—199.

Doha Development Agenda. No date. Doha work programme—key dates for 2006.
World Trade Organization. Available:
http://www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/dda_e/dohatimeline32006_e.htrn (June
2007)

Dumont, J ., W. Caragata, and B. Wallace. 1995. Canada seizes Spanish boat. Maclean’s.
(March 20). Available: http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.fm?PgNm=
TCE&Params=M1ARTM001 0344 (November 2006).

European Commission. 2004. About the Common Fisheries Policy. Brussels: General for
Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, Unit for Information and communication,
European Commission. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp_en.htm (June
2007)

European Commission Ireland. 2007. The EU in Ireland—sources of law. European
Commission in Ireland, Dublin. Available:
http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/general_information/legal_information_and_eu__law/so
urces_eu_law/index__en.htm (January 2007).

European Union. 2005. How the European Union works—your guide to EU institutions.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Available: http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/eu_glance/53/index_en.htm
(November 2006).

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1992. State of World Fisheries. Pages 58—61
in World marine fisheries: management and development policies. Edited by L.

83

Hinds. Marine Policy 16(5): 394-403.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1996. The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture—1996(SOFIA). Fisheries Department of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available:
http://www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_en.htm (June 2007).

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2004. The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture 2004; part 1: world review of fisheries and aquaculture. Food and
Agriculture Organization, Rome. Available:
http://www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_en.htm (June 2007).

F AO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2006a. F A0 at work—a short history of
F A0. Available: http://www.fao.org/UNFAQ/about/history_en.html. (July 2006).

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2006b. F AO Fishery Department—COFI,
Committee on Fisheries.
Available: http://www.fao.org/fi/body/cofi/cofi.asp (July 2006).

F AO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2006c. Constitution. Basic texts of the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Volume I, Part A. Food and

Agriculture Organization, Rome. Available:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/j803 8efj 803 8e00.htm#TopOfPage (June 2007).

F AO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2007a. The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture 2006; part 1: world review of fisheries and aquaculture. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available:
http://www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_en.htm (June 2007).

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2007b. F A0 at work home—structure and
finance. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Available: http://www.fao.org/UNFAO/about/finance_en.html (June 2007).

F AO—Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. 2007a. Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department mission. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Available:
http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=org&xml=
F I_org.xml&xp_nav=1 (June 2007).

FAQ—Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. 2007b. Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department Principle Authority COFI, Committee on Fisheries. Food and
Agriculture Organization, Rome. Available:
http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=org&xml=FI_org.xml&
xp_nav=3 (June 2007).

FAD—Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. 2008. Search fishery governance fact
sheets—regional fishery bodies. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

84

Available: http: //www.fao.org/fishery/rfb/search. (January 2008).

FAO Governing Bodies. 2007. FAO governing bodies. Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome. Available: http:/lwww.fao.org/unfao/govbodies/ (June
2007)

Finkelstein, L. S. 1995. What is global governance? Global Governance: a Review of
Multilateralism and lntemational Organization 1: 369.

Fisheries Working Group. 2007. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. Fisheries Working
Group. Available:
http://www.apec.org/apec/apec_groups/working_groups/fisheries.html.
(November 2006).

Folsom, R. H. 1995. European Union Law. 2nd Edition. West Publishing Company, St.
Paul, Minnesota.

France (France Minister of Foreign Affairs). 2006. The common fisheries policy.
Available: http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/european-union_157/european-
policies_2 1 90/fisheries-and-maritime-affairs_3 73 7/the-common-fisheries-
policy_8702.html (May 2007).

Garcia, S. M., A. Zerbi, C. Aliaume, T. Do Chi, and G. Lasserre. 2003. The ecosystem
approach to fisheries: issues, terminology, principles, institutional foundations,
implementation and outlook. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper No. 443.

Gulbrandsen, L. 2005. Mark of sustainability? Challenges for fishery and forestry
ecolabeling. Environment 47(5): 8—23.

Hall, C. 1998. Institutional solutions for governing the global commons: design factors
and effectiveness. Journal of Environment & Development 7(2): 86—115.

IMM. 2007. Fisheries code of conduct. Available:
http://www.innovation.ex.ac.uk/imm/CCRF.htm (July 2007).

lntemational Coalition of Fisheries Associations. 2006. Bottom trawling. Available:
http://www.icfa.net/polices-index.cfm (November 2006).

Iudicello, S., M. Weber, and R. Wieland. 1999. Fish, markets, and fishermen: the
economics of overfishing. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Kaul, I., I. Grunberg, and M. A. Stern. 1999. Introduction. Pages xxvi-xxxiv Global
public goods: international cooperation in the let century. Edited by in I. Kaul, I.
Grunberg and M. A. Stern. Oxford University Press, New York.

85

Keck, M. E. and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: advocacy networks in
international politics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Keohane, R. O. and J. S. Nye, Jr. 1974. Transgovemmental relations and international
organizations. World Politics 74(27): 39.

Keohane, R. O., and J. S. Nye, Jr. 1998. Power and interdependence in the Information
Age. Foreign Affairs 77: 81—94.

Knecht, G. B. 2006. Hooked: pirates, poaching, and the perfect fish. Rodale Book
Publisher, Emmaus, Pennsylvania.

Knight, H. G. 1975. lntemational fisheries management: a background paper. Pages 1-4
in The future of international fisheries management. Edited by H. G. Knight. West
Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Lem, A. 2004. WTO Trade rules with an update on the Doha round negotiations and a
short reference to antiO-dumping action and the shrimp case. Unpublished paper.
Presented at the World Aquaculture Society convention. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Lequesne, C. 2004. The politics of fisheries in the European Union. Translated by C.
Schoch and J. Pilling. Pages 81—83 in European Policy Research Series.
Manchester University Press, New York.

Lequesne, C. 2005. Fisheries policy: letting the little ones go? Pages 355—372 in Policy-
Making in the European Union. Fifth Edition. Edited by H. Wallace, W. Wallace
and M. A. Pollack. The New European Union Series. Oxford University Press,
New York.

McNichol, J. 2006. Transnational NGO certification programs as new regulatory forms:
Lessons from the forestry sector. Page 372 in Transnational governance:
institutional dynamics of regulations. Edited by M-L. Djelic and K. Sahlin-
Andersson. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

NAFO. No date. About NAFO (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization). Available:
http: //www.nafo.int/about/frames/about.html (July 2006).

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997. Implementation plan for the code of conduct for
responsible fisheries, July 1997. National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US. Department of Commerce,
Document number IOFC: DM/SW/97/5. Available:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/plan.html (November 2006).

NAUI. No date. WWF overfishing campaign statement. Available:
http://www.scubadivinginstructor.com/environment.htm (November 2006).

86

Nielson, L. A. 1993. History of inland fisheries management in North America. Pages 3—
32 in C. C. Kohler and W. A. Hubert, editors. Inland fisheries management in
North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Odell, J. S. and B. Eichengreen. 2000. Changing domestic institutions and ratifying
regime agreements. Pages 178—179 in Negotiating the world economy. Edited by
J. S. Odell. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Peterson, M. J. 1993. lntemational fisheries management. Pages 260—261 in Institutions
for earth: sources of effective international environmental protection. Edited by P.
M. Haas, R. O. Keohane, and M. A. Levy. Global environmental accords. The
MIT Press, Cambridge.

Pigman, G. 1998. The sovereignty discourse and the US. debate on joining the World
Trade Organization. Global Society 12(1): 75—102.

Pollack, M. 2006. Delegation and discretion in the European Union. Pages 165—196 in
Delegation and agency in international organizations. Edited by D. G. Hawkins,
D. A. Lake, D. L. Nielson, and M. J. Tierney. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

PROF ISH. 2006. Fisheries F actsheet, No. 1.
Available:http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Factsheet_1_P
ROFISH_FINAL.pdflresourceurlname=Factsheet_1_PROFISH_FINAL.pdf
(May 2007).

Riscard, J-F. 2002. Global issues networks: desperate times deserve innovative measures.
The Washington Quarterly 26(1): 17—33.

Rosenau, J. N. 1995. Governance in the twenty-first century. Global Governance: A
Review of Multilateralism and lntemational Organization 1(1): 13—43.

Sarooshi, D. 2005. lntemational Organizations and their Exercise of Sovereign Powers.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Schrank, W. E. 2003. Introducing fisheries subsidies. F AO Fisheries Technical Paper No.
437. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

SeaWeb. No date. Give swordfish a break! swordfish campaign timeline. Available:
http://www.seaweb.org/programs/swordfish (August 2006).

SeaWeb. 2002. North Atlantic swordfish show dramatic recovery. Press Release October
3, 2002, Washington, DC. Available:
http://www.seaweb.org/programs/swordfish/lO.3.02.release.html (August 2006).

Sissenweine, M. P., and P. M. Mace. 2003. Governance for responsible fisheries: an

87

ecosystem approach. Pages 10—12 in Responsible fisheries in the marine
ecosystem. Edited by M. Sinclair and G. Vladimarsson. CABI Publishing and
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Wallingford, UK.

Slaughter, A-M. 2004. A New World Order. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Jersey.

Swan, J. 2004. Decision-making in regional fishery bodies or arrangements: the evolving
role of REF 3 and international agreement on decision-making processes. F AO
Circular No. 995. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome.

USTR (Office of the US. Trade Representative). 2005. Leadership on environmental
protection at the WTO. Facts on Global Reform, Doha Development Agenda
Policy Brief—December 2005.
http ://www.ustr. gov/assets/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2005/asset_upload_fil
e937_8545.pdf (June 2007).

USTR (Office of the US. Trade Representative). 2007. US. Doha Round initiative to
prohibit harmful fisheries subsidies. Press Release. Available:
http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/March/United_Stat
es_Doha_Round_Initiative_to_Prohibit_Harmful_Fisheries_Subsidies.html (June
2007)

US. Mission. 2007. US. Doha Round initiative to prohibit harmful fisheries subsidies.
US. Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, 21 March 2007 Press Release.
Available: www.usmission.ch/Press2007/0321Fisheries.htm (5 May 2007).

Westlund, L. 2004. Guide for identifying, assessing and reporting on subsidies in the
fisheries sector. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 438. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

World Bank. No date. About us. Available:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTU8/0,,pagePK:
500044 1 O—piPK:36602—theSitePK:29708,00.html (July 2006).

World Bank. 1992. A study of international fisheries research. Annex 5 The World Bank,
The United Nations Development Programme, The Commission of the European
Communities, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank. 1994. The Agricultural Technology and Services Divisions (AGRTN).
Agriculture and Technology Notes, No. 4. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2004. Saving fish and fishers: toward sustainable and equitable governance
of the global fishing sector. Report No. 29090-GLB. The World Bank,

88

Washington, DC. Available:
http ://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/SavingFishandFishers.pdf
(November 2006).

World Bank. 2006. World Bank Group working for a world free of poverty. The World
Bank Headquarter, Washington, DC. Available:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTABOUTUS/Resources/wbgroupbrochure-
en.pdf (June 2007).

World Bank Group. 2007. The First PROFISH Forum: a developing country—donor
dialogue on fisheries. Agriculture and Rural Development, The World Bank
Group, Washington, DC. Available:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTARD/contentMD
K:21292984<pagePK:2l 0058<piPKz2l0062<theSitePK:336682,00.html (May
2007)

World Trade Organization. No date. What is the WTO? Available:
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htrn (July 2006).

World Trade Organization. 2007. Chair circulates drafi text on rules. WTO News Items
Doha Development Agenda, 30 November 2007. Available:
http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/new307_e/rules_draft_text_nov07_e.htrn
(Janaury2008).

89

CHAPTER THREE

This chapter was published in the book Sturgeons and Paddlefish of North America and
is copyrighted by Kluwer Academic Publishers. The formatting of the chapter was
modified from the published version to match Michigan State University dissertation

formatting guidelines. The full citation is:

Leonard, N. J ., C. Goddard, and W. W. Taylor. 2004. Multijurisdictional management of
lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Pages 231—251 in G. T. O.
LeBreton, F. W. H. Beamish and R. S. Mckinley, editors. Sturgeons and Paddlefish of

North America. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts.

90

CHAPTER THREE
Multijurisdictional Management of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes and St.

Lawrence River

Introduction

The presence of multiple entities with management authority of a shared natural
resource, such as the lake sturgeon, can easily result in confusing and often opposing
management strategies. Jurisdictional stress can also occur on a resource when there are
numerous and different pressures being applied to the shared resource, resulting in the
demands exceeding the capacity of the resource (Ferreri et al. 1999). These problems,
however, can be minimized through integrated multijurisdictional management of the
resource, which requires that the jurisdictions, whether within a country or between
countries, work together to manage the resource. When a successful cooperative
management of a shared resource is attained, this can improve the management of a
shared fishery resource as well as achieving the most efficient and effective use of the
limited fiscal and personnel resources available to each jurisdiction.

As a result of the extensive distributional range of lake sturgeon in the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River system, numerous federal, provincial, state, and aboriginal
jurisdictions have fisheries management authority for the species in the basin. Each of
these jurisdictions has its own regulations and management plans for lake sturgeon, and
this has resulted in differing management actions to protect the species. As a result of the
multitude of management plans, lake sturgeon populations in the Great Lakes-St.

Lawrence River currently support a variety of recreational fishing, aboriginal subsistence

91

fishing, and a limited lake sturgeon commercial harvest (Todd 1999) in which both non-
aboriginal and aboriginal fishers participate while in the other areas harvest is prohibited
(e.g., Lloyd Mohr, Assessment Biologist Upper Great Lakes Management Unit, Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources, Personal Communication).

Reflecting the myriad of management plans, the opinions of fisheries managers in
the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system are divided on whether or not the lake
sturgeon populations are sufficiently large to support the current recreational fishing and
commercial fishing harvest levels. Nonetheless, the vast majority of managers in the
Great Lakes basin do appear to share the concern that the future of lake sturgeon may be
threatened by the continuation of the current harvest level. Furthermore, there is
significant worry about a potential increase in harvest in response to the international
demand for sturgeon products (Hoover 1999). This chapter will examine some of the
regulatory features that enhanced the survival of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence River ecosystem, the growing interest in managing lake sturgeon using an
integrated, consensual, multijurisdictional approach, and the impact of the international

market on this fishery and rehabilitation initiatives.

Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River

The abundance of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River was
severely depressed as a result of intense harvesting during the mid 1800’s for their caviar
and flesh (Scott and Crossman 1998, Ferguson and Duckworth 1997, see chapters by
Saffron and Auer), and by human induced changes within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence

watershed that negatively impacted lake sturgeon populations (Scott and Crossman 1998,

92

Stegemann 1994, Moisan and Laflarnme 1999, see chapter by Auer). With the drastic
decrease in lake sturgeon abundance, most fisheries managers and ecologists believed in
the early to mid 19003 that lake sturgeon would eventually disappear as a result of
compounding negative pressures (Smith 1968). However, lake sturgeon in the Great
Lakes proved to be more resilient than previously assumed, and despite the polluted
waters, loss of habitat, and over harvesting pressures; populations of lake sturgeon persist
throughout the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River region (e. g. Houston 1987, Fortin et
al. 1993, Thomas and Haas 2002).

In addition to the work undertaken by fisheries management agencies, the passage
of regulations likely played an important role in enabling lake sturgeon populations to
persist. These include: the enactment of federal, provincial and state laws aimed at
protecting endangered species, and improvement of water quality through the

lntemational Joint Commission.

International Joint Commission

The lntemational Joint Commission (IJ C) was established by the Boundary
Waters Treaty in 1909, to provide the principles and mechanisms to resolve and prevent
disputes about water quantity and quality along the boundary between Canada and the
United States, including in the Great Lakes Region (IJC 1989). The role of the IJC in
restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of
the Great Lakes basin ecosystem was increased significantly in 1972 and again in 1978,
with the signing of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Beeton et al. 1999, IJC

1989).

93

The 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) proposed to maintain
the upper Great Lakes’ higher water quality standards and to restore and enhance the
water quality in the lower Great Lakes. To achieve these goals the GLWQA focused on
diminishing anthropogenic eutrophication and the concentration level of toxic substances
in the Great Lakes. To reduce anthropogenic eutrophication, phosphorous inputs were
successfully lowered by building and improving wastewater treatment plants in Canada
and United States and by reducing non-point source pollution (Beeton et al. 1999). To
decrease the levels of persistent organic chemicals and heavy metals in the Great Lakes,
these types of chemicals were banned from the region (Environmental Canada 1991,
DeVault et al. 1994). Subsequent to these bans, the concentrations of these contaminants
in the Great Lakes’ biota, including fish, decreased rapidly, and markedly (DeVault et a1.
1994)

Lake sturgeon, similarly to other Great Lakes biota, were impacted by the
degradation of the Great Lakes habitat and water quality (Smith 1972). Lake sturgeon
foraging and spawning sites most likely were negatively affected by logging,
urbanization and agricultural activities that increased sediment and nutrient load input
into the lakes’ tributaries and into the Great Lakes. This reduction in water quality
combined with the increase in sediments altered the benthic community, covered fish
spawning area with silt, and led to the depletion of dissolved oxygen (Beeton et al. 1999).
In addition, lake sturgeon being a long-lived benthivore with high lipid content is
susceptible to the bioaccumulation of contaminants (Moisan and LaFlamme 1999). Thus,
the presence of biologically toxic contaminants in the water and sediments of the Great

Lakes, which cause reproductive failure and negatively affect the survival and

94

reproductive success of fish (IJC 1991, USEPA 1992), could have impaired lake
sturgeon. Indeed, Doyon et al. (1999) found that the percentage of lake sturgeon physical
deformities was higher in lake sturgeon residing in polluted waterways than in non-
polluted system, and that these deformities affected the offspring of adult sturgeons living
in these polluted areas. Thus, the water quality improvements likely benefited
populations of the lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin, by
improving the quality of habitat used for spawning and foraging in addition to decreasing

the level of biologically toxic chemicals and their impacts on the lake sturgeon.

Protection of Endangered/Threatened Species

The Endangered Species Act of the United States

The United States passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973 (U SFWS
1996, Czech and Krausman 2001), which aims to “provide a means whereby the
ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be
conserved, [and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species
and threatened species” (USFWS 1988). In this act, conservation refers to “the use of all
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this ESA are
no longer necessary” (USFWS 1996).

Presently, the ESA may be the most comprehensive and powerful species
protection act worldwide (Reffalt 1991, Stanford Environmental Law Society 2001). One

of the strengths of this act is that it requires all federal agencies to actively work towards

95

the conservation of listed species, to develop and implement conservation programs for
endangered and threatened species (Stanford Environmental Law Society 2001), and to
provide federal funds to States, under a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the
Interior, to establish and maintain active programs for the conservation of endangered
species and threatened species (Kohm 1991, USFWS 1996). Although, the ESA currently
addresses the conservation of species, many managers see the need to further increase the
protection of genetically unique fish strains within a species (e. g., Lowie 2000).

In 1982, lake sturgeon were being considered as potential candidates for
protection under the ESA. As such, lake sturgeon were listed in the United States Federal
Notices of Review Register as a Category 2 (C2) species (Klar and Schleen 2001). This
category is assigned to a species that is being considered for potential listing as either a
threatened or endangered, but for which more information is needed about the species
status prior to making the decision of whether or not to include the species on the list.
The C2 listing of lakes sturgeon was maintained through 1994 as indicated in the 1994
Federal Notice of Review Register (vol. 59, no. 219, Dept. of Interior F. W. S. 50-CFR-
part 17); but in 1995, lake sturgeon were listed as a species at risk (Klar and Schleen
2001), thus the species does not receive protection under the ESA. The decision not to list
lake sturgeon was based on the assessment that there was a minimal threat to the species
survival at that time (Charles Wooley, Assistant Regional Director, US. Fish and
Wildlife Service, personal communication). Although lake sturgeon are not listed under
the ESA, the inclusion of lake sturgeon in the federal notice for twelve years as a C2
species, and the resulting possibility that lake sturgeon would be listed, most likely

provided the incentive for all agencies to more closely monitor the health and status of

96

their lake sturgeon populations, and to provide appropriate management plans for their
restoration. Currently, several states list lake sturgeon as being either threatened or
endangered within their jurisdiction, based on lake sturgeon’s population decline and

current abundance in their waters (Table 1).

Canada ’5 COSE WIC and SARA

In Canada, the provincial and federal governments both have responsibility for the
fish and the fisheries within all inland water bodies such as the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
River (Thompson 1974). The provincial government of Ontario and Quebec have the
authority to regulate the licensing of fishing within their province (Thompson 1974), as
outlined by the Ontario Fish Licensing Regulations (Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act,
1997, Ontario regulation 664/98, amended to o. reg. 546/00, fish licensing), and the
Québec Fishing Activities Regulation (An Act respecting the Conservation and
Development of Wildlife, R. S. Q. C-61. 1; Fishing Activities Regulation, R. R. Q. C-61.
1,r. 0. 00001. 1). The Canadian federal government regulates the fishery for its
conservation and protection through the Federal Fisheries Act. Generally, however, the
provinces of Ontario and Quebec, on behalf of the federal government will enforce the
provisions of the Fisheries Act within their territory. Nonetheless, even though the
provincial and federal governments share the responsibility for inland fish and fisheries,
the federal law can override the provincial law if the federal government believes that the
health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River fishery is threatened by the existing

provincial law (Dochoda 1999).

97

In 1977, the federal government established the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife (COSEWIC) in Canada to aid in the protection of the fauna and
flora (Rishikof 1997, COSEWIC 2002a,b, Egan 2002). This committee has the
responsibility of assessing “the status of wild Canadian species, subspecies, and separate
populations suspected of being at risk. . . [based on] the best up-to-date scientific
information and Aboriginal traditional knowledge available” (COSEWIC 2002a), and
lists species that it assesses as being at risk in terms of its survival within Canada
(Freedman et al. 2001). Listing of species by COSEWIC is based on several criteria
including that the species must be native to Canada, its abundance, and how dependent
the species’ survival is on habitat located within Canada (COSEWIC 2003). In addition,
the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), to assist with the efforts of protecting the species
listed by COSEWIC, created an endangered species unit in 1978 (Bocking 2001), and
then enacted the Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW) program in
1988 (CWS n. d., Freedman et al. 2001). The RENEW program was implemented to
coordinate the recovery efforts between federal and provincial government agencies and
non-govemmental organizations, for the species listed by COSEWIC (Bocking 2001).

More recently, after many failed attempts, the federal Bill C-5, named the Species
at Risk Act (SARA), passed through the Canadian House of Commons in 2002 (HC
2002), with two-thirds of SARA being in effect by 5 June 2003 and with a projected date
of 1 June 2004 for the entirety of SARA to come in effect
(http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/gen_info/HTML/approach_e cfm, Environmental Canada
2002). SARA is an act “respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada”

(HC 2002) and “to protect wildlife at risk from becoming extinct or lost from the wild,

98

with the ultimate objective of helping their numbers to recover” (CWS 2002). The
endangered species to be listed under SARA consist of species recommended by the
COSEWIC, but will not necessarily include all species listed by COSEWIC prior to the
enactment of SARA. Once a species is listed under SARA, a scientific assessment of the
species is mandatory, including the identification and protection of the species’ habitat,
developing recovery strategies, and management plans.

On a provincial level, the COSEWIC list does not have legal standing (Freedman
et al. 2001, Rideout and Ritter 2002) such that provincial governments are not obligated
to recognize the listing (Lindgren 2001, COSEWIC 2002a,b). Instead of adopting the
COSEWIC list, most provinces have developed their own lists (Lindgren 2001, Freedman
et al. 2001), and have enacted their own laws for endangered species. In the case of
Ontario and Quebec, these provinces have each enacted an act that protects both the
critical habitat and the listed species, which are, respectively, the 1971 Ontario
Endangered Species Act and the 1989 Quebec Act Respecting Threatened or Vulnerable
Species. In addition to these acts, both provinces have other rules and programs that could
also apply to endangered species (Gauthier and Wiken 2001).

Currently, lake sturgeon populations within the Canadian jurisdiction of the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River are not on the federal COSEWIC list, because COSEWIC does
not believe the species to be at risk. Similarly, neither Ontario nor Quebec has assigned a
special status to lake sturgeon under their provincial legislation. Although not included
on the federal and provincial lists, the lake sturgeon does fall under the Canadian Federal

Fisheries Act and Provincial Fishery Regulations. Thus this species receives some

99

protection through these fisheries acts, which manages and protects fish species through
the use of fishing permits, harvest quotas and fishing season (Houston 1987).

The possibility does exist that lake sturgeon residing within the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence River may eventually be assigned a status in these two provinces. Quebec is
currently considering listing lake sturgeon as either a threatened or vulnerable species
(Moisan and Laflamme 1999, SFPQ 2001). Whereas, in the Ontario waters of Lake
Huron some sections are considered by fisheries managers to have rare or threatened lake
sturgeon populations but these populations not currently assigned an official status
(Fielder et al. 2003). If lake sturgeon were to be included under the current Ontario and
Quebec lists pertaining to endangered species, this would allow for: 1) the protection,
restoration, or creation of new habitat for the species 2) enforcement of the act in order to
protect the species and its habitat by the respective ministry, and additionally, under the
Quebec Act: 3) allow for agreements to be made between the provincial government, and
either, individuals or other government in order to attain the objective of protecting the
listed species, 4) allow for research to be conducted on the species, and 5) provide for
mitigation of damage to the species and its habitat. Although the provinces are presently
investing some effort in protecting and managing the lake sturgeon, officially listing the
lake sturgeon may augment the provinces’ effort, such as by modifying harvest as
needed, increasing the provinces’ incentive to protect or expand the amount of habitat

available, and increasing our knowledge of the species and its ecological needs.

100

Successes of Cooperative Management for Lake Sturgeon

When a resource is shared between multiple jurisdictions conflicting viewpoints
and resource uses may arise. Under integrated, multijurisdictional management these
types of counterproductive actions can be eliminated or at least modified to assure that
the overall goals are met. An example of an ongoing cooperative venture is the work
being done to address the negative impacts of dams on migrating sturgeons. For example
the USFWS and its partners are developing sturgeon fishways to bypass dams; the
National Fish Passage Program is being implemented to remove unnecessary dams and/or
installing fishways to decrease the impact of existing dams on migrating fish species; and
the GLFC and its partners aim to reduce the impact of the sea lamprey control program

on sturgeon.

Barriers and Fishways

Multiple stakeholders, such as wildlife populations, humans and industries often
share streams, rivers and lakes, thus, resulting in the overlap of jurisdictions between
agencies and organizations that are trying to meet these various needs. An example of
conflicting use between lake sturgeon and other stakeholders is the construction of dams
for reservoirs, flood control, water retention, hydroelectric power, and recreational
purposes. These dams, in addition to affecting water levels and quality, generally pose
formidable obstacles to migratory aquatic species, and in the case of the lake sturgeon
block migrating lake sturgeon from reaching upstream spawning sites. A wide variety of
fish ladders or fishways have been installed to allow fish migration over these obstacles

(Scheidegger 2002). These fishways, however, have been primarily designed to

101

accommodate jumping species such as salmon (Gowans et al. 1999, Laine et al. 2002,
Bunt et al. 1999, Bunt et al. 2000). As such, fishways have not been very effective in
facilitating upstream migration of lake sturgeon above dams (Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem Team Lakes Sturgeon Committee n. d., USFWS-Green Bay 11. d. ). However,
research is being conducted to investigate how fishway designs can be modified to better
accommodate lake sturgeon (Peake et al. 1997). A spiral fishway design for lake sturgeon
is being tested at the S. O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center-USGS (Kynard et al.
2003), and the USFWS hopes to try out a prototype of this fishway in 2005 at the White
Rapids Hydroelectric Project on the Menominee River (Janet Smith, Field Supervisor,
USFWS Green Bay ES Field Office, Personal Communication). Through cooperation,
the impact of dams may be reduced or eliminated for some lake sturgeon populations and

thus be less of an impediment to the lake sturgeon rehabilitation and management effort.

Sea Lamprey Control Program

The implementation of the sea lamprey control program by the GLFC and its
partners, while positive in regards to reducing the impact of sea lamprey induced
mortality, can have the potential to negatively impact lake sturgeon. For instance, the sea
lamprey control program uses low-head barriers to prevent migrating sea lamprey from
reaching spawning grounds, the release of sterilized males to decrease the reproductive
success, and the application of the specific chemical lampricide 3-trifluoromethyl-4-
nitrophenol (TFM) in Great Lakes tributaries to kill sea lamprey larvae (Weisser 2000,
GLFC 2002). Some of these techniques, while effective in reducing sea lamprey

abundance, can negatively affect the spawning success of lake sturgeon by blocking

102

Table 1: Lake strrrggon status by 'urisdiction

 

 

 

United States Canada Global
Jurisdiction Status Jurisdiction Status Jurisdiction Status
Federal level Species pf Federal level Not at risk CITES Listed in
(U SFWS) concern (COSEWIC) Appendix

II "

Pennsylvania Endangered Ontario Not listed
New York Threatened Québec Not listed
State
Michigan Threatened
Illinois Threatened
Indiana Endangered
Ohio Endangered
Wisconsin Not listed
Minnesota Special

concern

 

 

 

 

'Species of Concern - an informal term indicating that the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service has some degree of concern for the future well-being of the taxon, but the taxon
does not receive any protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Appendix II-lists species that could become rare or endangered if the international trade
is not regulated.
migrating lake sturgeon from reaching upstream spawning grounds, and by killing larval
lake sturgeon through the application of TFM. The GLFC and its partners have worked
hard at ensuring that these potential impacts be minimized or eliminated. As such the
GLF C and its partners have expended considerable effort to investigate ways to minimize
the impact of sea lamprey control, such as ensuring improved fish passage over the
lamprey barriers (GLFC 2000a), and implementing TFM treatment protocols which
contain less chemical and are not applied during lake sturgeon spawning migration and
incubation times (Hay-Chmielewski and Whelan 1997, Weisser 2000, Auer 2002).

Therefore, the sea lamprey management program is a good example of how two

potentially opposing management actions, that of reducing sea lamprey populations while

103

protecting, and enhancing lake sturgeon population, can be fulfilled through cooperation

among all Parties and holistic fishery management.

Current Management of Lake Sturgeon

Jurisdictions with management responsibilities for lake sturgeon in the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River are multifold, including two countries, Canada and the United
States, eight states, two provinces, and two aboriginal authorities (Table 2). Lake
sturgeon are known to move across jurisdictional boundaries (Thomas and Haas 2002,
Fielder et al. 2003), and although some of the agencies are beginning to cooperate under
the auspice of the Lake Committees of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the multiple
entities vested in managing lake sturgeon are largely, still making their final management
decisions independently from the other entities. This jurisdictional network has lead to
the development of numerous plans, and as shown in Table 3, regulations with seemingly
opposing objectives that may prevent the fulfilment of basin-wide lake sturgeon

management goals.

104

Table 2: Federal, state, provincial, and aboriginal entity with authority over lake
sturgeon in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jurisdiction Entity
Federal US. A. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Geological Service — Biological
Resource Division
Canada Department of Fisheries and Ocean
States Illinois Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources
Indiana Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources
Michigan Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Minnesota Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources
New York NY Dept. Environmental Conservation
Ohio Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources — Lake Erie
Unit
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
Wisconsin Wisconsin Depart. Natural Resources
Provinces Ontario Ontario Ministry of Natural Resource
Quebec Société de la faune et pares du Quebec
Aboriginal United CORA and member tribes which are the Bay
States Mills Indian Community, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe
of Chippewa Indians, Grand Traverse Band of
Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little River Band
of Ottawa Indians and Little Traverse Bay Bands
of Odawa Indians.
GLIF WC and member tribes which are Bay
Mills Indian Community, Keweenaw Bay Indian
Community, Lac Vieux Desert band, Bad River,
Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, Mole
Lake/Sokaogon, Red Cliff, St. Croix bands,
Fond du Lac and Mille Lacs bands.
Canada Various First Nation tribes in the Great Lakes-

St. Lawrence River basin but involvement is in
the early stages as aboriginal rights are being
defined in courts.

 

105

 

Table 3: Recreational fishing and commercial fishing regulations for each state and
province located along the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River. Tribal fishing regulations
may differ from State fishing regulations. Official state and provincial abbreviations are

used. Status is indicated as SC for special concern, Th for threatened, and E for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

endangered.
Recreational fishing Commercial fishing
State/ Status Lake Open Catch Size Open Catch Size
Prov. season limit regula- season limit regula-
tions tions
MN SC Lake None N/A N/A None N/A N/A
Superior
WI None Lake None N/A N/A None N/A N/A
Superior
Lake None N/A N/A None N/A N/A
Michigan
IL Th Lake None N/A N/A None N/A N/A
Michigan
IN E Lake None N/A N/A None N/A N/A
Michigan
OH E Lake Erie None N/A N/A None N/A N/A
PA E Lake Erie None N/A N/A None N/A N/A
NY Th Lake Erie None N/A N/A None N/A N/A
Lake None N/A N/A None N/A N/A
Ontario
MI Th Lake July 16 Catch N/A None N/A N/A
Superior to &
Nov 30 release
Lake July 16 Catch N/A None N/A N/A
Michigan to &
Nov 30 release
Lake Erie July 16 Catch N/A None N/A N/A
To &
Nov 30 release
Lake July 16 Catch N/A None N/A N/A
Huron to &
Nov 30 release
Lake St. July 16 lper >42”- None N/A N/A
Clair to license < 50”
Sept. yr
30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

106

 

Table 3 (cont’d).

 

Recreational fishing

Commercial fishing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State/ Status Lake Open Catch Size Open Catch Size
Prov. season limit regula- season limit regula-
tions tions
ON None Lake All 1 per 114 None
Superior year day cm
Lake Erie All 1 per 114 cm None
year day
Lake All 1 per 114 cm All
Huron year day year
Lake None N/A N/A None N/A N/A
Ontario
Lake St. All 1 per 114 cm None
Clair year day
Upper St. None N/A N/A None N/A N/A
Lawrence
River
QC None Upper St. Depend 1 per >45 cm May 1 Varies >45 cm
Lawrence 3 on day to e.g.,
River zone Oct 15 12147
depen sturge
ds on on
zone taken
in
2002

 

The province of Ontario is considering changing the lake sturgeon recreational fishing
quota to one fish per year for 2004 (David M. Reid, Lake Management Supervisor - Lake
Huron, Upper Great Lakes Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
Personal Communication)
"In the Province of Ontario all fishery can be closed by the middle of December, but

enerally are kept Open year round

"In the province of Ontario Lake St. Clair has one remaining commercial fisher, fishing
with 2 licenses that will be appropriated with the fisher’s retirement from the industry.
These 2 licenses permit the fisher to use setlines (baited hooks) to harvest 2200 lbs
annually with no size restriction. Approximately 35-50 fish per year are harvested.

107

 

One of the potential outcomes of having each jurisdiction managing lake sturgeon
in isolation of the other jurisdiction is that the eight states and the two provinces may
differ in their decisions, for example there are differences in the status of lake sturgeon
assigned by the province of Ontario and the eight states, even for lake sturgeon
populations residing within the same lake. A possible explanation for this discrepancy
may be that some lake sturgeon stocks of the Great Lakes may have access to more and
healthier habitat than others and thus do not require as stringent regulations to maintain
the population. Conversely, these discrepancies may arise due to lack of information on
the population that prevents managers from estimating the population size, differences in
opinion as to what population size requires protective action, or may be related to the
differing cultural and historic significance of lake sturgeon among the inhabitants of the
basin. For instance, lake sturgeon are listed in seven of the eight Great Lakes states as
being endangered, threatened, or of special concern; whereas lake sturgeon are not listed
by the provinces as being at risk (Table 1). In addition, commercial fishing of lake
sturgeon is not allowed in the United States, whereas in Canada, a limited commercial
fishing is allowed within sections of the Ontario and Québec waters (Table 3). There is
also a discrepancy between the state and provincial recreational fishing regulations for
lake sturgeon. In provincial waters of the Great Lakes, recreational fishing of lake
sturgeon is only prohibited in Lake Ontario; in the State waters of the Great Lakes
recreational fishing is only allowed in Lake St. Clair (Table 3, tributaries of the Great
Lakes may differ in their regulations). Even in lakes where recreational fishing is allowed

by both the states and the provinces the quotas differ greatly, with the states having a

108

highly restricted fishing limit, with one sturgeon per license quota, and the provinces
currently having a one sturgeon per day quota.

Further, in 2003 the United States stated that it would not engage in the
commercial harvest or export of lake sturgeon from the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
River drainage, whereas Canada stated its expectation of commercial catch and export of
lake sturgeon meat to be over a 100t from the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River drainage
(CITES 2003a). The United States is managing most lake sturgeon populations as a
threatened, endangered or species of concern, whereas Canada assumes that most
populations are viable for a limited commercial harvest. These opposing views and
actions will likely decrease the effectiveness of the actions taken by the United States to
protect the species, and potentially lead to conflict between Great Lakes fisheries
agencies in the future. However, with increasing knowledge of lake sturgeon population,
sharing of data between jurisdictions such as recapture data on tagged sturgeon
individuals that is used for population estimates, these discrepancies in status and

management plans may diminish or be resolved.

The Potential for Multijurisdictional Management of Lake Sturgeon

The majority of lake sturgeon fisheries managers appear to believe that, given the
habitat requirements, movements and life history of lake sturgeon, this species may be
best managed using an ecosystem or basin-wide approach rather than the jurisdictional
approach. The implementation of this approach would result in decisions being based not
on individual jurisdictional opinions but on what all involved Parties believe is best for

the shared resource (F erreri et a1. 1999). The growing interest among lake sturgeon

109

managers in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River to expand cooperation throughout the
basin, have led, in recent years, to an increase in the number of cooperative efforts being
formed, such as the Central Great Lakes Bi-National Lake Sturgeon Group (McClain
1997, Hill and McClain 2002, USFWS 2003), the partnerships instigated by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS n. d. ), the Great Lakes lake sturgeon website
(http://midwest.fws.gov/sturgeon/default2.htm), and the National Paddlefish and
Sturgeon Committee 1993, Holey et al. 2000, Fielder et al. 2003). In addition, this effort
has been reflected in the agenda of the GLF C through the Lake Committees by the
inclusion of lake sturgeon within the Lake Committees’ Fish Community Objectives.
The GLFC facilitates the implementation of A Joint Strategic Plan for
Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (Joint Strategic Plan) through the Lake
Committees, to which the eight Great Lakes States, the Province of Ontario, two
aboriginal fisheries agencies and the federal governments of Canada and the United
States are signatory agencies (GLFC 1997). The Joint Strategic Plan is generally
recognized as one of the most effective vehicles for cooperative, international fisheries
management in the world (GLF C 2000b). The Joint Strategic Plan provides the
framework for fisheries management decision-making based on sound science and
consensus (GLF C 2000b), and is based on the philosophy that each of the Great lakes
fisheries management agencies has a share in the Great Lakes ecosystem and that in the
interest of the “common good,” fisheries management authority must be cooperative,
rather than unilateral. The strength of the Joint Strategic Plan lies in its implementation
through the Lake Committees. These committees have been established for each of the

Great Lakes, including the upper portion of the St. Lawrence River, and consist of

110

representatives from each of the state, provincial, and aboriginal agencies with
management authority on each lake. Within the Lake Committees, fisheries management
decisions, including the desired fish community structures, stocking strategies, law
enforcement activities, and harvest rates, are determined collectively by consensus. Each
management agency then reports to the Committee for implementing the shared decisions
within its own jurisdiction. To help the Lake Committees in reaching a decision based on
a common, scientific, knowledge of the status of the fisheries resources, the Lake
Committees established Technical Sub-Committees, which adopted common fisheries
assessment and analysis protocols, share fisheries assessment, research information, and
databases. Each Lake Committee reports to the Council of Lake Committees, which is
comprised of representatives from each of the Lake Committees, to resolve basin-wide
Great Lakes fisheries issues.

The Joint Strategic Plan is beginning to be applied to rehabilitate and manage lake
sturgeon within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River, as such the lake sturgeon is now
included in the Lake Committees’ Fish Community Objectives, and depending on the
Lake Committee, these Committees are at various stages of implementing joint
management decisions for lake sturgeon. For instance, as of 2003, the Lake Michigan
Committee has established a lake sturgeon task force (LMC 2003); the Lake Huron
Committee is in the process of developing a lake sturgeon management plan (LHC 2003);
and the Lake Superior Committee and its Technical Committee, formed the Lake
Sturgeon Subcommittee in 1994 to evaluate the status of lake sturgeon, and in 2002

developed a rehabilitation plan for lake sturgeon in Lake Superior (Auer 2002).

111

Thus, if the current endeavours to initiate joint management of lake sturgeon
prove successful and favourable to all the Parties of the Joint Strategic Plan, then the
Lake Committees and the Council for Lake Committees, under the organizational
structure of the GLFC, may become the forum for basin-wide, cooperative management
of lake sturgeon within the Great Lakes. However, ideally, to encompass the entire range
of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River, an agreement with the Province
of Québec would need to be signed to include the province within the cooperative effort.
The inclusion of the Province of Quebec would allow management of lake sturgeon
migrating between the Québec section of the St. Lawrence River into the Ontario-New

York section of the river.

International Perspective on Lake Sturgeon

The survival and health of lake sturgeon in North America is no longer simply
affected by the local or national demand for caviar and flesh, but also by a global
demand. This demand for lake sturgeon products is increasing, as other sturgeon stocks in
the northern hemisphere, such as the sturgeon species from the Caspian Sea, become
depleted and lake sturgeon products are viewed as an acceptable alternative source.
Currently, Russia and Iran are the main exporters of caviar from the Caspian Sea area,
with nearly 80% of all caviar exports being supplied by these two countries (WWF
2002). The sturgeon stocks found within these countries, including the stellate sturgeon,
Russian sturgeon, and Huso huso, have been decreasing. As in the Great Lakes, the
decline in sturgeon populations from the Caspian Sea area has been blamed on a

combination of habitat destruction, water pollution, and over fishing, the latter having

112

been exacerbated by intensified poaching activities on these stocks for the caviar trade
(CITES 2001). With the disintegration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the
level of poaching in the former Soviet republics has increased to 10 to 12 times the
amount of the current legal catch (CITES 2001). Should the Caspian Sea caviar export
supply collapse, a gap between demand and supply would be created, which would likely
increase the pressure for North American sturgeon and paddlefish products (Graham and

Rasmussen 1997).

Managing a Threatened and Endangered Species Globally

The Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), is based
on the voluntary participation of numerous countries, and is currently the best option for
the protection of species on a global level. The CITES was implemented in 1975
(Wijnstekers 2001), and as-of 2003 there are 162 member countries (CITES 2003b). This
convention was enacted to respond to the threat imposed by international trade on
threatened or endangered species (Stanford Environmental Law Society 2001,
Wijnstekers 2001). CITES lists species into three Appendices. Species listed in Appendix
I are considered to be threatened with extinction; Appendix 11 species are not threatened
with extinction but uncontrolled trade might threatened their existence; and species in
Appendix. III are currently being protected by at least one country which has requested
the aid of CITES Parties in controlling the species trade (CITES 2003c).

CITES monitors the trade of species listed in the appendices through a system of
export and import permits (Wijnstekers 2001). The use of these permits allows CITES to

monitor the trade demand, to detect illegal shipments, and make adjustments to better

113

protect the species if necessary, such as changing the trade quota for the species which
are usually set by individual Parties or by the Conference of Parties (Wijnstekers 2001).
The enforcement of CITES’s permits and quotas, due to the nature of the agreement, lies
on the signatory countries (list of signatory countries available on the CITES website
www.cites.org; Wijnstekers 2001, Le Prestre and Stoett 2001). In the United States,
CITES is implemented through the Endangered Species Act and the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service is the designated management authority for CITES in the United
States (Stanford Environmental Law Society 2001). In Canada, CITES is implemented
through The Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and
Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA). The Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of
Environment is the management and scientific Authority for CITES in Canada (CITES
Secretariat 2003).

In April of 1998, all sturgeon and paddlefish species (Acipenseriformes) were
listed in Appendix I or II of the CITES (Wijnstekers 2001, Raymakers and Hoover 2002).
In listing all Acipenseriformes under Appendix I or II, this required that participating
countries enforce the use of permits and certifications for all international trade involving
these species. In addition to the usual CITES permits, the Parties agreed to several other
aspects that they believed necessary for the conservation of Acipenseriformes, including
the Conservation of Sturgeons, Resolution Conf. 10.12 (Wijnstekers 2001). This later
agreement states that the fishery and other management initiatives for protection of
Acipenseriformes should include the necessary national legislative improvements, the
need for regional agreements, the development of a universal marking system for all fish

parts to aid in tracking the origin of the products, the role of aquaculture, and the need to

114

focus on decreasing/eradicating illegal trade of Acipenseriformes (Wijnstekers 2001).
CITES also stipulated in decision 11.58, that to help protect Acipenseriformes, countries
which share a common stock, such as the lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes, need to
consult and agree on the annual catch and export quota for international trade for that
shared stock (Meffe and Carroll 1994, Wijnstekers 2001).

Although CITES is an agreement among signatory countries that does not have
enforcement authority, the signatory countries can cooperate together to employ tactics,
such as economic incentives, to pressure a member country that is not properly managing
a listed species, to address the conservation issues occurring within that country’s
jurisdiction. An example of this is when the members of the CITES agreement became
concerned about the dwindling Caspian Sea sturgeon stocks in June 2001. In an attempt
to force the countries surrounding the Caspian Sea to address the declining stock
abundance, the CITES Standing Committee recommended that imports of sturgeon
products from these stocks be suspended in 2002, unless these countries took action in
accord with the approved resolution (CITES 2003d). This tactic appeared to be successful
for the Caspian region as the Russian, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan governments
announced on 21 July 2001 a temporary ban on commercial fishing of sturgeon in the
Caspian Sea, in response to international pressure (Anonymous 2001). This type of tactic,
however, only works well if the main importing countries are CITES members and if the
loss of their market demand results in a significant decrease in demand for those products

or alternative products are available.

115

Future Outlook

Lake sturgeon is a truly unique and important fish in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
While its numbers have dwindled due to decades of pollution, habitat alterations, and
over harvesting, the renewed commitment of fishery managers, aboriginal tribes, and
other stakeholders to its restoration in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River makes the
outlook for lake sturgeon rehabilitation very positive. With an increase in our
understanding of the ecology of this species, along with habitat improvements,
rehabilitative stocking, and strict harvesting regulations; these populations should
rebound from their reduced numbers basin-wide. The Winnebago Lake system lake
sturgeon population in Wisconsin, USA is an example of a lake sturgeon population that
has responded well to targeted management actions, including limited fishing season,
habitat management, increased enforcement, particularly during the spawning season, and
increased public awareness, while continuing to maintain a recreational winter spear
fishery (Bruch 1999a).

Currently, in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system, there is a move toward
appreciation of the need for ecosystem management and co-management activities. Even
so, some of the jurisdictions in the Great Lakes basin that govern lake sturgeon, currently
allow for the commercial trade of parts or live fish, and for the recreational fishing
harvest of lake sturgeon, while other jurisdictions do not. The lack of a coordinated
management approach for lake sturgeon throughout the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River
makes it easier for illegally harvested sturgeon to be sold into the legal market (Bruch
1999b). The Law Enforcement Committee under GLF C has recognized the potential ease

of infractions as a result of the mosaic of rules, and the committee is investigating

116

possible recommendations to prevent and reduce infractions between the jurisdictions.
One method being employed to address this threat is the use of combined enforcement
teams (CET) in the Lake St Clair and the St Mary's River, which have already proven
successful in other parts of the Great Lakes. CETs involve the participation of
conservation officers from multiple state, provincial, federal, tribal agencies, from the
United States and Canada, with law enforcement authority in the Great Lakes to enforce
Great Lakes fishery regulations. The success of these teams arises from having
representatives of each jurisdiction present during the apprehension of an individual
committing an offence outside of his home jurisdiction (Kirshman and Leonard 2003).
Nonetheless, the disparate status and management actions being taken by the various
jurisdictions need to be addressed if effective coordinated management of the lake
sturgeon is to be achieved.

Presently, in addition to the need for coordinated management and regulations in
the Great Lakes, there is an urgent need to further increase understanding of the life
history, migratory patterns, and population status of unique genetic lake sturgeon stocks
in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River. Until the status and ecological needs of the lake
sturgeon in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River is better understood, the fisheries
management agencies should err on the side of caution, using the precautionary principle,
so as to not lose this opportunity to rehabilitate this important and unique species. The
first step that must be addressed is the need for a common management goal amongst
fisheries authorities, which is reflected in the fishing regulations for lake sturgeon
throughout the entire Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River. This will require the establishment

of an official cooperative effort, such as the Joint Strategic Plan and its implementation

117

through the Lake Committees structure and the Council for Lake Committee under
GLFC. This effort will need support and representation by Canadian and American
entities with management authority on lake sturgeon, assured funding for programs, and
accountability by the members for implementing joint decisions. Additionally, this
cooperative effort should include the Province of Québec to ensure the protection of lake
sturgeon throughout the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin. Secondly, the cooperative effort
should have as mandate the joint cooperative management of populations within the
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River for the preservation, restoration, and enhancement of
lake sturgeon. Data and information sharing will be needed for partners to agree on the
status and best management for lake sturgeon throughout the basin on a stock/population
level versus a jurisdictional management. Thirdly, the cooperative effort should
investigate methods for protecting wild lake sturgeon from the sturgeon flesh and caviar
market demand, and encourage research and application of alternative ways of providing
for the demand of sturgeon meat and caviar. Lastly, effective enforcement of lake
sturgeon regulations on the national, international, and global level, such as CITES, is
imperative to the success of any management plan.

The future of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River will depend
greatly on the development of a cooperative relationship between jurisdictions to manage
this shared fish resource. The extensive geographic and jurisdictional area inhabited by
lake sturgeon, further validate the need to have a coordinated management plan among
agencies sharing a common stock to ensure that the financial and human resources will be
utilized effectively. This coordination across agencies will facilitate management

planning and resource allocations, and fulfil the basin-wide/ecosystem level common

118

goal of achieving healthy lake sturgeon stocks. The Joint Strategic Plan currently brings
agencies together to engage in this type of cooperation within the Great Lakes basin, and
with the Lake Committees already listing lake sturgeon within their Fish Committee
Objectives for each Great Lake, the Lake Committees and the Council for Lake
Committees under the organizational structure of GLF C would seem to provide the ideal
forum under which the lake sturgeon management jurisdictions could meet. Having such
a forum will provide in the future an integrated, multij urisdictional management program
for lake sturgeon populations, which will enhance the chance for a viable, genetically
diverse, sustainable commercial and recreational fishery of lake sturgeon in the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River.

The growing demand for lake sturgeon on an international level and the impact of
globalisation (Lechner and Boli 1999, Friedman 2000, Raymakers and Hoover 2002),
however, will require that the cooperative group keep abreast of the global market
demand and global agreements that may affect lake sturgeon populations in North
America. This rising demand and trade potential will increasingly require an active
monitoring of Acipenseriform stocks worldwide, and as a result, it will be progressively
more important to assure strict enforcement of existing federal, provincial, state, and

tribal regulations and CITES to assure the conservation of our Great Lakes lake sturgeon.

Acknowledgement
We would like to acknowledge Tracy Hill from the USFWS-Alpena Fishery
Resource Office for his assistance, and Gary Whelan, John Robertson, Lloyd Mohr and

David Reid for reviewing our chapter.

119

References

Anonymous. 2001. Russia: Russia temporary halts sturgeon fishing. Marketnews, 21 July
2001, F ishround Inc. Available: https://www.fishround.
com/fishround/JapaneseVersion/gate/news/mnews/Russia/7_21_1.htrnl (April 30,
2003).

Auer, N. A (ed). 2002. A lake sturgeon rehabilitation plan for Lake Superior. Great Lakes
Fishery Commission Miscellaneous Publication. Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Beeton, A. M., C. E. Sellinger, and D. E. Reid. 1999. An introduction to the Laurentian
Great Lakes ecosystem. Pages 3-54 in Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and
Management. Edited by W. W. Taylor and C. P. F erreri. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Bocking, S. 2001. The politics of endangered species: a historical perspective. Pages 119-
136 in Politics of the Wild: Canada and endangered species. Edited by K. Beazley
and R. Boardman. Oxford University Press, Ontario.

Bruch, R. M. 1999a. Management of lake sturgeon on the Winnebago System —- long term
impacts of harvest and regulations on population structure. Journal of Applied
Icthyology 15(4-5): 142-152.

Bruch. R. M. 1999b. Management and trade of lake sturgeon in North America. Pages
106-120 in Proceedings of the Symposium on the Harvest, Trade and
Conservation of North American Paddlefish and Sturgeon, May 7-8, 1998,
Chattanooga, TN. Edited by D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz and C. M. Hoover.
TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA.

Bunt, C. M., C. Katopodis, and R. S. McKinley. 1999. Attraction and passage efficiency
of white suckers and smallmouth bass by two Denil fishways. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 19(3): 793-803.

Bunt, C. M., S. J. Cooke, and R. S. McKinley. 2000. Assessment of the Dunnville
Fishway for passage of walleyes from Lake Erie to the Grand River, Ontario.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 26 (4): 482-488.

CITES. 2001. Press Release: Governments to consider trade restrictions on Caspian Sea
caviar. Available: http://www.CITES.org/eng/news/press/SC45_caviar1.shtml
(March 13, 2003).

CITES. 2003a. Catch and export quotas for specimens of Acipenseriformes species
included in Appendix II for 2003. Available:
http://www.CITES.org/common/quotas/2003/2003sturgeon.pdf (March 13, 2003).

120

CITES. 2003b. Member countries. Available:
http://www.CITES.org/eng/parties/index.shtml (June 13, 2003).

CITES. 2003c. How CITES works? Available:
http://www.CITES.org/eng/disc/how.shtml (June 13, 2003).

CITES. 2003d. A brief history of sturgeon & CITES. Available:
http://www.CITES.org/eng/prog/sturgeon.shtrnl (March 13, 2003).

CITES Secretariat. 2003. National contacts: Canada. Available:
http://www.CITES.org/common/directy/e_directy.html (March 13, 2003).

COSEWIC. 2002a. About us: operating procedures. Available:
http://www.COSEWIC.gc.ca/eng/sct6/sct6_5_e.cfm (March 18, 2003).

COSEWIC. 2002b. About us: celebrating 25 years of science and knowledge for species
at risk in Canada. Available:

http://www.COSEWIC.gc.ca/eng/sct6/sct6_3_e.cfm#hist (March 18, 2003).

COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC’s Assessment Process and Criteria. Available
http://www.COSEWIC.gc.ca/pdf/English/Assessment_process_e.pdf (June 12,
2003)

CWS (Canadian Wildlife Service). n. d. Backgrounder: recovery of nationally
endangered wildlife. Ref: 830-728/O4A4. Available:
http://www.scics.gc.ca/cinf001/83072804a4_e.html (March 18, 2003).

CWS (Canadian Wildlife Service). 2002. News release: Species at Risk. Available:
www.speciesatriskgc.ca/species/media/back1_e.cfm (March 11, 2003).

Czech, B. and P. Krausman. 2001. The endangered species act: history, conservation,
biology, and public policy. The John Hopkins University Press, Maryland.

DeVault, D., P. Bertram, D. Whittle, and S. Rang. 1994. Toxic contaminants in the Great
Lakes. State of the Lakes Conference Working Paper presented at the State of the
Lakes Conference (SOLEC), October 26-28, 1994, Dearborn, Michigan.
Environmental Canada and United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Dochoda, M. R. 1999. Authorities, responsibilities, and arrangements for managing fish
and fisheries in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Pages 93-110 in Great Lakes
Fisheries Policy and Management a binational perspective. Edited by W. W.
Taylor and C. P. F erreri. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University
Press.

Doyon, C., R. Fortin, and P. A. Spear. 1999. Retinoic acid hydroxylation and
teratogenesis in lake sturgeon (Acipenserfulvescens) from the St. Lawrence River

121

and Abitibi region, Québec. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
56: 1428-1436.

Egan, M. 2002. Hinterland Who’s Who fact sheet: endangered species in Canada.
Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. Available: http://www.cws-
scf.ec.gc.ca/hww-fap/hww-fap.cfm?lD_species=84&lang=e (March 18, 2003).

Environmental Canada. 1991. Toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes and associated effects-
synopsis. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environmental Canada.

Environmental Canada. 2002. News release: Species at risk act given royal assent. The
Green Lane, Environmental Canada’s World Wide Web Site. Available:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/press/2002/021212__n_e.htm (March 11 2003).

Ferguson, M. M. and G. A. Duckworth. 1997. The status and distribution of lake
sturgeon, Acipenserfulvescens, in the Canadian Province of Manitoba, Ontario
and Quebec: a genetic perspective. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 299-309.

Ferreri, C. P., W. W. Taylor, and J. M. Robertson. 1999. Great Lakes fisheries futures:
balancing the demands of a multijurisdictional resource. Pages 515-538 in Great
Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management a binational perspective. Edited by W.
W. Taylor and C. P. F erreri. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University
Press.

Fielder, D. G., J. P. Baker, L. C. Mohr, A. Liskaukas, and J. R. McClain. 2003. Status of
the near-shore fish community. In The State of Lake Huron in 1999. Edited by M.
P. Ebener. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Special Publication 03-draft. Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Fortin, R., J-R Mongeau, G. Desjardins, and P. Dumont. 1993. Movements and biological
statistics of lake sturgeon (Acipenserfulvescens) populations from the St.
Lawrence and Ottawa River system, Quebec. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71:
638-650.

Freedman, B., L. Rodger, P. Ewins, and D. M. Green. 2001. Species at risk in Canada.
Pages 26-48 in Politics of the Wild: Canada and endangered species. Edited by K.
Beazley and R. Boardman. Oxford University Press, Ontario.

Friedman, T. L. 2000. The lexus and the olive tree. New York: Anchor Books. 490p.

Gauther, D. and E. Wiken. 2001. Avoiding the endangerment of species: the importance
of habitats and ecosystems. Pages 49-74 in Politics of the Wild: Canada and
endangered species. Edited by K. Beazley and R. Boardman. Oxford University
Press, Ontario.

122

GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 1997. A Joint Strategic Plan for Management
of Great Lakes Fisheries. Ann Arbor, MI.

GLF C (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 2000b. F actsheet 5: Sea lamprey barriers new
technologies help solve and old problem. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Ann
Arbor, Michigan.

GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 2000b. Factsheet 10: A Joint Strategic Plan
for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Ann
Arbor, Michigan.

GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 2002. Brochure: sea lamprey the battle
continues to protect our Great Lakes fishery. Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Gowans, A. R. D., J. D. Armstrong, and I. G. Priede. 1999. Movements of adult Atlantic
salmon in relation to a hydroelectric dam and fish ladder. Journal of Fish Biology
54(4) 713-726.

Graham, L. K. and J. L. Rasmussen. 1997. A MICRA perspective on closing paddlefish
and sturgeon commercial fisheries. Pages 130-142 in Proceedings of the
Symposium on the Harvest, Trade and Conservation of North American
Paddlefish and Sturgeon, May 7-8, 1998, Chattanooga, TN. Edited by D. F.
Williamson, G. W. Benz and C. M. Hoover. TRAFFIC North America/World
Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA.

Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team Lake Sturgeon Committee. n. d. Priority research
need: passage. Available http://midweSt.fws.gov/sturgeon/pa332.htrn (March 13,
2003) ~

Hay-Chmielewski, E. M., and G. E. Whelan, editors. 1997. Lake sturgeon rehabilitation
strategy. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special
Report No. 18.

HC (House of Commons of Canada). 2002. Bill C-S: an act respecting the protection of
wildlife species at risk in Canada. First session, thirty-seventh Parliament, 49-50-
51 Elizabeth II, 2001-2002. Available:
http:// www.parl . gc.ca/PDF/ 3 7/ l /parlbus/chambus/house/bills/govemment/C-
5_3.pdf (March 18, 2003).

Hill, T. D. and J. R. McClain, editors. 2002. 2000 activities of the Central Great Lakes
Bi-National Lake Sturgeon Group. US. Fish and Wildlife Service — Alpena
Fisheries Resources Office, Michigan.

Holey, M. E., E. A. Baker, T. F. Thuemler, and R. F. Elliott. 2000. Research and
assessment needs to restore lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes. June 27-28, 2000

123

Workshop in Muskegon, Michigan. Great Lakes Fishery Trust, Lansing
Michigan.

Hoover, C. 1999. Import and export of sturgeon and paddlefish in the United States.
Pages 192-214 in Proceedings of the Symposium on the Harvest, Trade and
Conservation of North American Paddlefish and Sturgeon, May 7-8, 1998,
Chattanooga, TN. Edited by D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz and C. M. Hoover.
TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA.

Houston, J. J. 1987. Status of Lake Sturgeon, Acipenserfulvescens, in Canada. Canadian
Field-Naturalist 101(2): 171-185.

IJC (lntemational Joint Commission). 1989. Revised Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978, as amended by protocol signed November, 18 1987.
Published by the International Joint Commission.

IJC (lntemational Joint Commission). 1991. Persistent toxic substances: virtually
eliminating inputs to the Great Lakes. Interim Report of the Virtual Elimination
Task Force. International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario.

Kirshman, H., and N. Leonard. 2003. Operation Kingfisher. Pages 4-5 in FORUM:
special law enforcement edition. Edited by J. F inster and M. Gaden. Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Klar, G. T., and L. P. Schleen. 2001. Integrated management of sea lamprey in the Great
Lakes 2000. Annual Report to Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Ann Arbor,
Michigan.

Kohm, K. A. 1991. The act’s history and framework? Pages 10-22 in Balancing on the
brink of extinction the endangered species act and lessons for the future. Edited
by K. A. Kohm. Island Press, Washington DC.

Kynard, B., D. Pugh, and T. Parker. 2003. Development of fish passage for lake sturgeon.
Final report to the Great Lakes Fishery Trust, Lansing, Michigan.

Laine A, T. Jokivirta, and C. Katopodis. 2002. Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., and sea
trout, Salmo trutta L., passage in a regulated northern river - fishway efficiency,
fish entrance and environmental factors. F ME 9(2): 65-77.

Le Prestre, P., and P. Stoett. 2001. lntemational initiatives, commitments, and
disappointments: Canada, CITES and the CBD. Pages 190-234 in Politics of the
Wild: Canada and endangered species. Edited by K. Beazley and R. Boardman.
Oxford University Press, Ontario.

Lechner, F. J ., and J. Boli, editors. 1999. The Globalization Reader. New York:
Blackwell.

124

LHC (Lake Huron Committee). 2003. Lake Huron Committee Executive Summary.
Available: http://www.glfc.org/lcexsum/lhc303.htrn (June 26, 2003).

Lindgren, R. D. 2001. The species at risk act: an overview. Report No. 408. Canadian
Environmental Law Association, Toronto, Ontario. Available:
http://www.cela.ca/408sara.pdf (March 13, 2003).

LMC (Lake Michigan Committee). 2003. Lake Michigan Committee Executive
Summary. Available http://www.glfc.org/lcexsum/lmc303.htm (June 26, 2003).

Lowie, C., editor. 2000. Great Lakes sturgeon genetics: status, needs, and standardization
workshop proceedings, Holiday Inn — Chicago, Illinois, December 8-9, 1999.
USFWS Administrative Report 2000-01. Amherst, New York. Available:
http://midwest.fws.gov/sturgeon/Genworkpro.htm#Why%20Genetic%201nformat
ion%20is (August 4, 2003).

McClain, J., editor. 1997. Summary of the 1996 activities of the interbasin lake sturgeon
work group in waters of Lake Huron, St. Clair, and Erie. US. Fish and Wildlife
Serivce-Alpena Fisheries Resources Office, Michigan. Available:
http://midweSt.fws.gov/alpena/rpt-stnib96.html (February 8, 2003).

Meffe, G. K., and C. R. Carroll. 1994. The species in conservation. Pages 50-77 in
Principles of Conservation Biology. Edited by G. K. Meffe and C. R. Carroll.
Sinauer Associated, Inc Publishers, Massachusettes.

Moisan, M., and H. Laflamme. 1999. Rapport sur la situation de l'esturgeon jaune
(Acipenserfulvescens) au Québec. Direction de la faune et des habitats, Quebec.

National Paddlefish and Sturgeon Steering Committee. 1993. Framework for the
management and conservation of paddlefish and sturgeon species in the United
States. US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC.

Peake, S., F. W. H. Beamish, R. S. McKinley, D. A. Scruton and C. Katopodis, C. 1997.
Relating swimming performance of lake sturgeon, Acipenserfulvescens, to
fishway design. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 1361-
1366.

Raymakers, C., and C. Hoover. 2002. Acipenseriformes: CITES implementation from
range States to consumer countries. Journal of Applied lcthyologyl8: 629-638.

Reffalt, W. 1991. The endangered species lists: chronicles of extinction? Pages 77-85 in

Balancing on the brink of extinction the endangered species act and lessons for
the future. Edited by K. A. Kohm. Island Press, Washington DC.

125

Rideout, S. G. and J. A. Ritter. 2002. Canadian and US. Atlantic salmon institutions and
politics: where are the fish and who cares? Pages 93-117 in Sustaining North
American Salmon: perspectives across regions and disciplines. Edited by K. D.
Lynch, M. L. Jones and W. W. Taylor. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Maryland.

Rishikof, R. 1997. Endangered species protection in Canada: an overview. Environment
Probe on the web June 1997. Available:
www.nextcity.com/EnviromnentProbe/pubs/evS39.htm (March 13, 2003).

Scheidegger, K. 2002. Fish gotta swim. Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine on the
web April 2002. Available: www.wnrrnag.com/stories/2002/aprO2/fishlad.htm
(March 22, 2003).

Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman. 1998. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Ontario: Galt House
Publications. p. 69-76.

SFPQ (Société de la F aune et des Parcs Quebec). 2001. Especes fauniques menacées ou
vulnérables au Quebec: Esturgeon jaune. Available:
http://www.fapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/etu_rec/esp_mena_vuln/esp/esturgeon_jaune.htm
(March 20, 2003).

Smith, S. H. 1968. Species succession and fishery exploitation in the Great Lakes.
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 25: 667-693.

Smith, S. H. 1972. Factors of ecological succession in oligotrophic fish communities of
the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
29: 717-730.

Stanford Environmental Law Society. 2001. The Endangered Species Act. Stanford
University Press, Stanford, California. p. 296.

Stegemann, E. C. 1994. Sturgeon - the king of freshwater fishes. Conservationist 49(1):
18-23.

Thomas, M. V., and R. C. Haas. 2002. Abundance, age structure, and spatial distribution
of lake sturgeon, Acipenserfulvescens, in the St Clair System. Journal of Applied
Icthyology 18(4-6): 495-501.

Thompson, P. C. 1974. Institutional constraints in fisheries management. Journal of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada 31: 1965-1981.

Todd, R. M. 1999. Sturgeon and paddlefish commercial fishing in North America. Pages

42-50 in Proceedings of the Symposium on the Harvest, Trade and Conservation
of North American Paddlefish and Sturgeon, May 7-8, 1998, Chattanooga, TN.

126

Edited by D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz and C. M. Hoover. TRAFFIC North
America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA.

USEPA (US. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Exposure and effects of airborne
contamination. Great Waters Program Report, Chapter 2. 2.

USFWS (US. Fish and Wildlife Service). 11. d. . Lake sturgeon: giant of the Great Lakes.
Brochure published by US. Fish and Wildlife Service Great Lakes Basin

Ecosystem Team Lake Sturgeon Committee. Available:
http://midweSt.fws.gov/sturgeon/lakesturgeon.pdf (March 18, 2003).

USFWS (U .8. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1988. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended through the 100'h congress. US. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC. pp. 66-68.

USFWS (U .8. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. The endangered species act of 1973.
Available: http://endangered.fws.gov/esa.html (March 18, 2003).

USFWS (U .8. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003. Lake sturgeon population investigations.
US. Fish and Wildlife Service-Alpena Fishery Resources Office, Michigan.
Available http://midweSt.fws.gov/alpena/lakesturgeonhtm (January 30 2003).

USFWS-Green Bay (Wisconsin Ecological Services). n. d. Lake sturgeon restoration
activities: lake sturgeon upstream and downstream passage initiative on the
Menominee River. Available:
http://midweSt.fws.gov/sturgeon/green_bay_ES_jim.htm (April 1, 2003).

Weisser, J. 2000. Sea lamprey management program and lake sturgeon. In Update on
lake sturgeon in New York State Waters: abstracts and meeting summary. Edited
by T. E. Brooking. Lake Sturgeon Research Meeting, January 27, 2000, Syracuse,
NY. Available: www.dnr.comell.edu/fieldst/cbfs.htm (March 18, 2003).

Wijnstekers, W. 2001. The evolution of CITES: a reference to the convention on
international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, 6th edition.
CITES Secretariat, Switzerland.

WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2002. WWF fact sheet: 12th meeting of the conference of
the parties to CITES, Santiago, 3-15 November 2002. Available:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/CITES/pdfs/sturgeon_factsheet.pdf (March 18,
2003).

127

CHAPTER FOUR
Role of Social Network Structure and Social Ties on the Effectiveness of A Joint

Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries

Introduction

Governancelo of transboundary fish stocks increasingly relies on a cooperative
approach that engages professionals and stakeholders with diverse expertise, representing
different jurisdictions, each with their own expectations regarding these stocks (e. g.,
Halibut Commission, Whaling Commission). To effectivelyll work together, these
individuals need to establish and maintain social ties, which are the relationships that
bond individuals together, such as friendship or sharing a common affiliation or
membership (Wasserman and Faust 1994). These social ties are an essential component
to collaborative decision-making (Penner 1995, Jones and George 1998, Foster-Fishman
et al. 2001, Newell and Swan 2000), as they affect the collective decision-making process
(Newell and Swan 2000, Yang and Tang 2004), which in turn impacts the effectiveness
of the governance institution.

It has been demonstrated that social ties, which links individuals together, affect
the process and thereby effectiveness of group decision-making. In the organizational and

sociological literature, much research has been conducted to investigate the role of social

 

'0 Governance is a broad term that encompasses all actors involved in the policy making-
process and who share the associated responsibilities and power (Rosenau 1995,
Sissenweine and Mace 2003). Governance includes a variety of institutions consisting of
governmental, nonstate, hard law, soft law, formal rules, informal rules, and private
glovernance institutions such as market mechanisms (Schechter and Leonard 2008)

The term ‘effectively’ in this chapter is used as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

defines the word ‘effective , producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect” (Merriam-
Webster 1974).

128

ties, both within and among subgroups”, on the overall group effectiveness. The
sociological studies have found, among other things, that social ties determine what
resources an individual will have access to, such as information about sturgeon harvest,
how quickly these resources will be available to the individual, whether a new idea will
be accepted by individuals within a group, and potentially the amount of influence each
individual exerts on group decision (Granovetter 1973, Burt 1992, Wasserman and Faust
1994, Abrahamsom and Rosenkopf 1997, Frank et al. 2004). Organizational studies have
shown that resource exchange occurs when there is trust among individuals, that face-to-
face interactions facilitate problem-solving among individuals, that it is important that
individuals are aware of who to contact for given information, and that the loss of key
individuals from the group can disrupt the flow of resources within the entire group
(Newell and Swan 2000, Cross et al. 2001).

Understanding how the social ties among individuals and the social network
structure, which consists of all individuals within a group and the social ties linking them
together, impact the effectiveness and efficiency of governance institutions for
transboundary fish stocks may reveal why some institutions appear to be more effective
and efficient in making and implementing decisions than others. For instance, a well
connected and integrated network structure may allow for more effective and efficient

institutions, because resources can flow through the network to all individuals than a

 

’2 Subgroups are a subset of individuals connected by social ties that belong to a larger
social network group (Wasserman and Faust 1994). Defining the subset of individuals
that form subgroups can be based on formal positions, such as occupations, or on the
pattern of their social interactions such that individuals more frequently interacting
together in comparison to with other individuals in the network group are placed within
the same subgroup (Frank 1995). For detailed explanation on the statistical analysis used
to identify subgroups based on the pattern of social interactions consult Identijjzing
cohesive subgroups by Frank (1995).

129

network that is less well connected and composed of isolated subgroups (Figure 5;
Wasserman and Faust 1994). A network structure that is composed of subgroups,
however, may permit adequate resource flow, if all individuals can gain access to
resources, such as through individuals who bridge the subgroups and therefore can
provide access to resources (Figure 6; Wasserman and Faust 1994). In this situation the
individuals bridging the subgroups would allow for adequate exchange of information
between subgroups while reducing the redundancies of having unnecessary individuals
transmitting the same resource. Understanding of the role of social ties and social
network structure among individuals engaged in these governance institutions should
assist in improving governance for transboundary fish stocks (Schechter et al. 2008).

Enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of governance institutions for
transboundary fish stocks is critical, as new challenges, such as climate change, will
increasingly require an approach that transcends boundaries to address these challenges.
Failure to recognize and understand the role of social network structure and social ties in
governance institutions could lead to ineffective governance resulting in the waste of
scarce human and financial resources, as well as policies resulting in actions that

negatively impact the resource.

130

 

(a)
Figure 5: Simplified example of two social network structures with (a) showing a well-
connected network in which individuals are all directly connected to one another without
subgroups being present; and (b) a network where individuals are well-connected within
their subgroup, but isolated from the other subgroups. Individuals are denoted by ‘smiley
face’ and connections by solid lines.

 

Figure 6: Simplified social network structure consisting of well-connected individuals
forming three subgroups. Individuals within subgroups are connected to the other
subgroups by individuals that bridge one or more subgroups. Individuals are denoted by
‘smiley face’, connections within a subgroup by solid lines, and connections between
subgroups by dashed lines.

In this chapter I explore how the presence of social ties and the related social
network structure contribute to the governance institution for transboundary fish stocks in
the Great Lakes, A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (Joint
Strategic Plan) (GLFC 1997). Many authors believe the Joint Strategic Plan to be an

effective institution for the governance of transboundary fish stocks in the Great Lakes,

such as walleye (Sander vitreus), yellow perch (Percaflavescens), lake sturgeon

131

(Acipenserfulvescens), lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and salmonids (GLF C
1997, Stein and Goddard 2008). The Joint Strategic Plan is perceived as being effective
partially because it has clear a goal'3 and objectives, participants communicate
management decisions, they have been able to achieve consensus on fishery management
decisions, have rarely needed third party mediation, although when needed, mediation
has proven successful in resolving disagreements, and because it allows signatory
agencies to access each others resources, such as expertise, to implement coordinated
management activities (Gaden 2007). This effectiveness may be enhanced because of to
the social ties, and hence the social network structure, that bonds Joint Strategic Plan
participants together. The intent of my study was to determine if social ties and social
network structure exists among individuals implementing the Joint Strategic Plan and
how these may affect the Joint Strategic Plan’s effectiveness. Further, to determine how
respondents representing Joint Strategic Plan perceived governance of transboundary fish
stocks in the Great Lakes, I used two types of information exchange to test for the
presence of social ties and social network structure among the Joint Strategic Plan
participants, general information about Great Lakes fish stocks, and information about
lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes. Implications of social ties and social network structure
on the effectives of this governance institution for transboundary fish stocks in the Great

Lakes, the Joint Strategic Plan, are discussed.

 

'3 The Joint Strategic Plan’s goal statement is “to secure fish communities, based on
foundations of stable self-sustaining stocks, supplemented by judicious plantings of
hatchery-reared fish, and provide from these communities an optimum contribution of
fish, fishing opportunities and associated benefits to meet needs identified by society for:
wholesome food, recreation, cultural heritage, employment and income, and a healthy
aquatic ecosystem” (GLF C 1997).

132

Methods
Case Study Group

I selected as my case study the governance of the Laurentian Great Lakes
transboundary fish stocks as implemented through A Joint Strategic Plan for
Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (Joint Strategic Plan). I selected the Joint Strategic
Plan for two reasons (1) its perceived effectiveness for the governance of Great Lakes
transboundary fish stocks (GLFC 1997, Gaden 2007, Stein and Goddard 2008), and (2)
the diversity of participants involved in the implementation of Joint Strategic Plan.

In the Great Lakes, eight American states, one Canadian province, and two tribal
organizations with fisheries management authority are signatory to the Joint Strategic
Plan (GLFC 1997, Dochoda 1999, Gaden 2007, Stein and Goddard 2008). Four federal
agencies that do not have fisheries management authority in the Great Lakes are also
signatories to the Joint Strategic Plan because of their role in protecting Great Lakes fish
stocks, such as through the Endangered Species Act (Table 4.) The Joint Strategic Plan
serves to coordinate governance of transboundary fish stocks in the Great Lakes. The
Joint Strategic Plan’s is implemented through the organizational structure of the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC)”, specifically through its Agency-Appointed
committees, and facilitated by the GLFC (Figure 7; GLF C 1997). As part of the strategic
procedures for achieving the Joint Strategic Plan’s goal, each of the Agency-Appointed
lake committees must develop fish community objectives that assess progress made

towards achieving the desired structure for each Great Lakes fish communities (GLFC

 

'4 The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was established during 1955 through the
enactment of the treaty the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries (US. Department of
State) signed on 10 September 1945 by Canada and the United States.

133

1997). The collaborative development of these Fish Community Objectives contributes to
the attainment of consensus among participants when making fishery management
decisions, as decisions are based on a common set of objectives jointly developed by all
parties.

There are also individuals that do not belong to a signatory agency (hereon
referred to as non-signatory participants) that participate in the implementation of the
Joint Strategic Plan. These non-signatory participants represent individuals from
academia, non-govemmental organizations, the private sector, commercial fishers, and
recreational fishers that provide input through invited expert presentations, advisory
groups, and technical subcommittees. Representing diverse agencies and stakeholders
with differing policies and cultures, coupled with their personal perception, values, and
expertise, this variety among participants affects how they interact in making decisions
(Shaw and Barrett-Power 1998). Furthermore, these individuals vary in how long they
have been participants, how frequently they interact with other participants, how long
they have known other participants, and their perspective on the fisheries issues. This
variability adds to the challenge of working together to reach consensus on the
governance of transboundary fish stocks. To effectively work together, these individuals
need to have a certain level of trust and respect for one another (Jones and George 1998,
Newell and Swan 2000, Grafton 2005), which in turn contributes to the formation of

social ties that facilitates the decision-making process (Shaw and Barrett-Power 1998).

134

Table 4: Signatory agencies to A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes
Fisheries. The federal agencies, although not having fisheries management authority in
the Great Lakes, are signatory to the Joint Strategic Plan primarily because of the role
they have in protecting2 rehabilitating, and conserving the Great Lakes fish stocks.
Federal

Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries
United States Fish and Wildlife Service

United States Geological Survey -— Biological Resources Division

 

 

State

Illinois Department of Conservation

Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

 

Tribal
Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission

 

Provincial
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

 

 

 

Survey Respondents

During a three-month period from 25 January 2006 to 19 April 2006, I surveyed
423 individuals that participated in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC)
Agency-Appointed committees (Figure 7). The individuals surveyed were selected based
on two sets of criteria. The first included all individuals that were Great Lakes Fishery
Commission secretariat staff, United States and Canadian Commissioners, United States
and Canadian Advisors or official members of Great Lakes Agency-Appointed

committees (Figure 7, Table 5). The second included all individuals that had attended any

135

of the Agency-Appointed committee meetings during 2005, both representatives of
signatory agencies and non-signatory participants. To capture individuals that might be
regular attendees, but missed the 2005 meetings, the study population also included any
individual that attended meetings during 2004, in addition to having attended at least one
other meeting in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 period. These criteria eliminated individuals
from the study population that were either not very active or no longer active in the Joint
Strategic Plan process.

The Executive Secretary of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission sent a letter on
10 January 2006, copied to the Commissioners, informing the selected individuals about
the upcoming survey and the commission’s support of this research project (Appendix
A). On 25 January 2006, I sent an email invitation to all selected individuals explaining
the purpose of the research project and providing instructions about how to access the
online survey (Appendix B). Individuals that were selected and who had not yet
completed the online survey received a reminder email on 16 February 2006 (reminder
1). A second reminder email was sent on 8 March 2006 (reminder 2), with the final
reminder sent on 28 March 2006 (Appendix C). Two-percent (8 individuals) of the
selected individuals received the printed booklet version of the survey and completed the
survey by hand rather than online. The survey booklet contained the same questions, in
the same order as the web-based survey, and included branching instructions to guide the
individuals through the survey. Recipients of the survey booklet received the same
support letter from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Executive Secretary, the letter
of invitation describing the purpose of the survey, and the 3 reminder letters (Appendices

A, B, and C). I did not expect that the survey media, online versus booklet, used by the

136

respondent to complete the survey would affect responses, because several studies

conducted to compare the effect of different survey media on responses did not find

significant difference among responses received from paper-based surveys compared to

internet-based surveys and compared to computer-based surveys (e. g., Knapp and Kirk

2003, Donovan et al. 2000, Potosky and Bobko 1997).

 

Agency-Appointed Committees

 

 

Council of Great
Lakes Fishery
Agencies

 

 

 

Partners

- US. Fish and Wildlife Service
- US. Geological Survey

- US. Army Corps of Engineers
- Fisheries and Oceans Canada
- Michigan State University

- University of Guelph

 

 

 

 

Council of Lake
Committee

 

Great Lakes Fish Health
Committee

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement
Committee

 

 

 

 

l

 

Great Lakes Fishery Commission
(GLFC)

- U.S. Commissioners

- Canadian Commissioners

- U.S. Advisors

- Canadian Advisors

- Secretariat & Commissioners

 

Lake Superior
Committee

 

 

 

Lake Superior
Technical Subcommittees

 

 

 

Lake Huron
Committee

 

 

 

Lake Huron
Technical Subcommittees

 

 

 

 

 

GLFC-Appointed Boards

- Board of Technical Experts

- Sea Lamprey Integration Committee
- Sea Lamprey Research Board

 

Lake Michigan
Committee

 

 

 

Lake Michigan
Technical Subcommittees

 

 

 

 

Lake Erie
Committee

 

 

 

Lake Erie
Technical Subcommittees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lake Ontario
Committee

 

 

 

 

Figure 7: Organizational structure of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

137

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5: Committees and groups involved in the implementation of A Joint Strategic
Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (Joint Strategic Plan), either directly
through the Agency-Appointed committees, or indirectly as part of the support provided
by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission organizational structure. Unmarked institution
names signify that they are both members of committees and signatory agencies of the
Joint Strategic Plan. A ‘*’ identifies institutions that are only signatory agencies of the
Joint Strategic Plan, not official members of the committees. A ‘**” indicates institutions
that only are an official member of the committees. Other participants of this governance
process but that are neither Joint Strategic Plan signatory agencies nor official members

of committees are identified with a ‘***’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council of 0 US. Fisheries and Wildlife“ 0 Minnesota Dept. of Natural
Great Lakes 0 US. Geological Service — Resources
Fishery Biological Resources Division“ 0 Wisconsin Dept. Natural
Agencies 0 Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Resources
Canada’“ 0 Illinois Dept. of Conservation
0 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 0 Chippewa-Ottawa Resource
Administration" Authority
0 Michigan Dept. Natural Resources 0 Great Lakes Indian Fish and
0 Indiana Dept. Natural Resources Wildlife Commission
0 Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources
- GLFC Secretariat staff liaison
and support*"'*
Council of 0 Ontario Ministry of Natural 0 New York State Dept. of
Lake Resources Environmental Conservation
Committees 0 Michigan Dept of Natural 0 Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Resources Commission
0 Indiana Dept. Natural Resources 0 Ohio Dept. Natural Resources
0 Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources 0 Chippewa-Ottawa Resource
0 Illinois Dept. of Conservation Authority
0 Minnesota Dept. of Natural 0 Great Lakes Indian Fish and
Resources Wildlife Commission
0 GLFC Secretariat staff liaison
and support***
Law 0 Ontario Ministry of Natural 0 Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Enforcement Resources Commission
Committee 0 Michigan Dept of Natural 0 Ohio Dept. Natural Resources
Resources 0 Chippewa-Ottawa Resource
- Indiana Dept. Natural Resources Authority
0 Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources 0 Dept. Fisheries and Oceans
0 Illinois Dept. of Conservation Canada"
0 Minnesota Dept. of Natural 0 National Oceanic and
Resources Atmospheric Administration"
0 New York State Dept. of 0 US. Coast Guard"
Environmental Conservation 0 GLFC Secretariat staff liaison
and support**"‘

 

138

 

Table 5 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

Lake Ontario 0 Ontario Ministry of Natural - GLFC Secretariat staff liaison
Committee Resources and support***
0 New York State Dept. of
Environmental Conservation
Lake Eric 0 Ohio Dept. Natural Resources 0 Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Committee 0 Ontario Ministry of Natural Commission
Resources 0 Michigan Dept of Natural
0 New York State Dept. of Resources
Environmental Conservation 0 GLFC Secretariat staff liaison
and support***
Lake 0 Michigan Dept. Natural Resources 0 Chippewa-Ottawa Resource
Michigan 0 Indiana Dept. Natural Resources Authority
Committee 0 Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources 0 Illinois Dept. ofConservation
o GLFC Secretariat staff liaison
and support*"
Lake Huron 0 Ontario Ministry of Natural o GLFC Secretariat staff liaison
Committee Resources and support***

0 Michigan Dept of Natural Resources
0 Chippewa-Ottawa Resource
Authority

 

Lake Superior

0 Michigan Dept. Natural Resources

0 Minnesota Dept. of Natural

 

 

 

 

 

Committee 0 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Resources 0 Wisconsin Dept. Natural
0 Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Resources
Commission 0 GLFC Secretariat staff liaison
0 Chippewa-Ottawa Resource and support***
Authority
Great Lakes 0 Secretariat staff"**
“3""! 0 Four Canadian Commissioners***
Commission 0 Four American Commissioners, and
one alternate Commissioner***
Canadian 0 Recreational fishing *** 0 Aboriginal community***
AdVISOI‘S - Commercial fishing*** 0 Environmental***
0 Academia*** 0 Public At Lage
US Advisors 0 Recreational fishing*** 0 Public at large*"'*
0 Commercial fishing*** 0 State aggncies
Invitees o Academia*’” o Other state agencies***

 

0 Consulting firms***
0 Other provincial agencies“ "‘ *

 

o Other federal agencies***

 

139

 

Survey Design

The Web-based survey consisted of two parts (Appendix D and E). The first part
was created using the online SurveyZ! program (Qualtrics 2006). Part two of the web-
based survey was created using the online QuestionPro program (QuestionPro 2007;
Appendix B). Part one consisted of five sections (Appendix D):

0 Section 1: Your Great Lakes Committee;

Section 2: You, Your Committee, and Your Organization;
0 Section 3: Management and Enforcement of Great Lakes Fisheries;
0 Section 4: Great Lakes Lake Sturgeon; and
0 Section 5: Personal Information.

The data collected from the ‘Personal Information’ section was used to describe
the average attributes of respondents and assess that they were representative of the
individuals participating in the Joint Strategic Plan based on personal observation of
meeting attendees between 2003 and 2006. This information was also used to detect
whether individuals’ perceptions were related to their attributes, such as which employer
type they represented, and whether social network subgroups differed in the member

attributes (Table 6).

Table 6: Attribute information requested from remrndents.

 

0 Employer type 0 Gender

0 Years associated with Great Lakes Fishery 0 Age

Commission and related boards, committees, sub- 0 Race

committees 0 Highest level of education
0 Committee or other Joint Strategic Plan and GLFC completed

related group you consider yourself to be a 0 Country of residence

 

 

member or regular participant

 

140

 

The data collected from respondents from sections 1, 3, and 4, ‘Your Great Lakes
Committee’, ‘Management and Enforcement of Great Lakes Fisheries’, and ‘Great Lakes
Lake Sturgeon’, were used to describe the average perception of respondents, as well as
to detect whether respondents belonging to a specific social network subgroup, described
below, differed in their perceptions on fisheries and governance issues. To describe and
detect difference among respondents’ perception about the usefulness of having activities
related to coordinated governance of transboundary fish stocks, I analyzed the data
collected from ‘Your Great Lakes Committee’ section that is related to perception of the
value of attending committee meetings and information learned during the meetings. To
more specifically assess respondents’ perceptions about the usefulness and effectiveness
of the Joint Strategic Plan and GLF C organizational structure that accommodates its
implementation, 1 used data collected from the ‘Management and Enforcement of Great
Lakes Fisheries’ section that is related to multi-jurisdictional management of
transboundary fish stocks in the Great Lakes and the perceived function and effectiveness
of GLFC-institution’s components. Lastly, to obtain specific information about
respondents’ perception of governance of transboundary lake sturgeon stocks in the Great
Lakes, I analyzed data from the ‘Great Lakes Lake Sturgeon’ section which collected
data on respondents’ perception of the need for coordinated governance and the
effectiveness of the Joint Strategic Plan and its implementation through the GLFC
organizational structure as related to management of lake sturgeon (Table 7).

To collect the social network data required to depict the social ties among
respondents, as well as with other participants of the Joint Strategic Plan, I used

information from Part two of the survey. Part two asked questions about who the

141

respondent knew, which identified the individuals that were part of the respondent’s
social network. The respondent was asked to select names from eight name rosters
compiled from the list of individuals selected to participate in the survey. The list of
individuals was divided into the eight rosters based on which Joint Strategic Plan related
Agency-Appointed committee, or other group involved in the implementation of the Joint
Strategic Plan, that they were members of or had attended its meetings between 2000 and
2005. The rosters consisted of:

o GLFC Commissioners, Secretariat, and Advisors (GLFC-Core)

0 Council of Great Lakes Fishery Agencies and Council of Lake Committees

(GLFC-Committees)

0 Law Enforcement Committee (LAW)
0 Lake Ontario Committee (LOC)

0 Lake Erie Committee (LEC)

0 Lake Michigan Committee (LMC)

0 Lake Huron Committee (LHC)

0 Lake Superior Committee (LSC)

There were redundancies among these rosters, as many individuals belonged to
more than one committee, and thus, were listed on more than one roster. I chose to keep
this redundancy due to the possibility that respondents would search for a given
individual based on the roster, i.e., committee meetings or GLFC related group, which
they associated with that individual. The rosters consisted of 82, 50, 61, 109, 51, 96, 75,
64 (total 588) names, respectively for GLFC-Core, GLFC-Committees, LAW, LOC,

LEC, LMC, LHC, and LSC. When omitting redundancies (160 instances of repeats) the

142

combined rosters consisted of 428 unique names from which respondents could select
who they knew and with whom they shared information.

Respondents provided information about who they knew from the names listed in
all of the eight rosters (GLFC-Core, GLFC-Committees, LAW, LOC, LEC, LMC, LHC,
and LSC). Respondent were asked to select up to 10-individuals per roster for which to
provide more detailed information on their social ties, although respondents could
provide information for more than lO—individuals if they chose to do so. Respondents
were asked to provided additional information about their social ties with individuals by
selecting the best answer choice provided regarding frequency of interactions during the
last 12-months, how long they have known the individuals, how much they value the
fisheries information gained from discussions with each individual, and what percentage
of their discussions pertained to lake sturgeon.

To verify that most of the individuals with which a respondent interacted for these
issues were listed in the rosters in Part Two, I asked in the section ‘You, Your
Committee, and Your Organization’ and ‘Great Lakes Lake Sturgeon’ of Part One of the
survey, that respondents write the names and affiliation of the top five individuals with
whom they have discussions on Great Lakes fisheries and with whom they have
discussions on lake sturgeon, respectively. This allowed me to verify that most of the
individuals that the respondents engaged with for these types of discussions were

available for respondents to select from the rosters.

143

Table 7: Information regarding respondents’ perceptions towards activities related to
coordinated governance of transboundary fish stocks, the effectiveness of A Joint
Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries and its implementation through
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission organizational structure.

Coordinated governance of transboundary fish stocks.

0 Value of attending meetings for learning new information through interactions during the
informal portions such as organized coffee breaks and socials.

0 Value of attending meetings for learning new information through interactions during the
formal portions such as presentations.

0 Usefulness of information learned through interactions during informal versus formal
portions of meetings.

0 Value of knowing about current Great Lakes fisheries issues occurring outside of their
jurisdictional responsibilities.

Value of having interactions with fisheries biologists from other jurisdictions.
Value of having interactions with fisheries law enforcement officers from other
jurisdictions.

A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, its implementing

Committees and objectives, as well as the structure facilitating its implementation

0 Amount of unijurisdictional versus multijurisdictional management needed to assure
sustainability of Great Lakes fisheries.

0 How you perceive the committee balances unijurisdictional with lake-wide perspectives
when deciding fisheries issues.

0 How important is your Great Lake committee’s role in assuring sustainability of lake-
wide fisheries.

o How effective is your committee in achieving inter-jurisdictional cooperation among
participants.

0 How effective is the Joint Strategic Plan in achieving inter-jurisdictional coordinated
fishery management in the Great Lakes?

0 How valuable is the combined role of the boards, committees, and partners under the
GLF C organizational structure in assuring sustainability of Great Lakes shared fisheries.

o How effective are Fish Community Objectives as a tool for guiding the committee’s
effort in achieving its desired fish community structure.

Coordinated governance of transboundary lake sturgeon stocks and related topics.

0 Amount of unijurisdictional versus multijurisdictional management needed to assure
sustainability of Great Lakes lake sturgeon fishegi.

o How would you describe the status of Great Lakes lake sturgeon population found within
your committee’s jurisdiction?

0 In your opinion, what amount of effort would be needed to rehabilitate threatened
/endangered lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes.

What priority level is given by your committee to lake sturgeon fishery.
How would you qualify the priority level given by your committee to lake sturgeon
fishery.

o What priority level is given by your organization to Great Lakes lake sturgeon fishery.
How would you qualify the priority level given by your organization to lake sturgeon
fishery.

0 What percentage of your work involves lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

144

Analysis of Respondents ’ Attributes and Perceptions
Respondent Attributes

I collected information about the respondents’ personal attributes for two reasons.
The first was to assess whether the respondents were representative of the Joint Strategic
Plan participants, and therefore, the data collected can be assumed to be representative of
the Joint Strategic Plan participants. Second, to provide information that may serve to
explain the existence of subgroups, if any are detected, within the social network
structure.

I calculated the percentage of responses selected by respondents with respect to
attribute related questions (Table 6). These included gender, age, level of education,
employer type, race, country of residence, years associated with the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission and related institutions, and membership of participants in the Joint
Strategic Plan or other Great Lakes Fishery Commission group. Membership to Joint
Strategic Plan or Great Lakes Fishery Commission group such as Advisor,
Commissioner, and Secretariat Staff was assigned based on the respondent holding an
official position within the committee or group, or by the respondent self-assigning him
or herself to a group within the survey. Whether the respondents’ distribution in terms of
their gender, age class, and race was representative of the actual participants was based
on my personal observation of participants attending Agency-Appointed committee
meetings and GLFC annual meetings between 2003 and 2006. The attribute information
was also used to determine whether significant social network subgroups detected to be

significant (described below) different based on their attributes.

145

A Kruskall-Wallace analysis (Sheskin 2007) using SAS (SAS 2003) was used to
determine any significant difference between members of significant subgroups with
respect to their attributes (Table 6). This non-parametric test was used due to the
categorical nature of the data (Sheskin 2007). For significant differences, I then tested
which pairs of subgroups differed significantly from each other using the Scheffé test on
the ranked data (Sheskin 2007) using SAS (SAS Institute 2003). This test adjusts the p-
value for the total number of pairwise comparisons. This analysis was undertaken to
determine which pairs of subgroups differed in their members’ attributes. The mean,
standard deviation, and median value of answers were reported in the results. All three
values were reported for information purposes although the mean value is generally used

for reporting results on interval or ratio data and not categorical data (Sheskin 2007).

Respondent Perception to Coordingted Govemgnce of Grth Lakes Trgnsboundarv Fish
Stocks and Transboundary Lake Stuggeon Stocks

I determined the majority, based on percentage per answer choice, of respondents’
perception about coordinated governance for transboundary fish stocks, such as valuing
information exchanges with fishery professionals from other jurisdictions. As well as
about the effectiveness or value of their committee, the Joint Strategic Plan, and the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission’s boards and committees in coordinating governance of Great
Lakes fish stocks and assuring sustainability of transboundary fish stocks (see Table 7 for
more details on questions, and Appendix D). I also calculated the percentage of responses
selected for each answer choice provided for questions related to coordinated governance

of transboundary fish stocks in general as well as specifically for transboundary lake

146

sturgeon stocks (see Table 7 for details) to determine which response was selected by the
majority of respondents. This provided a basic understanding of the perceptions about the
value or need for coordinated governance for transboundary fish stocks, as well as
whether differences in perceptions may contribute to the formation of subgroups within
the social network structure, if any significant subgroups were detected.

For significant social network subgroups, as detected by the methods described in
the next section, I conducted a Kruskall-Wallace analysis (Sheskin 2007) using SAS
(SAS 2003) to determine significant difference between members of the subgroups with
respect to their perceptions about coordinated governance of transboundary fish stocks
and of transboundary lake sturgeon stocks (question topics outlined in Table 7). This non-
parametric test was used due to the categorical nature of the data (Sheskin 2007). I then
tested which pairs of subgroups differed significantly using the Scheffé test on the ranked
data (Sheskin 2007) using SAS (SAS Institute 2003). This test adjusts the p-value for the
total number of pairwise comparisons. This analysis was done to determine if social
network subgroups differed in their members’ perceptions. The mean, standard deviation,
and median value of answers were reported in the results. All three values were reported
for information purposes although the mean value is generally used for reporting results

on interval or ratio data and not categorical data (Sheskin 2007).

Analysis of Significant Social Network Subgroups
I constructed the social network structure for the respondents based on two
different types of information exchange, general information about Great Lakes fish

stocks, Fish Stocks Information Exchange, and information on lake sturgeon stocks, Lake

147

Sturgeon Information Exchange. 1 selected these two different types of information
exchange from which to construct social networks for the following reasons. Using the
flow of general Great Lakes fish stocks information revealed the social ties respondents
utilized to access any fish stock information of interest to them. Using the flow of
information pertaining to lake sturgeon showed how respondents may alter their social
ties to access specific Joint Strategic Plan participants they perceived as having the lake
sturgeon information that they seek, i.e., participants that work on lake sturgeon or have
other related expertise. The use of two different types of information, Fish stocks and
lake sturgeon, should reveal two different social network structures (Bolland and Wilson
1994, F oster-F ishman et al. 2001).

I depicted, using a sociogram, the social network structure of respondents based
on these two different types of information exchange, Fish Stocks Information Exchange
and Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange. If significant subgroups were detected, I
examined how respondents aligned in those different subgroups, based on their attributes
and perceptions towards governance of transboundary fish stocks.

The analysis for significant subgroups was conducted on the weighted social ties
among individuals. To weight the social ties among individuals in the Fish Stocks
Information Exchange, I used the frequency of interactions within a 12-month period as
the weight for their social ties. The five answer choices for frequency of interactions from
which respondents could select consisted of: ‘ 1-3 times a year’, ‘4-6 times a year’, ‘ 1-3
times a week’, ‘daily’ or ‘no interactions’. These categories of frequency of interactions
were converted to a numeric frequency of interaction consisting of, respectively, 2, 5, 52,

and 260 days. For the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange, I used as weight for the

148

social ties the frequency of interaction during a twelve-month period (2, 5, 52, and 260
days as described above) multiplied by the proportion of their conversation about lake
sturgeon. I used numerical value to correspond to each answer choice regarding
proportion of their conversation pertaining to lake sturgeon:

‘none of my discussions’ = 0%;

‘few’ = 16.7%

‘less than half = 33.4% ;

‘about half’ = 50%;

‘more than half’ = 66.7%;

‘almost all’= 83.4%; and,

‘all of my discussions’ = 100%.
For respondents that reported having none of their discussions with a given person
pertaining to lake sturgeon, that pair of interactions was omitted from the network.
I used the program KliqueFinder (Frank 1995, 1996) to identify potential social network
subgroups within the Fish Stocks Information Exchange network data and Lake Sturgeon
Information Exchange network data collected in Part Two of the survey. KliqueFinder
has two limitations that needed to be addressed when calculating the weights of social
ties; (l) sensitivity to extreme weights, and (2) weights need to be integers. The weights
for the two information networks were log-transforrned to avoid the undesirable influence
of extreme weights on the KliqueFinder program (Dr. Ken Frank, Measurement and
Quantitative Methods Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education and
the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, personal

communication). Furthermore, due to the restriction of the KliqueFinder program to use

149

whole integers (Dr. Ken Frank, Measurement and Quantitative Methods Counseling,
Educational Psychology and Special Education and the Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife, Michigan State University, personal communication), I multiplied the log-
transforrned value by ten to capture the first decimal as part of the whole integer number
for the weight. This multiplication was needed, otherwise the majority of the weights
would be interpreted by KliqueFinder as being the same due to the log-transforrned
interaction weights all starting with the value of ‘1’.

The KliqueFinder program iteratively assigns individuals to subgroups until it
maximizes the occurrence of weighted social ties within subgroups versus between
subgroups. The program uses odd ratios to maximize the odds that weighted social ties
are occurring among individuals within subgroups versus between subgroups. Hence,
KliqueFinder maximizes the occurrence of A and D (Equation 1; for more detail see
Krause et al. 2003; Krause 2004). The odds ratios being calculated are described in

Equation 1.

Equation 1: [(A*D)/(B*C)] where:
A=individuals without social ties are in different subgroups;
B=individuals without social ties are in the same subgroups;
C=individuals with social ties are in different subgroups; and

D=individuals with social ties are in the same subgroups.

Once KliqueFinder identifies subgroups among respondents, using the same

weights of social ties, I ran a Monte-Carlo simulation 500 times to detect whether the

150

subgroups identified by KliqueFinder were significantly different from random at the
alpha value of 0.05 (Dr. Ann Krause, Department of Environmental Sciences, University
of Toledo, Personal Communication). In this Monte-Carlo simulation I kept the number
of social ties per respondent constant so that the simulation and the original data had the
same total number of respondents, same number of social ties per respondent, and same
total number of social ties. The KliqueFinder program then calculated the odds ratio for
each of the 500 simulations. These odds ratios provided a sampling distribution that
compared to the original data’s odd ratio for significance. I performed the above analysis
to detect network subgroups and to test for the significance (alpha=0.05) of these
subgroups for both the General Fish Stocks Information Exchanges and the Lake
Sturgeon Information Exchanges network.

Using the SAS program’s GPLOT procedure (SAS Institute 2003) I generated a
figure, called a sociogram, illustrating the location of individuals and their subgroups
within the Fish Stocks Information Exchange network and for the Lake Sturgeon
Information Exchange network (Frank and Yasumoto 1998). This sociogram illustrates
the location, with respect to others, of individuals within a network subgroup as well as
where each subgroup is located with respect to others. The further individuals and
subgroups are from the others the weaker the tie connecting them. The location, which is
defined by both dimension and coordinate, of individuals and groups was determined by
using a nested multidimensional scaling using the weighted social ties density within and

between subgroups (Frank 1996, Krause 2004).

151

Social Network E venness of Information Flow and Density of Social Ties

The flow of information resources within a network depends on the actual number
of social ties between individuals in the network, as well as on the weight of these social
ties. To understand how information flows through the Fish Stocks Information Exchange
network and Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network, I calculated the Evenness of
Information Flow measures (Krause 2004, Krause and Frank in prep, Krause et al.
submitted). These measures are based on the original equations of the Shannon measures
that describe flow of information, based on having directional and weighted flows, along
communication pathways (Shannon 1948, Krause 2004, Krause and Frank in prep.,
Krause et al. submitted).

Evenness of Information Flow measures provides insight on how evenly
distributed is the probabilities of resource flow based on the weights of the social ties
within a network (Krause and Frank in prep.) The probabilities of resource flow, such as
flow of information, is used to assess the evenness of distribution for weighted social ties
within the network for all pairs of respondents and the individuals with whom they
interact within a network, referred to as chosen, H(x,y), as well as the flow along
weighted social ties across all respondents, H(x), and along weighted social ties across all
chosen, H(y). These measures facilitate understanding if the information within the
network flows evenly across all social ties or if the information flow is dominated by
certain respondents and chosen (Figure 8). The flow of information based on the weight
of social ties, for instance, can be evenly distributed among all social ties within the
network (Figure 8, Network A) or may be dominated by certain social ties (Figure 8,

Network B). The interpretation of information from the evenness of flow measures also

152

allows for assessing the density of ties within the network. If there are few weighted
social ties in the network, then the density of ties is low and there is indication for
specialization within the network, meaning that the information flows along specific of

social ties.

 

Network A Network B

Figure 8: Illustrating the flow of information through two different network structures
(simplified from illustration in Krause and Frank in prep). Network A illustrates an even
flow of information within the network, as the weight of social ties is the same among all
individuals (same thickness of line). Network B illustrates an uneven flow of information,
with one social tie being thicker and dominating the flow of information. The thicker
social tie in Network B, in this scenario, also indicates that the flow of information is
specialized between that respondent and the chosen receiving the information, as that
chosen receives all his/her information from that respondent.

In calculating the Evenness of Information Flow measures I used the same
weighted social ties used in defining the social network structure for the Fish Stocks
Information Exchange network and Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network. To
calculate the Evenness of Information Flow measures based on weighted social ties I
used Equation 2, which was then normalized, per Krause and Frank (in prep., Krause et
al. submitted), by taking the exponential value of H(x,y), natural logarithmic, and

dividing by the actual number of weighted social ties in the network. Hence, the

normalized H(x,y) is now a proportion with values ranging from zero to one, with values

153

closer to one indicating a more evenly distributed flow of information in the network.
When the value is close to one this indicates an evenly distributed flow, because the flow
of information is occurring through all possible social ties in the network, hence, the flow

of information is not being dominated by any respondents or chosen.

Equation 2: Evenness of Information Flow measure for entire network

H(x,y>=—2p(i,j>logp(i,j>

i,j

. . _ wi,j
Where [309]) — :7—

i,j

i,j

H(x,y) is the measure of the evenness in the probabilities of the joint
events (i,j) across all pairs of respondent (x) and chosen (y) with a

weighted social tie.

P(i, j) is the evenness of probabilities of the information flow between
pairs of respondents (i) and chosen (j) in a network that are linked by a

weighted social tie.

Wi,j is the weight of social ties for each pair of linked respondents (i)-

chosen 0) in the network.

To gain more detailed insight on the flow of information I used Shannon’s

modification of Equation 2 to calculate the evenness in the probabilities of information

154

flow across respondents (Equation 3) and the evenness in the probabilities of information
flowing across chosen (Equation 4; see Krause and Frank in prep., Krause et al.
submitted for more details on the equation). Both of these measures were also normalized
as described for H(x,y) above, except that instead of dividing by the total number of
weighted social ties in the network, measures from Equations 2 and 3 were divided by the
total number of respondents and chosen with weighted social ties in the network,
respectively. For these measures, Equation 3 and 4, values close to one indicate a more

even flow of information across respondents and chosen, respectively.

Equation 3: Evenness of Information Flow measure across all respondents in the

social network.

H (X) = -_Z p(i,j) logzmw)

. . _ wi,j
Where p(19])_zw

i,j

i,j

H(x) is the measure of the evenness in the probabilities associated with

all respondents (x).

P(i, j) is the evenness of probabilities of the information flow between

pairs of respondents (i) and chosen (j).

Wi,j is the weight of social ties for a given social network for each pair

of respondents (i) —chosen (j).

155

Equation 4: Evenness of Information Flow measure across all chosen in the

social network.

H(y) = ~ch.1°>log2p(i.j)

i,j i
W. .
. . _ 1,}
p03!)—
Where E w..
l,j
i,j

H(y) is the measure of the evenness of the probabilities associated with

all chosen (y).

P(i, j) is the evenness of probabilities of the information flow between

pairs of respondents (i) and chosen (j).

Wi,j is the weight of social ties for a given social network for each pair

of respondents-chosen.

I also calculated a measure of Density, which assesses how dense the social ties
are in the network, using the Evenness of Information Flow measures from equations two
to four, (Equation 5; Krause and Frank in prep., Krause et al. submitted). If the value for
the density of social ties in the network, Density measure, is close to zero then the flow of
information, as based on the weight of social ties, is specialized to flow through a specific
social ties within the network, meaning that information from a respondent always flows

to a specific chosen. If the value for the Density measure is close to one, this is

156

interpreted as meaning that the flow of information within the network is fairly evenly
distributed across the social ties, the information is more random in terms of which ties it
flows through and, hence, is not specialized to flow between a given respondent and

chosen.

Equation 5: Density measure for the entire network

eXPUUIOCJ)--[1‘1l(x)+ H (y)]}

H(x,y) is the measure of the evenness in the probabilities of the joint
events (i,j) across all pairs of respondent (x) and chosen (y) with a
weighted social tie. H(x) is the measure of the evenness in the
probabilities associated with all respondents (x). H(y) is the measure
of the evenness of the probabilities associated with all chosen (y).

Consult Equations 2, 3, and 4 for H(x,y), H(x) and H(y) calculations.

The Evenness of Flow of Information measures and the Density measure,
Equations 2 to 5, were also calculated for significant subgroups detected within a social
network. This allowed for increased understanding of the evenness of the distribution
flow of information, such as whether the flow is evenly distributed or dominated and
whether it is random or specialized, across the weighted social ties within each of the

subgroups.

157

In interpreting the measures of Evenness of Flow of Information across social ties
within the network, across respondents, and across chosen, as well as the interpretation of
the density of social ties within the network, Density measure, the potential stability of
the network, i.e., resistance to disturbance (Krause and Frank in prep.) can be assessed.
Basing the assessment of network stability on indicators used in an ecological system
(McCann 2000, Krause and Frank in prep.) I would expect that a network that had
evenness of measures nearer to one versus nearer to zero would be more resilient to
disturbances as many pathways to access information is available, i.e., there are no
individuals dominating the flow of information. To be an efficient network, however,
there also needs to be a level of specialization in the flow of information between
respondents and chosen, so that the network is not inefficient due to excess amounts of
redundancies. The ideal balance between having a stable network with multiple pathways
to access information and being efficient by having some level of specialization in the
flow of information among respondents and chosen is, however, not explicitly defined.
Thus, Evenness of Flow measures and Density measure can only be used at this time to

conjecture at the potential resilience and efficiency of the social network structure.

Results
Survey Response Rate

I invited 423 individuals to participate in my survey. The number of respondents
that started and completed the last section of Part One of the survey was 299 individuals

(70.7% response rate). As respondents were allowed to skip questions if they did not

158

know the answer or did not want to provide an answer in Part One of the survey, the total
number of responses per questions was fewer than 299 for some questions.

The response rate for Part Two of the survey, which consisted of the eight rosters
and questions related to the respondents’ social ties with the individuals they knew from
each roster, was slightly lower than in Part One, with 277 respondents providing
information about their social ties, a 65.5% response rate. The information about social
ties was used in determining the Fish Stocks Information Exchange network. All but one
of these individuals, 276 respondents, provided information on sturgeon related social

ties, which was used for determining the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network.

Analysis of Respondents ’ Attributes and Perceptions
Respondent Attribms

Among respondents that provided information to the attribute questions in Part
One, 76.3% reside in the USA, 23.3% reside in Canada, and fewer than 1% currently
reside outside of North America (N =266). The majority of respondents were over the age
of 45 (64%, N=264; Figure 9), white and male (94. 8% white, N=251; 88.3% males,
N=265; Figure 10). Most respondents had a graduate degree (65.5%, N=264; Figure 11),
employed by a government agency (66.9%, N=299; Figure 12), and had been involved
with the Great Lake Fishery Commission and related committees and boards for more

than 6 years (70%, N=253; Figure 13).

159

0%

23%

 

I < 25 years [I 25-34 years 35-44 years

45-59 years E > 60 years

Figure 9: Pie chart illustrating the percentage of respondents being of a certain age
category.

160

% .m

M., m

/. D .m m

m

/ .m m m

m m .Na m
/7// . D B m.
M\ I m
m\// m g
/ m m

m m m

I H mm

mm

//

0
3% (<4 -/4%

8%

20%

 

 

l GED E3 High School [1 College
I Bachelor Master E PhD
Other

Figure 11: Pie charts illustrating the percentage of respondents having a certain level of
education.

162

2%
4%
(ll/ll/I/l/I/I/I/
4% EZZZZ?”””’”
3 %

Federal agency,
29%
E State agency, 26%

Provincial agency,
1 4%

I Tribal agency, 3%

 

2%

6%

355% //

Commercial I Public outreach, 1%
fishing. 4%
Recreational E] Binational, 6%

fishing. 4%
E Stakeholder, 2% El Other, 2%

1111 Academic, 9%

Figure 12: Pie charts illustrating the percentage of respondents employed by a given

employer type.

163

4%

26%

 

47%

23%
l 0 to 1 year I 6 to 10 years
1:] 2 to 5 year More than 10 years

Figure 13: Pie charts illustrating the percentage of respondents that have been associated
with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and related committees and boards for a given
range of years.

Respondent Perception Towards Coordinated Governance of Great Lakes Transboundgy

Fish Stocks and Transboundm Lake Sturgeon Stocks

The majority of survey respondents reported that they ‘frequently’ or ‘always

learned’ new information, generally related to Great Lakes fish stocks, during both the

164

formal (91.6%, N=262) and informal (85.7%, N=287) portions of committee meetings.
When comparing how respondents perceived the usefulness of the information they
learned during informal and formal portions of the committee meetings, the majority
found the information from either forum to be ‘equally important’, 72.8% (N=283).

Respondents generally placed a ‘moderate to high’ value, 95.7% (N=186) in
knowing about fisheries issues occurring in Great Lakes external to their employment-
based jurisdictional responsibilities. This was similar to respondents’ ‘moderate to high’
valuation of interacting with fisheries biologists from other jurisdictions (91.5%, N=296).
When assigning a value to interacting with fisheries law enforcement officers from other
jurisdictions, 69.1% placed a ‘low to moderate’ value to this type of interaction (N=296).
This may be related to having a low proportion of respondents being involved in fisheries
related law enforcement activities: only 12% of respondents identified with the Law
Enforcement Committee and its subcommittees; 12% stated that their job involved
harvest regulations while 16% said their job involved fisheries regulations, no
differentiation was made as to whether this involved developing or implementing
regulations.

The majority of respondents perceived the need for a ‘mostly’ or ‘only’
transboundary approach to management to assure the sustainability” of shared16 fish
stocks in the Great Lakes (53.5% and 9.3% respectively, N=269, Figure 11). When asked

the same question for lake sturgeon management, there was a very slight, non-significant

 

’5 Sustainability was defined within the survey instrument (Appendix D) for respondents
as “. .. using a fishery resource, and the ecosystem that supports the fishery resource, in
such a way to assure that the fishery maintains a healthy population size”

'6 Shared was defined within the survey instrument (Appendix D) for respondents as
“[crossing] jurisdictional boundaries, thus having more than one jurisdiction with
management and enforcement authority ...”

165

shift from perceiving a need for ‘mostly’ to a need for ‘only’ transboundary management

approach among respondents (48.3%, and 12.4% respectively, N=267, Figure 14).

 

 

 

     

 

sf, 6O
3
c: 50 i
or
E 40
o
8
8 30
“5 20
El
8 10 I
H
5‘: o I F. r I
' "-3 :15 m 3
g b g: H i3
‘53 El .29 .29 ’5
a ° s s s a
O E 8: 2 -8
V3 I—I
0'8
‘5
c,\"
0
V5
[:1 Great Lakes fish stocks I Lake sturgeon

Figure 14: Percent of respondents that perceive the need for a unijurisdictional (uni. )
management approach versus a transboundary (trans. ) management approach to assure
the sustainability of transboundary fish stocks and of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes.
The perception of respondents towards their committee’s role in governance of
transboundary Great Lakes fish stocks, were generally positive with 90.1% of
respondents perceiving their committee as having a ‘moderate to high’ level of

importance in assuring sustainability of shared fish stocks (N=l 83). The majority of

respondents also perceived their committee as being effective in achieving inter-

166

jurisdictional cooperation among participants (55.8% moderately effective and 14.9%
completely effective, the two highest level of effectiveness that respondents could select,
N=181). Respondents, however, seemed to be less consistent in how they perceive their
committee balancing the perspectives of individual jurisdictions with the committee
(lake-wide) perspectives when making decisions on fisheries related issues; with only
35.9% (N=l 84) of respondents perceiving their committee making decisions based on the
committee-wide perspective of a fishery related issues rather than an individual
jurisdiction’s perspective on a fishery issue (Figure 15).

Respondents’ in general perceived the effectiveness'7 of A Joint Strategic Plan
for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries to be ‘moderately’ effective in achieving inter-
jurisdictional coordinated fishery management in the Great Lakes (52.1%, N=267; Figure
13). Similarly, respondents perceived the effectiveness of their committee’s Fish
Community Objectives to achieve desired fish community structure as being moderately
effective (53.7%, N=216; Figure 16). Respondents had a stronger positive perception of
the value of Great Lakes Fishery Commission and its related boards, committees, and
partners in assuring the sustainability of shared Great Lakes fish stocks, with 86.3%

assigning a moderate to high value of which 46.7% assigned a high value (N=270)

 

'7 The term ‘effectively’ in this chapter is used as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

defines the word ‘effective’, “producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect (Merriam-
Webster 1974).

167

 

 

1% '”“““ ”'"16%
..lliiii i” 47%

I 100% committee and 0% individual jurisdictions

 

 

 

 

 

 

E 80% committee

60% committee

Ill} 50% committee and 50% individual jurisdictions
El 60% individual jurisdictions

E] 80% individual jurisdictions

I 100% individual jurisdictions

I do not know

Figure 15: Percent of respondents that perceive their committee as balancing the
committee’s, or lake-wide, perspective versus the individual jurisdictions’ perspective
when making a decision on fisheries issues. Respondents could select from an answer
scale starting with decisions made by their committee being based 100% on the
committee’s perspective to being based 100% on individual jurisdiction’s perspective.

168

60.

40‘
30'

10

 

 

 

I

 

 

Percent of respondents (%)

Completely ineffective
Moderately Ineffective
Mildly ineffective
Mildly effective
Moderately effective
Completely effective

I do not know

1:] A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries

I Fish Community Objectives

Figure 16: Respondents’ perception on the effectiveness of A Joint Strategic Plan for
Management of Great Lakes Fisheries in achieving inter-jurisdictional coordinated
fishery management in the Great Lakes are presented as percentage per answer choice
(white bars). Respondents’ perception on the effectiveness of their committee’s Fish
Community Objectives in attaining the desired fish community structure is presented as a
percentage per answer choice (dark bars).

On average, respondents perceived that the lake sturgeon stocks (or population(s)
as used in the survey question) within the jurisdiction of their committee to be threatened
(51.1%) with the next most frequently selected category of status being ‘Moderate,

healthy population, that can support a limited recreational and/or commercial harvest’

(20.7%, N=218; Figure 17). Respondents, 71.7%, perceived that a ‘high’ to ‘an incredible

169

high amount’ of effort would be needed to rehabilitate threatened and endangered lake
sturgeon populations in the Great Lakes (N=218). The majority of respondents stated that
lake sturgeon were not part of their work (33.9%) or consisted of less than 10% of their
work (50%, N=304). Only 2.9% of respondents reported that 50% or more of their work
(i.e., enforcement, policy, management, research, outreach) consisted of lake sturgeon
related work.

When asked what priority level they perceived their committee and their
organization as assigning to lake sturgeon fishery issues, only 21% (N=303) of the
respondents selected ‘moderately high’ for their committee, and only 21.5% (N=303)
selected ‘moderately high’ for their organization (Figure 17). When asked how they
would qualify the priority level assigned by their committee and organization to lake
sturgeon, in terms of being sufficient or not, responses were highly variable with the
‘some what high’ (21.1%, N=328) choice for their committee, and ‘high’ choice for their
organization being the categories selected most frequently (16.5%, N=303), although by a
small subset of the respondents (Figure 18). For both committee and organization many
respondents did not believe that they knew the priority level assigned to lake sturgeon
(14.1% and 12.7%, respectively, Figure 18) or how they would qualify that level in terms

of being adequate or inadequate (28.8% and 32.9%, respectively, Figure 19).

170

2%

 

21% 51%
I Extirpated El Endangered
Threatened Moderate, healthy population

[3 Large, healthy population I do not know

Figure 17: Respondent’s perception of lake sturgeon population status within their
committee’s jurisdiction. Percentage of respondents selecting each answer choice is
shown.

171

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

’3
o\20
\uv _'
If.
C
“315
G ..
O
c:
3
II-I
[HID-
O
a.»
5
05
H I
a)
9..
0
..c: .I: .c:
3‘ 3‘ 3" .2.» 2: on?
g 3 E “c 0 cu o
E "" =1 Iii > E
a) E 2 5 o
'o rt: 1:
o o ,_.
E 2

I] Committee’s priority level I Organization’s priority level

Figure 18: The priority level that respondents perceive is given by their lake committee
and their organization, dark bars, to lake sturgeon related issues, white bars.

172

35 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$30-

:2

525-

'8

020'

9: r
815
“5101

E

'1
3:0 . .

   

Low N
High

Too low

a
.c:
o
o
E-I

Somewhat low
Somewhat high
I do not know

I] Qualify Committee’s I Qualify Organization’s
priority level priority level

Figure 19: How respondents perceive the adequacy of the priority level that they
perceive is given by their lake committee, white bars, and their organization, dark bars, to
lake sturgeon related issues.
Analysis of Significant Social Network Subgroups

To be confident that most individuals involved in the two information exchange
networks (1) General Fish Stock Information Exchange network, and (2) Lake Sturgeon
Information Exchange network, are included in the eight rosters, I compared the roster
names to the names provided by respondents in Part One of the survey. In Part One of the

survey, I asked the respondents to list up to five names of people, either internal or

external to the Great Lakes Agency-Appointed committees, with whom they discuss

173

important Great Lakes fishery issues, and five names of people with whom they discuss
Great Lakes lake sturgeon issues. The combined names obtained from Part One matched
the names provided in the rosters, with the exception of 10 names. These 10 names
represented individuals from private organizations, universities, agencies at the federal,
provincial and state level, among which five where located outside Great Lakes political
jurisdictions. Hence, of the 428 unique names provided in the rosters, only 10 additional
names were provided from the open-ended network question, representing 2.1%. With
this information, I was confident that almost all (~98%) individuals involved in these two

information exchange networks are listed in the eight rosters.

Fish Stocks Information Emange Network

A total of 276 respondents provided social tie information based on their
frequency of interactions with a total of 401 individuals. This provided information on
the social ties pertaining to exchange of information related to general Great Lakes fish
stocks for a total network size of 455 unique individuals, with a total of 274 of the 276
respondents actual making a weighted connection with others. Each respondent provided
information for a different total number of individuals (median=46 individuals, min-max
range of 1-202 individuals), which was used to weight their social tie with these
individuals.

The KliqueFinder program (Frank 1995, 1996) identified 14 separate subgroups,
ranging from 21 to 46 individuals, in the Fish Stocks Information Exchange network,
based on using the frequency of interaction over 12-months as the weights for the social

ties linking individuals (Figure 17). These subgroups, however, were found to be

174

insignificantly different from random assignment, based on a alpha-value of 0.05

(anetwoflfil .2098; total number of simulated runs with Gsimulated < enemork =114; p-

value==[number of esimulated < enetwork / total number of simulated

runs]=114/500=0.228) when compared to the Monte-Carlos simulated distribution based
on 500 simulations. Hence, the social network structure based on the flow of information
pertaining to general Great Lakes fish stocks issues of interest to participants is well

integrated, i.e., not subdivided into subgroups.

175

 

1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100

—-—-\--‘-P 'd' ‘-‘ "'-"‘.I . - ‘ :'.
,-o::'r'_:- ..:."“'-
.'

{1'5" _

mi
it

I

-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
-700
-800
-900
-1000
-1100
-1200
—1300
-1400
-1500

-,f’!:;;.,
'.-"”

 

 

 

 

O O O
O O O
N V \O

-1000
-800
-600
400
-200

800
umo

Figure 20: Sociogram for the Fish Stocks Information Exchange network, depicting flow
of information (lines) among individuals. A total of 276 respondents provided
information, of which 274 made weighted connections with others in the network. There
are a total of 455 unique individuals in this network. Distances between individual are
interpreted relative to one another and are unit-less.

176

L_a_1_ke Sturgeon Information Exchange Network

A total of 274 respondents provided information about their interaction with
selected individuals from the rosters and the percentage of their conversations with these
individuals that pertained to lake sturgeon, which was used to weight the social ties
between respondents and the individuals selected from the rosters. Among these 274
respondents, 234 actually made weighted connections with others in the network. The
respondents selected a total of 399 individuals listed on the eight rosters, for a total
network size of 366 unique individuals. The number of individuals selected by
respondents varied but this does not affect how individuals are assigned to subgroups, if
significant subgroups are found within the network (median 34.5 individuals, min-max of
1-1 83 individuals).

The KliqueFinder program (Frank 1995, 1996) identified 12 separate subgroups,
ranging from 23 to 59 individuals, based on the weights of social ties linking individuals
(Figure 18 and 19). Unlike the General Fish Stock Information Exchange network’s

subgroups, these subgroups were found to be significantly different from random

assignment based on a alpha-value of 0.05, (enetwork=1-2433; total simulated runs with

6simulated < 6network :33 p-value= p-value=[number 0f 9simulated < enetwork / total

number of simulated runs]=3/500=0.006), when compared to the Monte-Carlos simulated
distribution based on 500 simulations.

I tested whether the subgroups differed in the attributes of their members (list of
attributes tested are in Table 6). I found that the subgroups did differ significantly with

respect to employer type (Kruskall-Wallace: N=279, Chisqr=70.62, df=11, p<0. 0001)

177

and committee membership (Kruskall-Wallace: N=279, ChiSqr=64.44, df=11, p<0.0001).
I used the Scheffé test on ranked data to detect subgroup pairs that significantly differed
from each other with respect to employer type (Table 8). I found that subgroup 3 differed
significantly from several other subgroups with respect to employer type. Subgroup 3 had
as the highest percentage of employer type Binational organization (38%), which differed
from the highest percentage of employer type of subgroups 2 (73%, p=0.002), 6 (76%,
p=0.002), and 9 (90%, p<0. 001) which were federal agencies, and subgroup 8 which has
state agencies as its highest percentage of employer type (78%, p=0.04). Subgroup 9,
which had as highest percentage of employer type of federal agency (90%), differed from
subgroups 1 (61%, p=0.001) which had provincial agency, and from subgroups 10 (45%,
p=0.04) and 7 (42%, p=0.001), which had state agency as its highest percentage of
employer type state agencies.

I used the Scheffé test on ranked data to detect subgroup pairs that significantly
differed from each other with respect to committee membership (see Figure 7 illustrating
the GLF C organizational structure depicting the committees, Table 5 describing the Joint
Strategic Plan member agencies represented on the committees, and Table 9 for the
statistically significant subgroups). Subgroup 11, which had Lake Ontario Committee as
its highest percentage of committee membership (64%) differed significantly in
committee membership from subgroups 3 (57%, p<0.0001) and 6 which had as highest
percentage of committee members the ‘GLFC-Core and GLFC-Committees’ (41%,
p=0.003), and from subgroup 7 which has Lake Michigan Committee as its highest

percentage of membership (42%, p=0.001).

178

The subgroups, although some pairs significantly differed as to which employer
and committee membership dominated the subgroups, still had representation from the
different employer types and committees. This representation of different employers and
committees within a subgroup indicates that the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange
network participants are somewhat integrated and not strictly subdivided along any

particular attribute that I tested.

Table 8: Codes used to represent committee membership and employer type in the
statistical analysis. This information can be used to interpret the median value for the
results of the committee membership and employer type dominating the subgroups based
on the median values reported in Table 9 and 10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Committee membership Code Employer type Code

Lake Ontario Committee 1 Federal agency 1

Lake Erie Committee 6 State agency 2

Lake Huron Committee 14 Provincial agency 3

Lake Michigan Committee 18 Tribal/First nations 4
agengy

Lake Superior Committee 22 Commercial fishery 5
organization

Law Enforcement Committee 25 Recreational fishery 6
organization

No committee 31 Stakeholder organization 7

GLFC-core and GLFC-committees 40 Academic institution 8

Advisor 50 Public outreach 9
organization
Binational organization 10
Other 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

179

Table 9: Employer type per each subgroup. The dominating employer type, based on
frequency of occurrence (percent), within each subgroup is identified by “*”, and is
placed first with others placed in decreasing frequency of occurrence (percent). The
sample size (N), mean and stand deviation (s.d.) and the median values for each
subgroups are also provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subgroup Meanis.d. Median Employer type (percentage)

(N)

l 3.6 i 1.4 3 Provincial agency (prov.; 61%)*

(26) commercial fishery organization (commerc.;
23%), federal agency (fed.; 8%), recreational
fishery organization (recreat.; 4%), and
stakeholder organization (stakeh; 4%)

2 2.3 i 3.1 1 Federal agency* (73%)

(15) State agency (state; 13%)), Public Outreach
organization (publ.; 7%), other Q‘VQ.

3 6.7 d: 3.7 8 Binational organization (binational; 38%)*

(3 7) Academia (22%), fed. (19%), state (8%), prov.
(3%), tribal agency (tribe; 3%), recreat.(3%),
stake. (3%), other (3%).

4 3.0 $2.3 2 State agency (71%)*

(21) Fed. (5%), Prov. (5%), Recreat. (5%), Stake.
(5%), Academiu5%), Pub]. (5%)

5 3.5 :1: 2.2 3.5 Federal agency (28%)*

(18) Prov. (22%), tribe (22%), commerc. (17%),
academia (11%)

6 2.6 i: 3.1 1 Federal agency (76%)*

(17) Academia (12%), recreat. (6%), binational (6‘VQ

7 4.3 i 3.0 2 State agency (42%)*

(24) Recreat. (21%), academia (21%), fed. (12%),
other (4%L

8 1.8 :1: 0.4 2 State agency (78%)*

(14) Fed. (21%)

9 1.5 i 2.0 1 Federal agency (90%)*

(20) State (5%), binational (5%)

10 3.4 :t 2.7 2 State agency (45%)*

(44) Fed. (12%), academia (11%), tribe (9%),
recreat. (4%), prov. (2%), commerc. (2%),
stake. (2%) mibliZ%), other (2%)

11 2.8 i 1.7 3 Provincial agency (53%)*

(28) Fed. (21%), state (14%), academia (7%),
commerc. (3%)

12 3.9 :1: 3.3 2 State agency (47%)*

(15) Fed. (20%), recreat. (7%), stake. (7%),
academiei7%), pub]. (7%), other (7%)

 

 

 

 

180

 

Table 10: Committee membership per each subgroup. The dominating committee
membership, based on frequency of occurrence (percent), within each subgroup is
identified by “*”, and is placed first with others placed in decreasing frequency of
occurrence (percent). The sample size (N), mean and stand deviation (s.d.) and the
median values for each subgroups are also provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(15)

 

 

 

 

Subgroup Meani- s.d. Median Committee membership

(M

1 21.5 $ 15.6 25 Lake Erie Committee (LEC; 35%)*

(26) No committee (None; 23%), Law Enforcement
Committee (LAW; 15%), Advisor (Adv.;
11%), Lake Huron Committee (LHC; 8%),
GLFC-Core and GLFC-Committees (GLFC;
4%), Lake Ontario Committee (LOC; 4%))

2 25.4 $ 11.9 22 Lake Superior Committee (LSC; 33%)*

(15) Lake Michigan Committee (LMC; 27%), LHC
(13%), Adv. (13%), GLFC (7%), None (7%).

3 33.7 $ 9.5 40 GLFC-Core and GLFC-Committees (57%)*

(37) None ( 13%), LAW (11%), LSC (8%), LEC
(3%), Adv. (3%LLHC (3%), LMCQ%).

4 20.9 $ 15 25 Law Enforcement Committee (3 8%)*

(21) LEC (28%), LOC (9%), None (9%), Adv.
(9%), GLFC (5%).

5 23.8 $7.2 22 Lake Superior Committee (78%)*

Q8L LAW (5%), None (5%), Adv. (5%), LHC (5%)

6 30 $ 13.2 31 GLFC-Core and GLFC-Committees (41%)*

(17) None (18%), LHC (12%), LMC (12%), LOC
(6%), LSC (6%), Adv. (6%)

7 30.1 $13.8 22 Lake Michigan Committee (42%)*

(24) Adv. (25%), GLFC (12%), LSC (12%), None
E/o), LAW 9%L

8 18.7 $10.5 21 Law Enforcement Committee (36%)*

(14) LMC (28%LLOC (21%), none (14%)

9 19.6 $ 11.8 20 No committee (30%)*

(20) LMC (20%), LSC (15%), LOC (15%), LEC
(10%), LHC (5%), GLFC (5%)

10 22.9 $ 12.3 18 Lake Huron Committee (27%)*

(44) LMC (25%), none (15%), Adv. (11%), LAW
(7%), LEC (7E, LSC (4%), GLFC (2%)

11 2.8 $ 1.7 1 Lake Ontario Committee (64%)*

(28) LAW (18%), LEC (11%), None (3%), GLFC
(3%)

12 17.1 $ 17.3 6 Lake Erie Committee”

Adv., LAW, none, GLFC

 

181

 

1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100

-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
-700
-800
-900

-1000
-1100
-1200
-1300
-1400
~1500

 

 

-1000

L...—__ _ ...—._—. __.. -._$_ —- ——._—— 7 -._,._. _.____— ..__—— ——~~ » _—. _ i$_» .-.— ___.___- ..__..—_ __——. .A_———r__-_. .___.-_.._..- ..—4

 

 

O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
oo \0 T N N V \0 0o C

Figure 21: Sociogram for the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network, depicting
flow of information (lines) among the significant subgroups of individuals (circles)
identified by the KliqueFinder program. There are 366 unique individuals in this network.
A total of 274 respondents provided information, of which 234 actually made a weighted
social tie with others in the network. Distances between subgroups are to be interpreted
relative to one another and are unit-less. Subgroups A to L in the sociogram refer to
subgroups 1 to 12 in the text, respectively.

182

 

1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100

-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
-700
-800
-900
-1000
-1100
-1200
-1300
-1400
-1500

 

 

 

 

-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200

200
400
600
800
1000

Figure 22: Sociogram of within subgroups flow of information for the Lake Sturgeon
Information Exchange network. Lines depict flow of information among individuals
within the 12 subgroups (circles) as identified by the KliqueFinder program. There are a
total of 366 unique individuals in this network. Distances between subgroups are to be
interpreted relative to one another and are unit-less.

183

I also tested, using the non-parametric Kruskall-Wallace and Scheffé test for

multiple comparisons on ranked data, whether the members of the 12 subgroups differed

in their perception related to the coordinated governance of transboundary fish stocks and

lake sturgeon. I found that the subgroups significantly differed in their members’

perceptions (Table 10):

the value of the information gained from formal and informal portions of
committee meetings,

how their committee balances individual jurisdictions’ perspectives and
committee (i.e., lake-wide) perspectives when making fisheries related decision,
how they value interaction with fisheries biologists from other jurisdictions,

the status of lake sturgeon in their committee’s jurisdiction,

the adequacy of the priority level given lake sturgeon fishery issues by their
committee, and

the percentage of their work involving lake sturgeon.

These differences, however, were not significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons

using the Scheffé test on ranked data.

184

Table 11: Comparison of Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network’s subgroups’
perception to topics related to the coordination of governance of transboundary fish
stocks. Kruskall Wallace (KW) test was used to detect significant difference among all
subgroups. Non-significant differences indicated by ‘ns’.

 

 

Variable N KW df Pr > Scheffé
Chi- Chi- test
square square

How you perceive the committee balances 172 21.82 11 0.02 ns

unijurisdictional with lake-wide
perspectives when deciding fisheries issues

How would you rate the usefulness of the 266 20.09 11 0.04 ns
information you learn from the informal
versus formal portions of the committee
meetings

 

 

Value assigned to having interactions 176 30.51 11 0.001 ns
between yourself and fisheries biologists
from other jurisdictions

How would you describe the current status 247 33.98 11 0.0004 us
of Great Lakes lake sturgeon population
found within your committee’s
jurisdiction?

How would you qualify the priority level 148 21.57 11 0.03 ns
given by your committee to lake sturgeon
fishery issues

What percentage of your work involves 169 30.23 11 0.001 us
Great Lakes lake sturgeon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Network E venuess of Information Flow and Density of Social Ties

I calculated the Evenness of Flow of Information measures and the Density
measure based on the weighted social ties for both the Fish Stocks Information Exchange
network (Figure 17), and Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network (Figure 18 and
19). The Fish Stocks Information Exchange network has a fairly even flow of information
associated with all pairs of respondents and chosen within the network (Normalized
H(x,y) = 0.74; Table 11), and associated with all respondents (Normalized H(x) = 0.77;
Table 11), meaning that the flow of information within the network is not dominated by

the weighted social ties of respondents-chosen pairs or by respondents’ social ties. The

185

evenness of the flow of information associated with all chosen was slightly lower, 0.66,
than for reSpondents, indicating that there may be some dominance associated with
chosen’s weighted social ties but not substantially smaller to indicate a high level of
dominance among chosen, i.e., information flow dominated to a subset of chosen. In
general, there does not appear to be any dominance of pairs, respondents, or of chosen
individuals within the network, thus information on general Great Lakes fish stocks flows
well throughout the network, i.e., not dominated by a subset of individuals. The overall
density of the network was fairly low, D=0.15, indicating that there was some amount of
specialization occurring in the flow of information within the network. As such, the
general fish information exchange network may be sufficiently resilient to disturbances,
meaning that the flow of information will not be negatively disrupted with the loss of a
few individuals, as the network is not strongly dominated by any specific individual or
pairs of individuals, nor highly specialized in its flow of information within the network.
Table 12: Evenness of Flow of Information measures and Density of social ties measure
for the Fish Stocks Information Exchange network. The evenness of information flow
based on weighted social ties for the entire network, H(x,y), across respondents, H(x),
and across chosen, H(y) is reported in the table (for calculations see equations two to four
in the methods section). The H(x,y), H(x), and H(y) values are normalized by taking the
exponential value, natural log, and dividing by the total number of social ties, number of
respondents, and number of chosen, respectively. The closer the normalized value is to
zero the less even the flow of information, meaning that the flow of information is being
dominated. The Density measure for the entire network, Density, is calculated using the
non-normalized values of H(x,y), H(x), and H(y) as described in equation five in the

methods section. The closer the Density value is to zero the less even the flow of
information, meanin the more specialized the flow.

 

 

 

 

H H H # # # N- N-Exp N- D
(x,y) (x) (y) chosen respondents social Exp [H(x)] Exp

ties [H(x,y)] {Hm}
9.04 5.36 5.58 401 276 11349 0.74 0.77 0.66 0.15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

186

The Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network had a similar trend in the
evenness of information flow to that of the Fish Stocks Information Exchange network,
although values for H(x,y) were higher and the H(x), H(y) and Density values were lower
in the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network (Table 12). Overall, a fairly even
flow of information exists across all pairs of respondents and chosen within the Lake
Sturgeon Information Exchange network (N orrnalized H(x,y) = 0.86; Table 12), and
across all respondents (Normalized H(x) = 0.68; Table 12). The evenness of the flow of
information across all chosen was slightly lower, 0.59, than for respondents, indicating
that there may be a smaller subset of chosen that dominates the flow of information
received but not substantially smaller to indicate a high level of dominance among
chosen. In general, there does not appear to be any strong dominance of pairs, or of
respondents, or of chosen within the network, hence the flow of information pertaining to
lake sturgeon is fairly evenly distributed. The overall density of social ties in the network
was fairly low, D=0.09, indicating that there is some amount of specialization occurring
in the flow of information within the network (Table 12). The Lake Sturgeon Information
Exchange network may be sufficiently resilient to disturbances, meaning that the flow of
information will not be negatively disrupted with the loss of a few individuals, as the
network is not strongly dominated by any specific individual or pairs. The low Density
value, however, indicates that some level of specialization may exist which may reduce
the redundancy in social ties within the network while maintaining a fairly even flow of

information throughout the network.

187

Table 13: Evenness of Flow of Information measures and Density of social ties measure
for the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network. The evenness of information flow
based on weighted social ties for the entire network, H(x,y), across respondents, H(x),
and across chosen, H(y) is reported in the table (for calculations see equations two to four
in the methods section). The H(x,y), H(x), and H(y) values are normalized by taking the
exponential value, natural log, and dividing by the total number of social ties, number of
respondents, and number of chosen, respectively. The closer the normalized value is to
zero the less even the flow of information, meaning that the flow of information is being
dominated. The Density measure for the entire network, Density, is calculated using the
non-normalized values of H(x,y), H(x), and H(y) as described in equation five in the
methods section. The closer the Density value is to zero the less even the flow of
information, meaning the more specialized the flow.

 

 

 

H H (x) H (y) # # # N- N- N- D
(x,y) chosen respondents social Exp Exp Exp

ties [H(XJH [H(X)l [HM]
8.14 5.12 5.37 362 247 4010 0.86 0.68 0.59 0.09

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network had significant subgroups for
which the Evenness of Flow of Information measures and Density measure based on the
weighted social ties were calculated (Table 13). In general, all subgroups had a similar
trend in the normalized values of H(x,y), H(x), and H(y) as the overall Lake Sturgeon
Information Exchange network, with a fairly even flow of information occurring across
all pairs of respondents and chosen within the sturgeon information exchange network
(Normalized H(x,y) ranges from 0.84 to 0.89; Table 13), across all respondents
(Normalized H(x) ranges 0.68 to 0.83; Table 13), and chosen (Normalized H(y) ranges
0.63 to 0.80); Table 13). In general, there does not appear to be any strong dominance of
pairs, or of respondents, or of chosen within the network. The overall density of social
ties within each subgroup networks ranged from 0.25 to 0.51, which does not indicate
any strong specialization occurring among pairs of respondents and chosen within the
network. The Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network and its subgroups may be

resilient to disturbances, meaning that the flow of information will not be negatively

188

disrupted with the lost of a few individuals, as the network is not strongly dominated by

any specific individual or pairs.

Table 14: Evenness of F low of Information measures and Density of social ties measure
for the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network’s subgroups. The evenness of
information flow based on weighted social ties for the entire network, H(x,y), across
respondents, H(x), and across chosen, H(y) is reported in the table (for calculations see
equations two to four in the methods section). The H(x,y), H(x), and H(y) values are
normalized by taking the exponential value, natural log, and dividing by the total number
of social ties, number of respondents, and number of chosen, respectively. The closer the
normalized value is to zero the less even the flow of information, meaning that the flow
of information is being dominated. The Density measure for the entire network, Density,
is calculated using the non-normalized values of H(x,y), H(x), and H(y) as described in
equation five in the methods section. The closer the Density value is to zero the less even
the flow of information, meaning the more specialized the flow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sub- H H H # # # N- N-Exp N-Exp D
group (x,y) (x) (y) chosen respon- social Exp [H(x)] [H(y)]
dents ties [H(x,y)]

l 4.66 2.76 2.81 25 20 120 0.88 0.79 0.67 0.40
2 3.58 2.21 2.61 17 11 43 0.84 0.83 0.80 0.29
3 5.19 3.22 2.99 31 35 207 0.87 0.72 0.64 0.36
4 4.59 2.71 3.22 36 20 l 15 0.86 0.75 0.70 0.26
5 4.02 2.65 2.71 22 17 65 0.86 0.83 0.68 0.26
6 4.02 2.47 2.53 19 16 65 0.86 0.74 0.66 0.38
7 4.30 2.81 2.86 26 21 87 0.85 0.79 0.67 0.25
8 3.90 2.09 2.74 23 11 57 0.87 0.74 0.67 0.39
9 4.91 2.64 2.94 24 18 157 0.87 0.78 0.79 0.51
10 6.13 3.39 3.70 55 39 529 0.87 0.76 0.73 0.38
11 4.86 2.71 3.34 44 19 147 0.88 0.79 0.65 0.30
12 4.08 2.01 2.91 29 11 67 0.89 0.68 0.63 0.43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In summary, I found that the respondents were fairly similar in their attributes and
in their perceptions of coordinated governance of transboundary fish stocks in the Great
Lakes. In general, respondents believed that the Joint Strategic Plan, as well as the Fish
Community Objectives, and the related GLFC committees and boards that facilitate the
implementation of the Joint Strategic Plan, are effective and are needed to assure the

sustainability of transboundary fish stocks in the Great Lakes.

189

 

Two different network structures were detected, the exchange of Fish Stocks
information in the Great Lakes, and the other for information exchange on lake sturgeon
in the Great Lakes. The Fish Stocks Information Exchange network did not have
significant subgroups and the participants were well connected with one another as
indicated by individuals being connected with individuals throughout the network. The
presence of significant subgroups in the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network,
which differed based on their members’ dominant employer type and committee, still
appeared to be integrated given the representation of multiple employer types and
committees within a given subgroup (Alma and Moore 1978). The integrated nature of
both networks was substantiated by the measures of the Evenness of Information Flow.
These measures corroborated that both networks had a fairly well distributed flow of
information across the network, as well as within subgroups for the Lake Sturgeon
Information Exchange network, hence the flow of information was not dominated by any
individual(s) or given pair of individuals. The two social network structures existing in
the implementation of the Joint Strategic Plan, Fish Stocks Information Exchange
network and the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network, have a good flow of
information throughout the network structures which should enhance the Joint Strategic
Plan’s implementation because participants are well-connected and information should be
easily accessible. For instance, if an emerging fish disease is detected in Lake Erie among
lake sturgeon, information about how to detect and perhaps prevent or cure the disease
could easily be made know to all fisheries professionals participating in the Joint

Strategic Plan network.

190

Discussion

The process for facilitating cooperation among agencies with authority for the
governance of Great Lakes fish stocks has evolved from having Agency-Appointed
committee meetings perceived by participants as being dominated by each jurisdiction’s
perspective and as having a limited value for participants, to being a process consisting of
a committee-wide (or lake-wide) perspective that is highly valued by its participants
(Gaden 2007). This evolution resulted in the formal adoption of the Joint Strategic Plan
as the governance institution for coordinating management of transboundary fish stocks
in the Great Lakes, which is now perceived by some as an effective institution (GLFC
1997, Gaden 2007, Stein and Goddard 2008). This perceived effectiveness is based on
several factors; including that its signatory agencies achieve consensus on fishery
management decision, the signatory agencies share information, and implement
coordinated management activities (Gaden 2007).

In this chapter I aimed to understand how the interactions among participants
involved in A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (Joint
Strategic Plan) contribute to the effectiveness of the Joint Strategic Plan. I assessed two
features of the participants involved in the Joint Strategic Plan. The first is how
participants, on average, perceived governance of transboundary fish stocks in the Great
Lakes and the second, the role of social network structure on the implementation of the
Joint Strategic Plan.

I found that most respondents were white males, over the age of 45, with a
graduate degree, who are employed by a government agency, and have been involved

with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and its related committees and boards for more

191

than six-years (47% have been involved for more than 10 years). This demographic
distribution appeared to be representative based on my personal observation of Agency-
Appointed committee meeting attendees between 2003 and 2006. The findings of this
study can therefore, be interpreted as being representative of the majority of the
participants of the Joint Strategic Plan.

In general, respondents positively perceived the need for governance of
transboundary fish stocks in the Great Lakes, as well as the current implementation of
governance of transboundary fish stocks in the Great Lakes through the Joint Strategic
Plan. The majority of respondents participating, whether unofficially or as an official
representative of a Joint Strategic Plan signatory agency, perceived that there is a need
for a ‘mostly’ transboundary approach to management to assure the sustainability18 of
shared19 fish stocks in the Great Lakes, versus having only a unijurisdictional20 approach
in management of shared fish stocks. This positive perception for a coordinated
governance approach to the management of Great Lakes transboundary fish stocks is also
noted by other researchers (Gaden 2007, Roseman et al. 2008, Schechter and Leonard
2008, Taylor and Dobson 2008). Respondents mostly perceived the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission and its related committees, boards, and partners as having a ‘moderate to

high’ value in assuring the sustainability of the Great Lakes fish stocks. When asked

 

'8 Sustainability was defined within the survey instrument for respondents as “. .. using a
fishery resource, and the ecosystem that supports the fishery resource, in such a way to
assure that the fishery maintains a healthy population size”

'9 Shared was defined within the survey instrument for respondents as “[crossing]
jurisdictional boundaries, thus having more than one jurisdiction with management and
enforcement authority ...”

2° unijurisdictional approach in management refers to only one jurisdiction making
management decisions, where as a transboundary approach refers to multiple
jurisdictions jointly making management decisions.

192

more specifically about the Joint Strategic Plan and the Fish Community Objectives
(FCO), which serves as guidance for management decisions in implementing the Joint
Strategic Plan, the majority of respondents perceived these to be ‘moderately’ effective in
assuring the sustainability of Great Lakes fish stocks. This response choice, ‘moderately’
effective, is the second to highest answer that could be selected among the answer
choices provided in this survey for perceived effectiveness. I would expect this positive
perception of the Joint Strategic Plan and F CO given that the majority, 70%, of
respondents have participated for over six-years in some aspect of the Joint Strategic Plan
implementation, and with such a long-tenure I would expect respondents to be supportive
of the Joint Strategic Plan and its associated implementation tools. This positive
perception of the Joint Strategic Plan and the F CO is also reflected in the interview-based
information gathered by Gaden from participants of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, its boards and committees, as well as the Joint Strategic Plan process
(2007).

Regarding the role of their committee in implementing governance of
transboundary fish stocks, the majority of respondents perceived their committee as
having a ‘moderate to high’ level of importance in assuring the sustainability of shared
fish stocks in the Great Lakes, and being ‘moderately’ effective in achieving inter-
jurisdictional cooperation among participants. Respondents, however, were unsure and
quite disparate regarding how they perceived their committee balancing the committee’s
perspective and the individual jurisdiction’s perspective when making fisheries related
decisions. I surmise that the variance in responses may be related to individuals

perceiving decisions made by the committee differently depending on their interest in the

193

outcome, or perhaps due to the occurrence of fishery-related decisions being made that
are more relevant to a subset of jurisdictions and not being a lake-wide, or committee-
wide, fishery issue of concern.

When asked more specific questions regarding committee meetings and
interactions with individuals from other jurisdictions, respondents in general placed a
positive value on these activities. The majority of respondents perceived attending
committee meetings as being beneficial to them, because they frequently or always
learned useful information that was generally related to Great Lakes fish stocks, during
both the formal and informal portion of the meetings, such as formal topic presentations
versus social receptions. The recognition by most respondents of the equal usefulness of
information learned during the informal portions of the committee meetings was
interesting as it serves to validate the importance of unstructured social interaction times
during these meetings. This social interaction during meetings, although perceived as a
waste of time by some as they have other pressing engagements, also contributes to
strengthening social network ties by providing interaction time among individuals
(Granovetter 1973):

“the strength of a tie is a (probably linear) combination of the amount of time, the

emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services

which characterize the tie”
Studies discussing factors contributing to the development of social ties have recognized
the usefulness of having in-person interactions in developing social ties among
individuals. For instance, Cross et al. (2001) found that it was important to have in-

person interactions, such as informal brown bag lunches, to create new relationships

194

between people that then facilitated people interacting with one another at a later time to
gain access to needed information (2001). The current use of planned informal social
interaction time periods during Joint Strategic Plan related Agency-Appointed committee
meetings, such as: coffee breaks, having meetings that span a night resulting in
interactions over dinner, as well as having concurrent Agency-Appointed committee
meetings which allows for participants of different committees to interact (personal
observation based on my attendance of Agency-Appointed committee meetings from
2003 to 2007), most likely has an important role in the establishment and nurturing of
social ties among Joint Strategic Plan participants.

The ‘moderate to high’ value placed by the majority of respondents on knowing
about fisheries issues occurring outside their jurisdictional responsibilities, as well as
interacting with fisheries professionals (referred to as fisheries biologists in the survey
questions) from other jurisdictions further substantiates the interests of participants in
engaging in cross-jurisdictional discussions and contributes to the development of social
ties among participants, within the same committee and the other Agency-Appointed
committees. The ‘low to moderate’ value assigned to interacting with. fisheries law
enforcement officers from other jurisdictions by most respondents, however, most likely
indicates information that is obtainable from fisheries law enforcement officers outside of
the respondents’ jurisdiction is not perceived as being as relevant to the respondents’
work as information obtained from fisheries professionals from other jurisdictions. This
difference in valuation of information received from fisheries professionals versus law
enforcement officers from other jurisdictions, may perhaps be related to the fact that most

respondents, approximately 84%, are not involved in fisheries law enforcement activities,

195

and hence do not perceive a need for knowing about law enforcement issues outside of
their jurisdictions.

Respondents, when asked how they perceived the status of the lake sturgeon
population within their committee’s jurisdiction, were split with about half of the
respondents perceiving lake sturgeon as having a ‘threatened’ status within their
committee’s jurisdiction. The remaining respondents perceived lake sturgeon as being a
healthy population, 21%, or endangered and extinct, 14%, or reported not knowing the
status of lake sturgeon, 14%. Respondents also varied in how they perceived their
committee and organization prioritizing lake sturgeon topics, and as to whether this level
of prioritization was adequate. The majority of respondents, however, perceived a need
for a ‘mostly’ transboundary approach to lake sturgeon management to assure the
sustainability of this transboundary Great Lakes fish stock, which is similar to their
perception for transboundary Great Lakes fish stocks in general. This diversity in
respondents’ perception on lake sturgeon questions in comparison to the more consistent
responses provided by respondents for general fish stocks in the Great Lakes, may
contribute to the existence of a different social network structure for lake sturgeon
information exchange versus for fish stock information exchange.

Prior to conducting the social network analysis it was necessary to consider the
potential implications of having only 65.5% of the invited individuals completing Part
Two of the survey (social network portion of the survey). This response rate meant that I
collected direct information on social ties from 65.5% of the invited respondents and may
reflect only 65% of the social ties in the social network. This creates a bias in which less

well-connected individuals would be associated with less information concerning their

196

social ties than the more well-connected individuals. It was concluded that as long as this
bias was recognized and caution was used in any interpretation related to the position of
less well-connected individuals within the network, then the social network structure and
significant subgroups detected in this analysis could be used for the purpose of this
chapter (Dr. Ken Frank, Measurement and Quantitative Methods Counseling, Educational
Psychology and Special Education and the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Michigan State University, Personal Communication).

The Fish Stocks Information Exchange network and the Lake Sturgeon
lnforrnation Exchange network differed in their network structures. The occurrence of
two different network structures among the same set of individuals is not surprising,
because I depicted the flow of information among these individuals using two different
types of information. The presence of two social network structures among the same set
of respondents has also been reported in other studies assessing social network structures
based on different resource exchanges among the same participants (Van de Ven and
Ferry 1980, Bolland and Wilson 1994, Foster-Fishman et al. 2001). The difference in
social network structure based on different information flow among Joint Strategic Plan
participants illustrates how individuals can utilize their social ties differently to access
different information, or other resources, that is needed (Haythomthwaite 1996).

The presence of two different social network structures, which differ in their
structure as evident by the presence of significant subgroups only in the Lake Sturgeon
Information Exchange network, illustrates that participants of the Joint Strategic Plan can
alter their social network structure to meet the information needs for a specific fish stock.

This indicates that participants in the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network have

197

an understanding of the varying information available from other participants, and which
individuals will be willing to share the information (Cross et a1. 2001). Facilitating the
knowledge among participants of which individuals have access to which type of
information is important in accelerating formation of issue-based social ties that might be
needed for effective decision-making in the future (Cross et al. 2001). The use of formal
presentations on diverse fisheries issues of interest during committee meetings is one
method that contributes to creating awareness of which individuals, both long-time and
new participants, may have knowledge about specific fisheries issues of interest. The
planned informal social interaction opportunities throughout committee meetings further
facilitates development of social ties as participants can engage in follow-up discussions
with individuals they have learned have access to information of interest to them. These
factors likely all contribute to the integrated social network structure detected for the Fish
Stocks Information Exchange network, and likely also holds true for the Lake Sturgeon
Information Exchange network even with the presence of significant subgroups.

The Fish Stocks Information Exchange network does not have any statistically
significant subgroups. This may indicate that the participants in this network are
integrated with one another (F oster-Fishman 2001). The lack of significant subgroups
may be related to the presence of strong, as indicated in this study by frequent
interactions within a l2-month period, social ties linking individuals between subgroups
that contribute to integrating individuals and facilitating the exchange of information
throughout the network (Wasserman and Faust 1994). The integrated nature of this
network, based on the social ties extending across the entire network, should facilitate the

implementation of the Joint Strategic Plan as individuals throughout the network are

198

exchanging information on general fish stocks. The presence of these social ties may be
related to the relatively long-tenure participants have with the Joint Strategic Plan as well
as with the GLFC and its associated committees and boards. This long-tenure would
provide opportunities for participants of the Joint Strategic Plan to develop social ties and
exchange information (Van de Ven and Ferry 1980, Foster-Fishman 2001); making it
more likely for individuals to develop social ties spanning the entire Joint Strategic Plan
network. The similarity among the majority of respondents in their perception of
governance of transboundary fish stocks in the Great Lakes, such as the need for
governance of transboundary fish stock, the effectiveness of Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Joint Strategic Plan, and FCC, may result from the enhanced information
exchange throughout the network allowing for sharing of perceptions and discussions on
these topics (Van de Ven and Ferry 1998). Alternatively, respondents may have already
shared these similarities in perceptions before engaging in this social network because
people tend to form social ties with people similar to each other (Alba and Moore 1978,
Haythomthwaite 1996). Gaden’s description of the Joint Strategic Plan process as
nurturing a collaborative approach that “[relies] on the existence and strength of an
epistemic community, an elite group of like-minded professionals [and that] gently
coerces members to adhere to the norms of the community” (2008), provides support for
both the assumption that participants tend to be similar prior to becoming involved, and
that they also gradually become more similar through interactions with other Joint
Strategic Plan participants.

The Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network is composed of 12 statistically

significant subgroups. These subgroups differed in terms of the dominant employer type

199

and committee membership, however, the committee membership of the 12 subgroups
did not align with the existing committee structure implementing the Joint Strategic Plan.
The subgroups, although dominated by a given employer type and committee
membership, consisted of a representation of several other employer types and committee
membership. The subgroups also significantly differed on their members’ perception
related to governance of transboundary fish stocks and lake sturgeon topics, however, no
significantly different pairs of subgroups were detected. The presence of subgroups
within the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange network may indicate a less efficient
flow of information than that which would be expected in a homogenous (no subgroups)
network such as the Fish Stocks Information Exchange network (Alba and Moore 1978,
Wasserman and Faust 1994). When there are several subgroups one could think that the
network is fragmented, however, if these subgroups do not have strictly defined
memberships based on certain attributes then the network is not fragmented (Alba and
Moore 1978). The assemblage of different employer type and committee membership
within each subgroup, consequently supports that the network is not fragmented into 12
isolated subgroups, but is integrated allowing for an unrestricted flow of information
across the network. Similarly, the presence of social ties between subgroups also lends
credibility to the assumption that the flow of information among subgroups is not
restricted within a given subgroup or subgroups (Wasserman and Faust 1994). The
Sturgeon Information Exchange network, although composed of significant subgroups, is
still an integrated network that brings together individuals from different attributes, e.g.,
employer type and committee membership, and most likely provides for a good exchange

of information among participants.

200

Using Evenness of Flow of Information measures I found that the flow of
information throughout the Fish Stocks Information Exchange network and the Lake
Sturgeon Information Exchange network was fairly evenly distributed within the
networks and not dominated by any given weighted social ties associated with pairs of
respondents-chosen, associated with respondents, and associated with chosen. Thus, there
is a good exchange of information for both of these information types among participants
of the Joint Strategic Plan and this should facilitate the implementation of the Joint
Strategic Plan. The Density measure for the social ties within the network, however,
indicated that there might be some specialization in the flow of information within the
two networks, with this specialization being stronger in the Lake Sturgeon Information
Exchange network. These significant subgroups also were found to have a fairly even
flow of information within them, and no strong evidence for specialization based on the
higher range of values for their density measures. This stronger specialization in the lake
sturgeon network, which is absent within each subgroup, may be an indication that the
flow of information between subgroups is specialized, allowing for knowing between
which subgroups information will flow in the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange
network. The presence of subgroups within the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange
network did not appear to substantially alter the flow of information within the network,
as the evenness of information flow measures were not substantially different between
the two networks, Fish Stocks and Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange networks. I
surmise based on the knowledge that resources exchanges, such as fishery information,

can occur through individuals bridging different subgroups (Granovetter 1973,

201

Wasserman and Faust 2004, Grafton 2005) that the social ties connecting the subgroups
are most likely adequate to contribute to an even-flow of information across the network.
The social network structure of Joint Strategic Plan participants for both the Fish
Stocks Information Exchange network and the Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange
network is comprised of individuals that have been participating for more than 6-years, or
10-plus years for 47% of the respondents, and have formed numerous social ties
throughout the network. The fairly even flow of information in both networks most likely
contributes to the effectiveness of the Joint Strategic Plan. Of concern, however, is the
age structure of respondents that is strongly skewed towards individuals 45 years and
older, with only 13% of respondents being under 34 years of age. It is possible that a
turnover of participants due to retirements during the next 10 to 15 years could result in
disruption of the social network structure (Cross et al. 2001), and thereby impact the
effectiveness of the Joint Strategic Plan. It may be advantageous for the Joint Strategic
Plan related committees to actively begin recruitment of younger members who can be
mentored by current members to establish and develop similar social ties spanning the
network. Actively grooming younger members with the assistance of current members
may facilitate the establishment of social ties between younger members and current
members, as current members would provide venues for the younger members to show
how they can contribute to the existing network. Having this group of replacement
members in place prior to a turnover of participants would assure that the network would
hopefully not be rendered fragmented or dysfunctional due to the loss of several members

that had numerous social ties spanning the entire network (Cross et al. 2001).

202

Alternatively, the current flow of information in the networks may be maintained
through quasi-ties. Quasi-ties, as discussed by Frank (in press) are formed between an
individual and the collective with whom the individual identifies. This quasi-tie behaves
similarly to other social ties that link individuals together and that regulate the allocation
of resources among individuals. Contrary to social ties, individuals that identify with the
collective through a quasi-tie will share resources with all other individuals that belong to
the same collective, regardless of any existing or absent social ties that may directly link
individuals to one another. Individuals providing resources through the quasi-ties to the
collective do not expect any specific resource in exchange but instead trusts that others
will provide resources to the collective that will benefit him/her. An added advantage, as
discussed by Frank (in press), of having quasi-ties that link individuals to the collective
versus having numerous social ties linking all the individuals within the network is that
fewer ties are needed to have exchange of resources. In a network that relies on social
ties, such as the Joint Strategic Plan related social network, numerous social ties would
need to be maintained for all network members to have access to the necessary resources.
Whereas, when individuals are linked together by identifying with the collective through
a quasi-tie, individuals would only need to maintain that quasi-tie with the collective to
give and receive resources. Thus quasi-ties may be useful for large memberships or
groups that cannot develop the required social ties among participants to exchange
resources. The presence of quasi-ties with current and new Joint Strategic Plan
participants would allow for the continuation of the current exchange of resources, such
as fish stock information, even in the absence of social ties connecting the current and

new participants. Future research on the presence of quasi-ties among Joint Strategic Plan

203

participants would contribute to assessing the vulnerability of the Joint Strategic Plan’s

information exchange network to change in individuals and social ties.

Conclusions

The process formalized with the Joint Strategic Plan evolved over time, becoming
a governance institution perceived by some as being an effective means for governing
transboundary fish stocks in the Great Lakes (GLFC 1997, Gaden 2007, Stein and
Goddard 2008). The outcome of the evolving Agency-Appointed committees through
which the Joint Strategic Plan is implemented, described by Gaden as “a process of
interactions among like-minded professionals and to begin the development of a culture
of cooperation in the region” (2007), is substantiated by the similarly in respondents’
attributes, the respondent’s perceptions towards coordinated governance for
transboundary fish stocks, and by the integrated social network structure of the Joint
Strategic Plan participants revealed in this study for both the Great Lakes Fish Stocks
Information Exchange and Lake Sturgeon Information Exchange networks.

The integrated nature of the social network structures detected among participants
of the Joint Strategic Plan for both types of fish stock information may be a contributing
factor to the effectiveness of the Joint Strategic Plan. The integrated network structure
should enhance flow of information within the social network structure, thus facilitating
the decision-making process and implementation of the Joint Strategic Plan by sharing of
ideas, perceptions, and resources. The current structure of committee meetings may be
contributing to the development and nurturing of social network ties among participants.

The formal presentations, for instance, serve to make known individuals that are sources

204

of certain information, whereas the informal social interactions occurring during coffee
breaks and dinners serve to increase the number and strength of social ties (Cross et al.
2001). Recognition by respondents of the value of information gained through both
formal and informal aspects of committee meetings also validates the continued use of
both during committee meetings.

The future of the current social network structure for information exchange in the
Great Lakes, however, needs to be proactively nurtured. The participants in the Joint
Strategic Plan are very homogenous in their demographics, such as age, race, and level of
education. The similarities in age of Joint Strategic Plan participants raises a concern that
retirement of these individuals may disrupt the functioning social network structure
through the loss of social ties spanning the entire network. Through the use of mentorship
to facilitate incorporation of younger participants into the existing social network
structure, and formal presentations given by the younger newcomers to facilitate the
knowledge of their expertise and their role as a source of information for specific
fisheries topics for all participants, will contribute in establishment of social ties with
these newcomers (e.g., Cross et al. 2001). The goal of maintaining the positive aspects of
the current social network structure and social ties that contribute to information
exchanges needed in implementing the Joint Strategic Plan, hopefully will be achieved by
the proactive incorporation of younger participants with relevant expertise and
background that will fill the social network ties that would otherwise be lost with the
retirement of well-connected older participants during the next 10 to 15 years.

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), as the entity facilitating the

implementation of the Joint Strategic Plan through the Agency-Appointed committees,

205

will play an important role in conserving the aspects nurturing the formation and
strengthening of social ties that makes management of Great Lakes fish stocks through
the Joint Strategic Plan a highly cooperative process. The GLFC secretariat can assure the
continuation of informal social interactions and concurrent Agency-Appointed
committees to foster social ties among participants engaging in the same or different
Agency-Appointed committee meeting. A study that would depict change in social
network structure and social ties among Joint Strategic Plan participant through time
would be needed to observe whether the GLFC and the Joint Strategic Plan participants
will be able to maintain the well-connected social network structure. Alternatively, this
study could assess whether quasi-ties may provide a means to assure the effective
implementation of Joint Strategic Plan with the expected change in participants over the

next decade.

206

References

Abrahamson, E. and L. Rosenkopf. 1997. Social network effects on the extent of
innovation diffusion: a computer simulation. Organization Science 8: 289-309.

Alba, R. D., and G. Moore. 1978. Elite social circles. Sociological Methods and
Research 7: 167-188.

Bolland, J. M., and J. V. Wilson. 1994. Three faces of integrative coordination: a model
of interorganizational relations in community-based health and human services.
Human Services Research 29(3): 341-365.

Burt, R. 1992. Structural Holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.

Cross, R., A. Parker, L. Prusak, and S. P. Borgatti. 2001. Knowing what we know:
supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational
Dynamics 30(2): 100-120.

DeSombre, E. and J. S. Barkin. 2002. Turbot and Tempers in the North Atlantic. Pages
335—340 in Conserving the Peace: how protecting the environment today can
prevent conflict and disaster tomorrow. Edited by R. A. Matthew, M. Halle and J.
Switzer. lntemational Institute for Sustainable Development. Winnipeg, Canada.

Dochoda, M. R. 1999. Authorities, responsibilities, and arrangements for managing fish
and fisheries in the Great lakes ecosystem. Pages 93-112 in Great Lakes Fisheries
Policy and Management a binational perspective. Edited by W. W. Taylor and C.
P. F erreri. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press.

Donovan, M. A., F. Drasgo, and T. M. Probst. 2000. Does computerizing paper-and-
pencil job attitude scales make a difference? New IRT analysis offers insight.
Journal of Applied Psychology 85(2): 305-313.

Dumont, J ., W. Caragata, and B. Wallace. 1995. Canada seizes Spanish boat. Maclean’s.
(March 20). Available:
http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M l ART
M0010344 (November 2006).

Foster-Fishman, P. G., D. A. Salem, N. A. Allen, and K. Fahrbach. 2001. Facilitating
interorganizational collaborations: the contributions of interorganizational

alliances. American Journal of Community Psychology 29(6): 875-905.

Frank, K. A. A theory and empirical test of identification with a collective as a Quasi-Tie.
American Behavioral Scientist. In press.

Frank, K. 1995. Identifying cohesive subgroups. Social Networks 17: 27-56.

207

Frank, K. 1996. Mapping interactions within and between cohesive subgroups. Social
Networks 18: 93-119.

Frank, K. A. and J. Y. Yasumoto. 1998. Linking action to social structure within a
system: social capital within and between Subgroups. American Journal of
Sociology 104 (3): 642-686.

Frank, K. A, Y. Zhao, and K. Borman. 2004. Social capital and the diffusion of
innovations within organizations: application to the implementation of
computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education 77: 148-171.

Gaden, M. E. Bridging jurisdictional divides collective action through a joint strategic
plan for management of Great Lakes fisheries. 2007. Doctoral of Philosophy
Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 1997. A Joint Strategic plan for Management
of Great Lakes Fisheries. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.

Grafton, R. Q. 2005. Social capital and fisheries governance. Ocean & Coastal
Management 48: 753-766.

Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology
78(6): 1360-1380.

Haythomthwaite, C. 1996. Social network analysis: an approach and technique for the
study of information exchange. LISR 18: 323-342.

Jones, G. and J. George. 1998. The experience and evolution of trust: implications for
cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review 23(3): 532-546.

Knapp, H. and S. A. Kirk. 2003. Using pencil and paper, Internet and touch-tone phones
for self-administered surveys: does methodology matter? Computers in Human
Behavior 19: 117-134.

Krause, A. E. 2004. The role of compartments in food-web structure and changes
following biological invasions in Southeast Lake Michigan. Ph.D. Dissertation.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Krause, A. E. and K. A. Frank. The versatility of Shannon’s measures for measuring
diversity in social-ecological systems. In Prep.

Krause A. E., K. A. Frank, D. M. Mason, R. E. Ulanowicz, and W. W. Taylor. 2003.
Compartments revealed in food-web structure. Nature 426: 282-285.

208

Krause, A. E., K. A. Frank, M. L. Jones, T. F. Nalepa, R. P. Barbiero, C. P. Madenjian,
M. Agy, M. S. Evans, W. W. Taylor, D. M. Mason, and N. J. Leonard.
Adaptations in a hierarchical food web of southeastern Lake. Ecological
Modelling Special Issue on Ecological Network Analysis. Submitted.

Leonard, N. J ., C. Goddard, and W. W. Taylor. 2004. Multijurisdictional management of
lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Pages 231—251 in
Sturgeons and Paddlefish of North America. Edited by G. T. O. LeBreton, F. W.

H. Beamish and R. S. Mckinley. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston,
Massachusetts.

McCann, K. S. 2000. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405: 228-233.
Merriam-Webster. 1974. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. New York: Pocket Books.

Newell, S and J. Swan. 2000. Trust and inter-organizational networking. Human
Relations 53(10): 1287-1328.

Penner, S. 1995. A study of coalition among HIV/AIDS service organizations.
Sociological Perspectives 38(2): 217-239.

Potosky, D., and P. Bobko. 1997. Computer versus paper-and-pencil administration mode
and response distortion in noncognitive selection tests. Journal of Applied
Psychology 82(2): 293-299.

Qualtrics. 2006. Survey 2!. Qualtrics. com. Available: http://surveyz.com/ (November
2006)

QuestionPro Survey Software. 2007. QuestionPro. QuestionPro Survey Software a
Division of Survey Analytics Enterprise Survey Software. Available:
http:/lwww.questionpro.com/ (November 2006).

Roseman, E. F ., R. L. Knight, E. Wright, D. Einhouse, K. Kayle, K. Newman, and R. L.
Hoopes. 2008. Ecology and international governance of Lake Erie’s percid
fisheries. Pages 145-172 in lntemational Governance of Fisheries Ecosystems:

learning from the past, finding solutions for the future. Edited by M. G. Schechter,
N. J. Leonard, and W. W. Taylor. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Rosenau, J. N. 1995. Governance in the twenty-first century. Global Governance: A
Review of Multilateralism and lntemational Organization 1(1): 13—43.

SAS (SAS Institute Inc). 2003. SAS version 9. 1. 3 Service Pack 4 XP_PRO Program.
SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

Schechter, M. G. and N. J. Leonard. 2008. Global fisheries governance. Pages 3-33 in
lntemational Governance of Fisheries Ecosystems: learning from the past, finding

209

solutions for the future. Edited by M. G. Schechter, N. J. Leonard, and W. W.
Taylor. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Schechter, M. G. N. J. Leonard, and W. W. Taylor, editors. 2008. International
governance of fisheries ecosystems: learning from the past, finding solutions for
the future. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Shannon, C. E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System
Technical Journal. 27: 379-423.

Shaw, J. B. and E. Barrett-Power. 1998. The effects of diversity on small work group
processes and performance. Human Relations 51(10): 1307-1325.

Sheskin, D. J. 2007. Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures.
New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Sissenweine, M. P., and P. M. Mace. 2003. Governance for responsible fisheries: an
ecosystem approach. Pages 10—12 in Responsible fisheries in the marine
ecosystem. Edited by M. Sinclair and G. Vladimarsson. CABI Publishing and
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Wallingford, UK.

Stein, R., and C. Goddard. 2008. Reconciling fisheries with rehabilitation in the
Laurentian Great Lakes. Pages 1731-1743 in Proceedings of the Fourth World

Fisheries Congress: fisheries with conservation. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.

Taylor, W. W. and C. Dobson. 2008. Inter-jurisdictional fisheries governance: the next
steps to sustainability. Pages 431-440 in lntemational Governance of Fisheries
Ecosystems: learning from the past, finding solutions for the future. Edited by M.
G. Schechter, N. J. Leonard, and W. W. Taylor. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.

Van de Ven, A. H., and D. L. Perry. 1980. Measuring and assessing organizations. New
York: Wiley.

Wasserman, S. and K. Faust. 1994. Social network analysis: methods and applications.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Yang, H. L and J. H. Tang. 2004. Team structure and team performance in IS

development: a social network perspective. Information & Management 41(3):
335-349.

210

CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusions and Implications of Social Ties and Social Network Structure

for Governance Institutions of Transboundary Fish Stocks in the Great Lakes

The challenge of achieving and maintaining sustainable fish stocks that are
governed or harvested by more than one jurisdiction or nation (transboundary fish stock)
is recognized as requiring a coordinated and collaborative approach. This recognition has
increasingly become more apparent with the rapid demise of many oceanic fish stocks
worldwide (Myers and Worms 2003, FAQ-Fisheries 2007), which made evident the
ineffectiveness of unilateral actions by individual jurisdictions in governing
transboundary fish stocks. Furthermore, this ineffectiveness is also noted when, in the
absence of collaboration among jurisdictions harvesting a fish stock, cross-purpose
governance and management decisions are made which may nullify their intended
impacts. For instance, in the lake sturgeon case study described in Chapter Three, the
disparity in population status within the varying jurisdictions in the Great Lakes led to
management decisions, e.g., fishing regulations, that appeared to be in complete
opposition with one another. Overtime, this recognition of the need for a collaborative
approach for sustainable fish populations has resulted in the evolution of the governance
approach used for transboundary fish stocks today.

The governance approach for transboundary fish stocks has evolved along with
the understanding that collaborative and coordinated governance and management
actions were needed (Cole 2003, Kooiman et al. 2005, Schechter and Leonard 2008).

Initially, governance of transboundary fish stocks consisted of individual jurisdictions

211

making and implementing decisions with little or no coordination with other jurisdictions.
Nowadays, there is an increasing reliance on governance approaches that consists of
coordination among jurisdictions that have an interest in the same fish resource, such as
the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (Cole 2003, Kooiman et al. 2005,
Schechter and Leonard 2008, NAFO no-date). In Chapter Two of this dissertation, I
described the evolution of governance institutions for transboundary fish stocks and
discussed their weaknesses and strengths. There appears, however, to be a need for
further evolution of governance institutions, as several factors can impede their
effectiveness, such as lack of authority to assure that members implement decisions.

The effectiveness of governance institutions for transboundary fish stocks, as
discussed in Chapter Two, varies greatly (Schechter and Leonard 2008). This variability
can be ascribed to numerous factors including the governance institutions’ framework,
the decision-making process used, such as decisions made by majority-vote or consensus,
the amount of authority delegated by the jurisdictions to the governance institution, and
relationships among participants (social ties). Several studies assessing the importance of
these factors, with the exception of the latter one, are found in the literature (Schechter
and Leonard 2008, Schechter et al. 2008). Interestingly, the latter, social ties among an
institution’s participants, has not received as much attention. Social ties, and the resulting
social network structure, can impact the effectiveness of governance institutions by
affecting group interactions and outcomes, flow of resources among participants, and
participants access to resources (Granovetter 1973, Burt 1992, Wasserman and Faust
1994, Abrahamsom and Rosenkopf 1997, Jones and Georges 1998, Frank et a1. 2004,

Shaw and Barrett-Power 1998, Newell and Swan 2000). This dissertation aimed to

212

contribute to the understanding of the role which social ties and social networks among
participants of transboundary fish stocks governance institutions have on the institutions’
effectiveness. I selected the governance institution for transboundary fish stocks in the
Great Lakes, A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (Joint
Strategic Plan) for my study on the role of social network structure and social ties in
achieving desired outcomes for these fishery resources. Specifically, I assessed how the
social network structure and associated social ties impact flow of information and access
to resources, such as intellectual knowledge and data on fish stocks, among participants
of the Joint Strategic Plan, which in turn would impact collaborative governance of
transboundary fish stocks.

The signatory parties to the Joint Strategic Plan consist of 11 agencies with
fisheries management authority in the Great Lakes, and four federal agencies that
contribute information on fish stocks and in the enforcement of fishery regulations (see
Chapters 1 and 4 for more detail). The Joint Strategic Plan is the governance institution
that serves to coordinate fisheries governance and fisheries management in the Great
Lakes. The Joint Strategic Plan is implemented through the Agency-Appointed
committees, of which each of the 11 Great Lakes fisheries management agencies are
official members. Representatives of these agencies, as well as non-voting participants,
interact together through the Agency-Appointed committees to exchange information and
coordinate fisheries management decisions. In analyzing the social ties among
participants, which consist of both members and non-voting participants, of the Agency-
Appointed committees I found that these social ties and the resulting network structure

contributed to the effectiveness of Joint Strategic Plan. The social network structure of

213

the Agency-Appointed participants, as detected by KliqueFinder, was well-integrated, in
that participants were well-connected to one another (Chapter Four). This level of
connection facilitates the flow of information throughout the network, as well as access to
resources by participants. The fairly even flow of information throughout the network
was substantiated by the evenness of information flow measures, which also detected a
fairly even distribution of information flow not dominated by any specific social ties. Had
the flow been dominated by a specific set of social ties, then only participants connected,
directly or indirectly, to those social ties would have been able to access information and
resources. Hence, this level of connection and the fairly even flow of information
throughout the network contributes to the effectiveness of the Joint Strategic Plan,
because having access to the same information should facilitate members reaching
agreement on decisions more easily than if each were basing their decision on a partial
subset or a different set of information.

Factors that may contribute to the well-integrated network and even flow of
information include the long-tenure that most participants have with the Joint Strategic
Plan, the use of committee meetings to encourage formation of social ties, and the general
support for transboundary governance by participants (Chapter 4). I found that most
participants of this network structure had been involved, directly or indirectly, with the
Joint Strategic Plan and its supporting structure, consisting of the GLF C and related
committees and boards, for an average of six or more years. In almost half of the
respondents (47%), respondents stated they had been involved for 10 or more years.
Furthermore, the formal and informal aspects of the Agency-Appointed committee

meeting process, through which the Joint Strategic Plan has been implemented, likely has

214

an important role in nurturing the development and strengthening of social ties among
participants (Jones and George 1998, Newell and Swan 2000, Cross et al. 2001). The
formal aspects facilitated participants learning about others’ expertise through
presentations and formal discussions. The informal aspects, such as socials and coffee
breaks, provided time needed to strengthen social ties by participants getting to know one
another and, ideally, gaining trust (Jones and George 1998, Newell and Swan 2000, Cross
et al. 2001). The opportunities provided by the committee meetings to form and nurture
social ties contributed to the well-integrated and, therefore, fairly even flow of
information within this social network. The relatively high value placed by participants’
on coordinated governance for transboundary fish stocks and interacting with fisheries
professional from other jurisdictions also contributed to the network being integrated.
This value level likely contributed to having an integrated network, because participants
would seek to interact with participants from other jurisdictions, thereby forming social
ties that spanned across the entire network versus social ties limited to participants within
their own jurisdiction.

The importance of social ties and social network structure in the effective
coordination of management activities in the Great Lakes, as implemented through the
Joint Strategic Plan, can be highlighted by the recent development in lake sturgeon status
and harvest regulations. The status and harvest regulations for recreational and
commercial fishing of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes have been disparate across
jurisdictions, but recently to a lesser degree. Prior to 2008, the greatest disparity existed
between Ontario and the US. states. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources did not

assign any special status to lake sturgeon and allowed recreational fishers to harvest one

215

sturgeon per day all year long in Lake Superior, Lake Erie, Lake Huron, and Lake St.
Clair. Most states, however, had listed lake sturgeon as a Species of Concern, Threatened,
or Endangered and did not allow any harvest for these same lakes. The Great Lakes
Fishery Commission secretariat staff liaison to the Law Enforcement Committee, as well
as to the Council of Lake Committees, highlighted the discrepancy between the
population status and regulations on multiple occasions between 2003 and 2007 (personal
observation, I presented at the Law Enforcement Committee and assisted in preparing the
presentations for other committee meetings). Presentations that highlighted illegal harvest
of lake sturgeon occurring in the United States’ jurisdiction of the Great Lakes, as well as
a presentation on the illegal caviar trade in the United States were also allocated time on
the Law Enforcement Committee meeting agenda to enhance awareness of this potential
threat to lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes (personal observation, I was staff liaison to the
Law Enforcement Committee between 2003 and 2008). On 27 June 2008 the Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) released a communication entitled Ontario
moves to protect sturgeon - McGuinty Government Restricts Harvest in both Recreation
and Commercial Fisheries (OMNR 2008). This communication indicated that OMNR
had decided to list lake sturgeon as a species of special concern as of 20 June 2008. This
decision was based on a noted increase in the actual recreational harvest being taken in
comparison to previous levels, with current levels deemed unsustainable for the lake
sturgeon population. This decision was also based on a level of illegal sales in lake
sturgeon parts that was determined to be a threat to the sustainability of the lake sturgeon
population. As a result of listing lake sturgeon as a species of special concern, OMNR set

the catch and possession limit for the recreational harvest of lake sturgeon to zero as of 1

216

July 2008, with only catch and release of lake sturgeon being allowed (OMNR 2008).
Furthermore, OMNR stated that they would set the commercial harvest of lake sturgeon
to zero in 2009 to prevent overharvesting of the lake sturgeon population within
Ontario’s jurisdiction (OMNR 2008). It is difficult to determine the influence that the
lake sturgeon presentations, aimed at increasing awareness of the disparate status, fishing
regulations, and threats from illegal harvest, had on the recent change in status and
regulations by OMNR. The social ties and social network structure may have facilitated
the knowledge of the potential threat to lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes from illegal
harvest to meet the global demand for caviar, as well as the disparate status and
regulations for lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes. Facilitating access to this information
through the well-integrated social network structure of the Joint Strategic Plan
participants may have assisted OMN R with detecting and recognizing a threat to lake
sturgeon in the Great Lakes and tributaries within Ontario. Hence, it is likely that the
social network structure of the Joint Strategic Plan facilitated the flow of information on
concerns pertaining to lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes among participants. This flow of
information likely contributed to OMNR’s detection and recognition of the threat from
the change in recreational harvest level and illegal sales on the sustainability of lake
sturgeon populations.

The importance of social ties in facilitating flow of information and access to
resources among the Joint Strategic Plan participants, and, thus, on the effectiveness of
the Joint Strategic Plan’s implementation does cause some concern for the future.
Specifically, how would changes in social ties and social network structure impact the

Joint Strategic Plan’s effectiveness. What would occur, for instance, if individuals with

217

these social ties were to be lost from the network? Given that the vast majority of Joint
Strategic Plan participants are within 10 to 15 years of retirement age, it is feasible that
many of the social ties spanning the network could be lost to the detriment of information
exchange within the network. Would the loss of these individuals and their social ties
result in a fragmented social network structure? Would this fragmented social network
impede flow of information and access of resources? If participants did not share the
same information as facilitated by a well-connected social network structure, would
participants have difficulty in achieving consensus on governance and management
decisions? Would this change in social network structure decrease the effectiveness of the
Joint Strategic Plan and jeopardize the sustainability of Great Lakes transboundary fish
stocks? Given this potential negative impact, it would be beneficial to ensure that the
well-connected social network structure of the Joint Strategic Plan participants is
maintained even with a change in participants. One way to achieve this is for the Agency-
Appointed committees to be proactive in recruiting younger participants, and more
importantly, assisting them in establishing and nurturing social ties that span the social
network structure. Having current, well-connected, participants serve as mentors may
facilitate the formation and nurturing of social ties for these younger recruits.
Additionally, engaging younger recruits in intellectual and social opportunities, provided
by the meeting structure of the Agency-Appointed committees, could inform participants
of their expertise and facilitate formation of social ties. The Great Lakes Fishery
Commission secretariat, which facilitates the implementation of the Joint Strategic Plan,
is exploring ways to encourage engaging younger participants. One method in use by the

secretariat involves leading by example, such as by having new fisheries management

218

and research oriented professionals or younger secretariat staff members present during
committee meetings. A more recent method being contemplated is to award scholarships
to assist with travel for students to attend agency appointed committee meetings with a
mentor (pers. Comm. Dr. W. W. Taylor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan
State University, and US. Commissioner for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission).

This study has shown that the social network structure of a governance institution
for transboundary fish stocks has an important role in the effectiveness of that institution.
Social ties and the social network structure of participants involved in the implementation
of the Joint Strategic Plan contributed to the effectiveness of this governance institution
by facilitating flow of resources, such as information, among participants. Additionally,
social ties served to facilitate access of resources by participants from each other, thus
enhancing an institutions’ effectiveness by making resources available that may
contribute to participants making and implementing collaborative decisions. Hence, when
assessing why a given governance institution for transboundary fish stock is either failing
or succeeding in attaining its objectives, it remains important to examine such aspects as
the institution’s framework, decision-making process, and delegated authority. Social ties
and social network structure, however, also need to be considered as these can impact the
effectiveness of the institution by altering the flow and accessibility of resources to
participants. Future studies will hopefully contribute further to understanding of the role
of social network structure in these governance institutions, thereby contributing to the-

health of transboundary fish stocks by facilitating collaborative governance.

219

References

Abrahamson, E. and L. Rosenkopf. 1997. Social network effects on the extent of
innovation diffusion: a computer simulation. Organization Science 8: 289-309.

Burt, R. 1992. Structural Holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.

Cole, H. 2003. Contemporary challenges: globalization, global interconnectedness and
that 'there are not plenty more fish in the sea'. Fisheries, Governance and
globalization: is there a relationship? Ocean and Coastal Management 46: 77-102.

Coull, J. R. 1993. World fisheries resources. Routledge, New York.

Cross, R., A. Parker, L. Prusak, and S. P. Borgatti. 2001. Knowing what we know:
supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational
Dynamics 30(2): 100-120.

FAQ-Fisheries (Food and Agriculture Organization- Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department). 2007. State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Food and
Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Frank, K. A, Y. Zhao, and K. Borman. 2004. Social capital and the diffusion of
innovations within organizations: application to the implementation of
computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education 77: 148-171.

Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology
78(6): 1360-1380.

Jones, G. and J. George. 1998. The experience and evolution of trust: implications for
cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review 23(3): 532-46.

Kooiman, J ., M. Bavinck, S. Jentoff, and R. Pullin, editors. 2005. Fish for Life.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2008. Ontario moves to protect
sturgeon McGuinty government restricts harvest in both recreational and
commercial fisheries. GROUP CNW. Available:
http://www.newswire.ca/fr/releases/archive/June2008/27/c8597.html (November
2008)

Myers, R. A. and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish
communities. Nature 423(6937): 280-283.

NAFO. No date. About NAFO (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization). Available:
http: //www.nafo.int/about/frames/about.html (July 2006).

220

Newell, S and J. Swan. 2000. Trust and inter-organizational networking. Hmnan
Relations 53(10): 1287-1328.

Schechter, M. G. and N. J. Leonard. 2008. Global Fisheries Governance. Pages 3-33 in
lntemational Governance of Fisheries Ecosystems: Learning from the Past,
Finding Solutions for the Future. Edited by M. G. Schechter, N. J. Leonard, and
W. W. Taylor. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Schechter, M. G., N. J. Leonard, and W. W. Taylor, editors. 2008. lntemational
Governance of Fisheries Ecosystems: Learning from the Past, Finding Solutions

for the Future. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Shaw, J. B. and E. Barrett-Power. 1998. The effects of diversity on small work group
processes and performance. Human Relations 51(10): 1307-1325.

Wasserman, S. and K. Faust. 1994. Social network analysis: methods and applications.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

221

APPENDICES

222

APPENDIX A

Letters Supporting Participating in Survey

[Place on GLFC Letterhead]

[Insert date]

[Insert recipient address]

[Insert recipient first and last name]

I am writing to ask you to participate in an online survey sponsored by the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission and Michigan State University. The Great Lakes Fishery
Commission is committed to supporting activities that contribute to the enhancement of
cooperative fishery management among Great Lakes federal, provincial, state, and tribal
management agencies. This commitment includes the commission’s interest and support
of research projects that contribute to improving our understanding related to the
effectiveness and efficiency of the cooperative interactions among Great Lakes fisheries

management agencies.

In the following weeks, you will receive an email invitation from Nancy Leonard

(leonar80@msu. edu) to participate in her online survey. Nancy’s doctoral research

223

focuses on depicting the information exchange network of Great Lakes Agency-
Appointed committees. She needs the participation of both current and past participants
of these committees to capture the entire network structure. Understanding this network
will provide insights into ways to improve the flow of information among the Great
Lakes committees; thereby enhancing their ability to cooperatively manage fisheries

within the Great Lakes basin.

The commission is greatly interested in the outcome of Nancy’s research project and its
contribution to Great Lakes fishery management. I encourage you to participate in this

study and appreciate you responding to Nancy’s survey in a timely fashion.

Thank you,

C. I. Goddard

Executive Secretary

cc: G. Bamhart, Chair
P. Wallace, Vice-Chair

W. Taylor, Commissioner

224

APPENDIX B

Email and Letter Invitation Explaining Purpose of Survey

Email and Letter Invitation

Note: Letter version was printed on MSU letterhead, with the date and invitee’s address

at the top of the letter.

EMAIL FROM FIELD: Nancy Leonard <leonar80@msu. edu>

EMAIL SUBJECT FIELD: Great Lakes’ Network of Information Exchange Survey

Dear [first and last name],

I am contacting both past and current participants of the Great Lakes’ Agency-appointed
committees to seek their participation in the completion of a survey that will identify the
flow of fishery related information throughout the basin. Analysis of this information will
provide greater understanding of the existing information network; thereby enhancing the
ability of the Joint Strategic Plan’s parties’ to cooperatively manage fisheries within the

Great Lakes basin.

Your participation is essential to the outcome of this research project. The success of this

survey relies on the participation of all individuals that are currently or have been

involved in Great Lakes’ Agency Appointed committee activities. An individual’s

225

involvement can range from being a current or past official member, invited presenter, or

being present at any of the committees, sub-committees, or task groups meetings.

The online survey is separated into two parts. The first part will ask questions about your
opinions on selected Great Lakes fishery topics and the flow of information throughout
the committees’ structure. The second part will ask more detailed questions about your
information network. This survey should take about 30-minutes for the first part and 25-
minutes for the second part, but the exact time will vary among respondents. I have
designed the survey so that you can stop and resume the survey as often as needed to be

compatible with your schedule.

When you are ready to begin the survey you can either click on the link for part one
located below or copy the link into your web-browser. You will be asked to enter the case
sensitive password written below. Once you are done with part one you can then click or
copy into your web-browser to begin part two. Both parts of the survey require the same

password for access.

Part One

Approximate time: 30 minutes depending on respondent
Web link:

Password (case sensitive): lnfo Exchange

Part Two

226

Approximate time: 25 minutes depending on respondent

Web link: http: //www. questionpro. com/akira/TakeSurvey?id=291 193

Password (case sensitive): Info Exchange

Thank you, in advance, for your participation in this survey. If you have any questions

please contact me at the email address below.

Nancy

 

Nancy Leonard

Fishery Research Associate
Michigan State University
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
13 Natural Resource Building

East Lansing, MI 48824

Leonar80@msu. edu

227

APPENDIX C

Survey Reminder Emails and Letters Sent

Email and Letter for T hank-you/Reminder 1 - Sent to all respondents

Note: Letter version was printed on MSU letterhead, with the date and invitee’s address

at the top of the letter.

EMAIL FROM FIELD: Nancy Leonard <leonar80@msu. edu>

EMAIL SUBJECT FIELD: Great Lakes Social Network Survey

Dear [first and last name],

I would like to thank all the people that have responded to my survey. Your responses are
critical to me as they contribute to the successful depiction of the Great Lakes fishery

social network.

If you have not yet completed the survey, 1 ask that you do so as soon as possible. The
online survey will ask questions regarding your opinions on selected Great Lakes fishery
topics and the flow of information throughout GLFC committees’ structure. Your
participation is very important to the outcome of this research project, as it ensures that

the data reflects the social network of the Great Lakes fishery committees.

228

When you are ready to begin the survey you can either click on the link below or copy
the link into your web-browser. You will be asked to enter the case sensitive password
written below. This survey should take no longer than 50-minutes. I have designed the
survey so that you can stop and resume the survey as often as you like in order to

accommodate your busy schedule.

Password: Info Exchange

<SURVEY_LINK>

Thank you in advance for participating in my survey. If you have any questions please

contact me at the email address below.

Nancy

 

Nancy Leonard

PhD Student

Michigan State University
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
13 Natural Resource Building

East Lansing, MI 48824

Leonar80@msu.edu

229

Email and Letter Reminder 2 & 3 - Sent to non-respondents only
Note: Letter version was printed on MSU letterhead, with the date and invitee’s address

at the top of the letter.

EMAIL FROM FIELD: Nancy Leonard <leonar80@msu. edu>

EMAIL SUBJECT FIELD: Great Lakes Social Network Survey

Dear [first and last name],

Your response to my survey is critical to ensuring that a complete and accurate social
network for the Great Lakes fishery is depicted. The completeness and accuracy of the
network is crucial in determining the level of understanding and usefulness of the data
analysis in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the cooperative interactions

within the Great Lakes basin. Your participation in my survey is greatly appreciated.

The online survey that l have created consists of 6 sections. Depending on the individual
this survey should take about 50-rninutes. When you are ready to begin the survey you
can either click on the link below or copy the link into your web-browser. You will be
asked to enter the case sensitive password written below. I have designed the survey to
take about 50-minutes and you can stop and resume the survey later as often as you need

by following the instruction within the survey.

Password: Info Exchange

230

<SURVEY_LINK>

Thank you in advance for participating in my survey. If you have any questions please

contact me at the email address below.

Nancy

 

Nancy Leonard

PhD Student

Michigan State University
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
13 Natural Resource Building

East Lansing, MI 48824

Leonar80@msu.edu

231

APPENDIX D

Survey Questions and Answer Choices for Part One

The survey questions and answer choices are provided below without the formatting used
in the online version or in the paper version survey. Most of the instructions guiding
respondents to skip questions, branching instructions, have been removed. There are two
main sections to this first portion of the survey instrument Part One-A and Part One-B.

Respondents that answered that they were not a Great Lakes Fishery Commission

 

Secretariat staff or commissioner (question 1.1), and that did identifl a Great Lakes
agency-appointed committees as one that they are currently associated with (question 1.2)
completed the questions in Part One-A. Respondents that answered that they 3&9 a Great
Lakes Fishery Commission Secretariat staff or commissioner (question 1.1), and that fld
not identifl any of the Great Lakes agency-appointed committees listed below as one
with which they associate (question 1.2) were branched firrther in the survey to complete
questions in Part One-B. Both sets of respondents were asked to complete Part Two of

the survey under Appendix E.

Great Lakes Fishery's Network of Information Exchanges Part One-A

Section 1: Your Great Lakes Committee

1.1 During the time period between 2003 and 2005, inclusive, were you a Great Lakes

Fishery Commission (GLFC) Secretariat staff or GLFC Commissioner?

0 Yes —-+ Go to Part One-B, Question #1 .3

232

o No —> Go to next question (For all subsequent questions assume you go to the

next question unless there is a branching note in color as above)

1.2 Select one of the Great Lakes agency-appointed committees, or one of the sub-
committees or task groups, listed below with which you are most currently associated.
The committee, subcommittee, or task group you select will be referred to as "Your
Committee" in all subsequent questions. If you are equally associated with several or all
committees listed below select the committee with which you are most familiar in terms
of its members, attendees, and fisheries topics. If you are not associated with any of the
committees or you are not familiar with any of the committees' fisheries topics please
select the "I am not familiar with any of these committees" answer.

0 Lake Ontario Committee (LOC)

o LOC's Standing Technical Committee

0 LOC's Deepwater Ciscoe Task Group

0 Lake Trout Technical Subcommittee

o Other LOC's subcommittees or taskgroups

- Lake Erie Committee (LEC)

o LEC's Standing Technical Committee

0 LEC's Coldwater Task Group

0 LEC's Forage Task Group

0 LEC's Habitat Task Group

- LEC's Walleye Task Group

0 LEC’s Yellow Perch Task Group

233

Other LEC's subcommittees or taskgroups
Lake Huron Committee (LHC)

Lake Huron Technical Committee

LHC's Specialized Task Groups

Other LHC's subcommittees or task groups
Lake Michigan Committee (LMC)

Lake Michigan Technical Committee
LMC's Lake Sturgeon Task Group

Other LMC's subcommittees or taskgroups
Lake Superior Committee (LSC)

Lake Superior Technical Committee

Other LSC's subcommittees or taskgroups
Law Enforcement Committee (LAW)
LAW's Upper Lakes Committees

LAW’s Lower Lakes Committees

Other LAW's subcommittees or taskgroups
Council of Lake Committees

Council of Great Lakes Fishery Agencies

1 am NOT familiar with any of these Committees —+ Go to Part One-B, Question

#13

234

1.3 How valuable is it to you to attend your committee meetings?
Your committee refers to the committee, subcommittee, or task group that you identified
in the previous question as the one with which you are most currently associated.

o No value

0 Low value

0 Low to moderate value

0 Moderate value

0 Moderate to high value

0 High value

1.4 Are there official or unofficial repercussions of which you are aware for committee
members that do not attend committee meetings? Oflicial refers to repercussions that are
written in the committee ’s term of reference. Unoflicial refers to non-written sanctions
such as how other members may react to the person that is missing committee meetings.
0 Yes, there are official repercussions of which I am aware
0 Yes, there are unofficial repercussions of which I am aware

o I am not aware of any repercussions

1.5 Please briefly describe the types of formal or informal repercussions for committee

members that miss committee meetings?

235

1.6 Do you learn anything during the formal portions of your committee meetings?
Formal portions of the meetings refers to the presentations and committee led
discussions. This does not include the informal interactions and discussions among
participants.

0 No, I never learn anything

0 Yes, I occasionally learn something

0 Yes, I frequently learn something

0 Yes, I always learn something

1.7 What percentage of what you learn from your committee do you share with
colleagues within your organization?

0 100% (all that you learn)

0 80%
o 60%
o 50%
o 40%
o 20%

o 0% (nothing that you learn)

236

1.8 Do you learn anything during the informal portions of your committee meetings?
Informal portions of the meetings refers to cojfee breaks, receptions, meals, and other
informal settings during which you have interactions with the committee 's meetings'
participants.

0 No, I never learn anything

0 Yes, I occasionally learn something

0 Yes, I frequently learn something

0 Yes, I always learn something

1.9 How would you rate. the usefulness of the information you learn from the informal
(e.g., socials) portions versus the formal (e. g., presentations) portions of
the meeting?
0 Information from informal portions is much more useful than from the formal
meeting
0 lnforrnation from informal portions is more useful than from the formal meeting
0 Information from informal portions is equally useful as from the formal meeting
0 Information from informal portions is less useful than from the formal meeting

0 Information from informal portions is much less useful than from the formal

meeting

237

1.10 What value do the voting members of your committee assign to stakeholders'
opinions when making decisions?

0 No value

0 Low value

0 Low to moderate value

0 Moderate value

0 Moderate to high value

0 High value

1.11 How sufficient is the value assigned to stakeholders' opinions by the voting
members of your committee?

0 Completely insufficient

o Moderately insufficient

0 Mildly insufficient

o Mildly sufficient

o Moderately sufficient

0 Completely sufficient

238

1.12 Among the various groups that provide information to your committee on issues of
interest, please indicate up to five groups that you believe provide, in

comparison to the other groups, the most important and useful information to your
committee. If there are no groups please write "none" in the first box.

These groups may include various types of anglers or their representatives, professionals
fi'om academic institutions, agency biologists/managers/conservation oflicers,

consulting firms, individuals, media, non-governmental organizations, or any other type

of group that provides information to your committee.

 

 

 

 

0 Group #1:
0 Group #2:
0 Group #3:
0 Group #4:
0 Group #5:

 

Thank-you for completing Section 1!
You are about to start Section 2. Section 2 focuses on your general relationship with
your committee's participants. There are a total of 5 sections in this part of the

survey for you to complete. Thank-You for participating!

239

Section 2: You, Your Committee, and Your Organization
2.1 Please select the answer that best describes your level of knowledge for each of the
following groups of people within your committee. In the questions below "wel " refers
to you knowing the person 's name, and having knowledge of the fisheries area in which
they have expertise. For each of the statements below select one of these answer choices:
I know none of them, I know few of them well, I know some of them well, I know most
of them well, I know all of them well.

0 How well do you know the Executive Officers of your committee?

0 How well do you know the representatives of the member agencies of your

committee?
0 How well do you know the other people (stakeholders, academia, guest speakers

etc.) attending your committee's meetings?

2.2 Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding you and
people in your committee. .For each statement select among the following 6 answer
choices: Completely disagree, Moderately disagree, Mildly disagree, Mildly agree
Moderately agree, Completely agree.

0 People on my committee and I share similar concerns for the Great Lakes fishery.

o I identify with the people who are on my committee.

0 I feel that I am accepted by the people on my committee.

0 People on my committee seek my assistance for Great Lakes fishery related

issues.

240

o I care about what people on my committee think of my actions.

0 I can approach any person on my committee to ask for their assistance with work
related issues.

0 People on my committee and I are striving for the same overall fisheries resources
goals.

0 People on my committee are interested in what I have to say about Great Lakes
fishery related topics.

0 It is valuable to me to be working with the people on my committee.

2.3 Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding you and
people in your organization. If your organization is composed of sub-compartments such
as departments, branches, or units answer these questions with respect to the lowest
(smallest) division of your organization to which you belong. For each statement select
among the following 6 answer choices: Completely disagree, Moderately disagree,
Mildly disagree, Mildly agree, Moderately agree, Completely agree.

0 People within my organization and I share similar concerns for the Great Lakes

fishery.

- I identify with the people who work in my organization.

0 I feel that I am accepted by people within my organization.

0 People within my organization seek my assistance for Great Lakes related issues.

0 I care about what people within my organization think of my actions.

0 I can approach any person within my organization to ask for their assistance with

work related issues.

241

People within my organization and I are striving for the same overall fisheries

resources goals.

People within my organization are interested in what I have to say about Great
Lakes fishery related topics.

It is valuable to me to be working with the people in my organization.

2.4 Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding you, people

in your committee, and people in your organization. If your organization is composed of

sub-compartments such as departments, branches, or units answer these questions with

respect to the lowest (smallest) division 0 f your organization to which you belong. For

each statement select among the following 6 answer choices: Completely disagree,

Moderately disagree, Mildly disagree, Mildly agree, Moderately agree, Completely agree.

People in my organization are more similar to me with respect to their fisheries
related background (education, experience) than the people in my committee.

I identify more with people in my organization than with people in my committee.
The concerns that I have for fisheries resources are more similar to the concerns
held by people in my organization than people in my committee.

People in my organization are more interested in what I have to say about Great
Lakes fishery related topics than people within my committee.

I care more about what people within my organization think of my actions than
what people in my committee think of my actions

I am more willing to assist people in my committee than people within my

organization.

242

0 People in my committee seek out my assistance on Great Lakes fishery related
issues more than people in my organization.

0 My perspectives on fisheries related issues are more similar to the perspectives
held by people in my committee than people in my organization.

0 It is more valuable to me to be working with the people in my committee than the

people in my organization.

2.5 Please write the firll name, affiliated organization, and other relevant information in
the spaces provided below for up to 5 people to whom you turn to when you want to have
an important discussion on Great Lakes fisheries related topics. These people can be
external to or part of the Great Lakes agency appointed committees. If you do not discuss
this topic with anyone please write "none" in the first box. The people you list below will
not be contacted. They will only be included within the information exchange network
that 1 will be analyzing. The identity of the individuals you list will not be revealed. All
data pertinent to them will be anonymized and generalized.

0 First Name & Middle Initial

0 Last Name Organization

0 Types of Fisheries Topics Discussed?

2.6 To be able to combine the initial information you have given me in the previous
question regarding your information exchange network with the more detailed
information you will be providing in Part 2 of the survey I need to have your full name

and affiliation. This information will also allow me to merge your information with other

243

respondents' networks to obtain a complete representation of the entire flow of
information exchanges within and among the Great Lakes Agency Appointed
Committees. I will assign a unique number to you, which will be used in the data analysis
stage. Your name and other identifiable characteristics will not be shared with anyone or
included in any publication. Thank you for participating in my research on the Great
Lakes Fishery’s Network of Information Exchanges. This survey is confidential. Your
answers will be kept confidential. We will not identijy you by name or any other unique
characteristic or set of characteristics in any written documents. You may contact Peter
Vasilenko, Ph. D. Chairperson of UCRIHS (the human-subjects research review board) at
Michigan State University (Telephone: (51 7) 355-2180 / Fax: 432-4503 / E-mail:
ucrihs@msu.edu), in case you have concerns or questions about your rights in
participating in this human-subjects research.

0 Your first and last name:

 

- Your affiliation (agency, university, tribe, organization, etc.):

 

Thank-you for completing section 2! The current section, section 3, asks about your
opinion on topics related to management and enforcement of Great Lakes fisheries.

Thank-You!

244

Section 3: Management and Enforcement of Great Lakes Fisheries
3.1 How valuable is it for you to know about current fisheries issues that exist in the other
Great Lake(s)? Other Great Lake(s) refers to the Great Lake(s) in which you do not
conduct the majority of your work.

0 No value

0 Low value

0 Low to moderate value

0 Moderate value

0 Moderate to high value

0 High value

3.2 What value would you assign to having interactions between yourself and Fisheries
Biologists/Managers from other jurisdictions?

o No value

0 Low value

0 Low to moderate value

0 Moderate value

0 Moderate to high value

0 High value

245

3.3 What value would you assign to having interactions between yourself and Fisheries

Law Enforcement Officers from other jurisdictions?

No value

Low value

Low to moderate value
Moderate value
Moderate to high value

High value

3.4 How valuable is it to have Great Lakes Fisheries Biologists and Managers interact

through the following platforms? Assign one of the following answer choices to each of

the situations listed below: No value, Low value, Low to moderate value, Moderate

value, Moderate to high value, High value.

Biologists and Managers interacting through the Lake Committees

Biologists and Managers interacting through the Law Committee

Biologists and Managers interacting through the Council of Lake Committees
Biologists and Managers interacting through the Council of Great Lakes Agencies
Biologists and Managers interacting within their common organization

Biologists and Managers interacting where they work, whether this be within or
outside their jurisdiction, in the field or in the lab, or other forum where they both

conduct their work

246

3.5 How valuable is it to have Great Lakes Fisheries Law Enforcement Officers and
Great Lakes Fisheries Biologists/Managers interact through the following platforms?
Assign one of the following answer choices to each of the situations listed below: No
value, Low value, Low to moderate value, Moderate value, Moderate to high value, High
value.

0 Officers and Biologists/Managers interacting through the Lake Committees

0 Officers and Biologists/Managers interacting through the Law Committee

0 Officers and Biologists/Managers interacting through the Council of Lake

0 Committees

0 Officers and Biologists/Managers interacting through the Council of Great Lakes

0 Agencies

0 Officers and Biologists/Managers interacting within their common organization

0 Officers and Biologists/Managers interacting where they work, whether this be

within or outside their jurisdiction, in the field or in the lab, or other forum where

they both conduct their work

3.6 To assure the sustainability of shared Great Lakes fisheries, what relative amount of
management decisions do you think should be made by each jurisdiction independently
(uni-jurisdictional) and what relative amount of management decisions should be made
jointly by all involved jurisdictions (multi-jurisdictional) concerning shared fisheries?
Scenarios range from: (1) all management activities pertaining to shared fisheries are
implemented based only on a jurisdiction's decisions. Decisions do not take into account

input from other jurisdictions (only uni-jurisdictional); (2) individual jurisdictions make

247

no independent management decisions for the shared fishery (only multi-jurisdictional);
and (3) a combination of these two approaches. Sustainability refers to using a fishery
resource, and the ecosystem that supports the fishery resource, in such a way to assure
that the fishery maintains a healthy population size. Shared fisheries refers to fisheries
that cross jurisdictional boundaries, thus having more than one jurisdiction with
management and enforcement authority of these fisheries.

0 Only unijurisdictional

0 Mostly unijurisdictional

0 Half unijurisdictional and half multijurisdictional

0 Mostly multijurisdictional

0 Only multijurisdictional

o I do not know

3.7 When making a decision, which of the following options best represents how your
committee balances the perspectives of individual jurisdictions with committee (lake-
wide) perspectives on fisheries related topics?

0 0% individual, 100% committee

0 20% individual, 80% committee

0 40% individual, 60% committee

0 50% individual, 50% committee

0 60% individual, 40% committee

0 80% individual, 20% committee

0 100% individual, 0% committee

248

o I do not know

3.8 How valuable is your committee's role in assuring the sustainable management of
lake-wide fisheries? Sustainable refers to using a fishery resource, and the ecosystem
that supports the fishery resource, in such a way to assure that the fishery maintains a
healthy population size.

0 No value

Low value

0 Low to moderate value
0 Moderate value
0 Moderate to high value

0 High value

3.9 How would you describe the effectiveness of your committee in achieving inter-
jurisdictional cooperation among the fisheries authorities found within its Great Lake?
0 Completely ineffective
o Moderately ineffective
o Mildly ineffective
o Mildly effective
0 Moderately effective

0 Completely effective

249

3.10 How effective do you believe is the Joint Strategic Plan in achieving an inter-
jurisdictional coordinated fishery management in the Great Lakes? The Joint Strategic
Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries was adopted in 1981 as a commitment to
interjurisdictional coordinated fishery management based upon an ecosystem approach.
The entire text is available online at http://www. glfc. org/fishmgmt/jsp9 7. htm

0 Completely ineffective

o Moderately ineffective

o Mildly ineffective

o Mildly effective

0 Moderately effective

0 Completely effective

0 I do not know

3.11 How effective are Fish Community Objectives as a tool for guiding the Committee's
effort in achieving its desired fish community structure? Fish Community Objectives: the
Lake Committees will define objectives for the structure of each of the Great Lakes fish
communities and develop a means of measuring progress toward their achievement.

0 Completely ineffective

0 Moderately ineffective

o Mildly ineffective

o Mildly effective

0 Moderately effective

0 Completely effective

250

o I do not know

3.12 How valuable is the combined role of the Boards, Committees, and Partners under
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission umbrella in assuring the sustainability of the Great
Lakes' shared fisheries? Boards include: Board of Technical Experts; Sea Lamprey
Integration Committee; and Great Lakes Fish Habitat Conservation Committee.
Agency-Appointed Committees include: Council of Great Lakes Fishery Agencies;
Council of Lake Committees; Law Enforcement Committee; Fish Health Committee;
Lake Superior Committee; Lake Michigan Committee; Lake Huron Committee; Lake Erie
Committee and Lake Ontario Committee. Partners include: Fisheries and Oceans
Canada; Michigan State University; US. Army Corps and Engineers; U.S. Geology
Survey; University of Guelph and US. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sustainability refers to
using a fishery resource, and the ecosystem that supports the fishery resource, in such a
way to assure that the fishery maintains a healthy population size. Shared fisheries refer
to fisheries that cross jurisdictional boundaries, thus having more than one jurisdiction
with management and enforcement authority of these fisheries.

o No value

Low value

0 Low to moderate value
0 Moderate value

0 Moderate to high value
0 High value

0 I do not know

251

You are finished with Section 3! You have only 2 more short sections (section 4 & 5)

to complete before you are done with Part 1 of the survey. Section 4 focuses on your

opinion about Great Lakes lake sturgeon topics. Thank-you!

Section 4: Great Lakes Lake Sturgeon

4.1 How would you describe the current Great Lakes lake sturgeon population found

within your committee's jurisdiction?

Extirpated (no longer found within your jurisdiction)

Endangered (very few in numbers)

Threatened (few in numbers)

Moderate, healthy population, that can support a limited recreational and/or
commercial harvest

Large, healthy population, that can support a substantial recreational and/or
commercial harvest

I do not know

4.2 In your opinion, what amount of effort would be needed to rehabilitate

threatened/endangered Great Lakes lake sturgeon populations? Eflort refers to the

amount of financial and human resources invested.

No effort needed (population healthy)
Very low amount of effort
Moderately low amount of effort

Low amount of effort

252

0 High amount of effort

0 Moderately high amount of effort

0 Very high amount of effort

0 An incredibly high amount of effort

0 I do not know

4.3 To assure the sustainability of shared Great Lakes lake sturgeon, what relative
amount of management decisions do you think should be made by each jurisdiction
independently (uni-jurisdictional) and what relative amount of management decisions
should be made jointly by all involved jurisdictions (multi- jurisdictional) concerning
shared fisheries? Scenarios range from: (1) all management activities pertaining to shared
fisheries are implemented based only on a jurisdiction's decisions. Decisions do not take
into account input from other jurisdictions (only uni-jurisdictional); (2) individual
jurisdictions make no independent management decisions for the shared fishery (only
multi-jurisdictional); and (3) a combination of these two approaches. Sustainability refers
to using a fishery resource, and the ecosystem that supports the fishery resource, in such
a way to assure that the fishery maintains a healthy population size. Shared fisheries
refers to fisheries that cross jurisdictional boundaries, thus having more than one
jurisdiction with management and enforcement authority of these fisheries.

0 Only unijurisdictional

0 Mostly unijurisdictional

0 Half unijurisdictional and half multijurisdictional

0 Mostly multijurisdictional

253

0 Only multijurisdictional

o I do not know

4.4 What priority level is given by your committee to lake sturgeon fishery issues?
0 Very low
0 Moderately low
0 Mildly low
0 Mildly high
0 Moderately high
0 Very high

0 I do not know

4.5 How would you qualifiz the priority level given by your committee to lake sturgeon
fishery issues?

0 Too low

0 Low

0 Somewhat low

0 Somewhat high

0 High

0 Too high

254

4.6 What priority level is given by your committee to lake sturgeon stakeholder groups?
0 Very low
0 Moderately low
0 Mildly low
0 Mildly high
- Moderately high
0 Very high

0 I do not know

4.7 How would you qualify the priority level given by your committee to the input of lake
sturgeon stakeholder groups?

0 Too low

0 Low

0 Somewhat low

0 Somewhat high

0 High

0 Too high

4.8 What priority level is given by your organization to Great Lakes lake sturgeon fishery
issues?

0 Very low

0 Moderately low

0 Mildly low

255

o Mildly high
0 Moderately high
0 Very high

0 I do not know

4.9 How would you qualify the priority level given by your organization to lake sturgeon
fishery issues?

0 Too low

0 Low

0 Somewhat low

0 Somewhat high

0 High

0 Too high

4.10 What priority level is given by your organization to lake sturgeon stakeholder
groups?

0 Very low

0 Moderately low

0 Mildly low

0 Mildly high

0 Moderately high

0 Very high

0 I do not know

256

4.11 How would you qualifi/ the priority level given by your organization to the input of
lake sturgeon stakeholder groups?

0 Too low

0 Low

0 Somewhat low

0 Somewhat high

0 High

0 Too high

4.12 What percentage of your work involves Great Lakes lake sturgeon?
Depending on your work this may include enforcement, policy, management, research,
sampling, outreach, or other components of your work that includes Great Lakes lake
sturgeon.

- 0% (I do not work on lake sturgeon)

0 less than 10%

o 10% to 20%

o 21% to 40%

o 41% to 50%

o 51% to 60%

o 61% to 80%

o more than 80%

o 100% (I only work on lake sturgeon)

257

4.13 Please write the full name, affiliated organization, and other relevant information in
the spaces provided below for up to 5 people with whom you have discussions related to
Great Lakes lake sturgeon. These people can be external to or part of the Great Lakes
agency-appointed committees. If you do not discuss this topic with anyone please write
"none" in the first box. The people you list below will not be contacted. They will only be
included within the information exchange network that I will be analyzing. The identity of
the individuals you list will not be revealed. All data pertinent to them will be anonymized
and generalized.

- First Name & Middle Initial

0 Last Name Organization

0 Types of Lake Sturgeon Topics Discussed?

You are now starting the 5th and final section of the first part of this survey.

Thank-You!

258

Section 5: Personal Information
5.1 Among the following committees, subcommittees, and/or task groups, please indicate
all committees, subcommittees, and/or task groups for which you have attended their
meetings at least twice between 1995 and 2005, inclusive. If you have not attended any of
these committees' meetings at least twice between 1995 and 2005, inclusive, please check
the last check box beside "I have never been a participant in any of these committees". I
have considered or do consider myself a participant of:

0 Lake Ontario Committee (LOC)

o LOC's Standing Technical Committee

0 LOC's Deepwater Ciscoe Task Group

0 Lake Trout Technical Subcommittee

o Other LOC's subcommittees or taskgroups

0 Lake Erie Committee (LEC)

o LEC's Standing Technical Committee

0 LEC's Coldwater Task Group

0 LEC's Forage Task Group

0 LEC's Habitat Task Group

0 LEC's Walleye Task Group

0 LEC's Yellow Perch Task Group

0 Other LEC's subcommittees or taskgroups

0 Lake Huron Committee (LHC)

0 Lake Huron Technical Committee

0 LHC's Specialized Task Groups

259

o Other LHC's subcommittees or task groups
0 Lake Michigan Committee (LMC)

0 Lake Michigan Technical Committee

a LMC's Lake Sturgeon Task Group

0 Other LMC's subcommittees or taskgroups
0 Lake Superior Committee (LSC)

0 Lake Superior Technical Committee

0 Other LSC's subcommittees or taskgroups
a Law Enforcement Committee (LAW)

0 LAW's Upper Lakes Committees

0 LAW's Lower Lakes Committees

0 Other LAW's subcommittees or taskgroups
0 Council of Lake Committees

0 Council of Great Lakes Fishery Agencies

0 I have never been a participant in any of these committees

5.2 Insert the name of up to 5 meetings you selected in the previous question (5.1) in the
spaces provided below. Among the answers listed below, select all the reasons why you
have attended each of the meetings.

0 Interested in agenda topics

0 Wanted to observe their meeting process

0 I was a guest speaker

o I was a member of that committee

260

o I was accompanying a colleague
0 Wanted to meet a particular person present at the meeting

0 Other? Please specify:

Great Lakes F ishery's Network of Information Exchanges Part One-B

Section I : Your Great Lakes Committee
1.3 Among the following committees, subcommittees, and/or task groups, please indicate
all committees, subcommittees, and/or task groups for which you have attended their
meetings at least twice between 1995 and 2005, inclusive. If you have not attended any of
these committees' meetings at least twice between 1995 and 2005, inclusive, please check
the last check box beside "I have never been a participant in any of these committees". I
have considered or do consider myself a participant of:

0 Lake Ontario Committee (LOC)

o LOC's Standing Technical Committee

0 LOC's Deepwater Ciscoe Task Group

0 Lake Trout Technical Subcommittee

o Other LOC's subcommittees or taskgroups

0 Lake Erie Committee (LEC)

o LEC's Standing Technical Committee

0 LEC's Coldwater Task Group

0 LEC's Forage Task Group

0 LEC's Habitat Task Group

261

LEC's Walleye Task Group

LEC's Yellow Perch Task Group

Other LEC's subcommittees or taskgroups
Lake Huron Committee (LHC)

Lake Huron Technical Committee

LHC's Specialized Task Groups

Other LHC's subcommittees or task groups
Lake Michigan Committee (LMC)

Lake Michigan Technical Committee
LMC's Lake Sturgeon Task Group

Other LMC's subcommittees or taskgroups
Lake Superior Committee (LSC)

Lake Superior Technical Committee

Other LSC's subcommittees or taskgroups
Law Enforcement Committee (LAW)
LAW's Upper Lakes Committees

LAW's Lower Lakes Committees

Other LAW's subcommittees or taskgroups
Council of Lake Committees

Council of Great Lakes Fishery Agencies

I have never been a participant in any of these Committees

262

1.4 Insert the name of up to 5 meetings you selected in the previous question (1.3) in the
spaces provided below. Among the answers listed below, select all the reasons why you
have attended each of the meetings.

0 Interested in agenda topics

0 Wanted to observe their meeting process

0 I was a guest speaker

o I was a member of that committee

0 I was accompanying a colleague

- Wanted to meet a particular person present at the meeting

0 Other? Please specify:

1.5 Do you learn anything during the formal portions of your committee meetings?
Formal portions of the meetings refers to the presentations and committee led
discussions. This does not include the informal interactions and discussions among
participants.

0 No, I never learn anything

0 Yes, I occasionally learn something

0 Yes, I frequently learn something

0 Yes, I always learn something

263

1.6 Do you learn anything during the informal portions of your committee meetings?
Informal portions of the meetings refers to coffee breaks, receptions, meals, and other
informal settings during which you have interactions with the committee's meetings'
participants.
No, I never learn anything

0 Yes, I occasionally learn something

0 Yes, I frequently learn something

0 Yes, I always learn something

1.7 How would you rate the usefulness of the information you learn from the informal
(e. g., socials) portions versus the formal (e.g., presentations) portions of the meeting?
0 Information from informal portions is much more useful than from the formal
meeting
0 Information from informal portions is more useful than from the formal meeting
0 Information from informal portions is equally useful as from the formal meeting
0 Information from informal portions is less useful than from the formal meeting
0 Information from informal portions is much less useful than from the formal

meeting

Thank-you for completing Section 1!
You are about to start Section 2. Section 2 focuses on your opinion and interests on
Great Lakes fisheries. There are a total of 5 sections in the current survey for you to

complete. Thank-You!

264

Section 2: Great Lakes Fishery
2.1 Are there some Great Lakes fisheries that are of greater interest to you than others?
These can be fisheries within or external to your local Great Lake region.

0 Yes

0 No —> Go to #2.3

2.2 Please write, from most (1) to least (5), up to 5 Great Lakes fisheries that are of
interest to you.

0 Great Lakes Fishery 1 (most):

0 Great Lakes Fishery 2:

0 Great Lakes Fishery 3:

0 Great Lakes Fishery 4:

0 Great Lakes Fishery 5 (least):

2.3 Are there some Great Lakes environmental issues that are of greater interest to you
than others? These can be environmental issues within or external to
your local Great Lake region.

0 Yes

0 No -* Go to #2.5

265

2.4 Please write, from most (1) to least (5), up to 5 Great Lakes environmental issues that
are of interest to you.

0 Great Lakes Environmental Issue 1 (most):

0 Great Lakes Environmental Issue 2:

0 Great Lakes Environmental Issue 3:

0 Great Lakes Environmental Issue 4:

0 Great Lakes Environmental Issue 5 (least):

2.5 Please write the full name, affiliated organization, and other relevant information in
the spaces provided below for up to 5 people to whom you turn to when you want to have
an important discussion on Great Lakes fisheries related topics. These people can be
external to or part of the Great Lakes agency appointed committees. If you do not discuss
this topic with anyone please write "none" in the first box. The people you list below will
not be contacted. They will only be included within the information exchange network
that I will be analyzing. The identity of the individuals you list will not be revealed All
data pertinent to them will be anonymized and generalized.

0 First Name & Middle Initial

0 Last Name

0 Organization

0 Types of Fisheries Topics Discussed?

266

2.6 To be able to combine the initial information you have given me in the previous
question regarding your information exchange network with the more detailed
information you will be providing in Part 2 of the survey I need to have your full name
and affiliation. This information will also allow me to merge your information with other
respondents' networks to obtain a complete representation of the entire flow of
information exchanges within and among the Great Lakes Agency Appointed
Committees. I will assign a unique number to you, which will be used in the data analysis
stage. Your name and other identifiable characteristics will not be shared with anyone or
included in any publication. Thank you for participating in my research on the Great
Lakes Fishery's Network of Information Exchanges. This survey is confidential. Your
answers will be kept confidential. We will not identify you by name or any other unique
characteristic or set of characteristics in any written documents. You may contact Peter
Vasilenko, Ph. D. Chairperson of UCRIHS (the human-subjects research review board) at
Michigan State University (Telephone: (517) 355-2180 / Fax: 432-4503 / E—mail:
ucrihs@msu.edu), in case you have concerns or questions about your rights in
participating in this human-subjects research.

Your first and last name:

 

Your affiliation (agency, university, tribe, organization, etc.):

 

Thank-you for completing section 2!
The current section, section 3, asks about your opinion on topics related to

management and enforcement of Great Lakes fisheries. Thank-You!

267

Section 3: Management and Enforcement of Great Lakes Fisheries

3.1 How valuable is it to have Great Lakes Fisheries Biologists and Managers interact

through the following platforms? For each of the statement below please select your

answer from the following answer choices: No value, Low value, Low to moderate value,

Moderate value, Moderate to high value, High value.

Biologists and Managers interacting through the Lake Committees

Biologists and Managers interacting through the Law Committee

Biologists and Managers interacting through the Council of Lake Committees
Biologists and Managers interacting through the Council of Great Lakes Agencies
Biologists and Managers interacting within their common organization

Biologists and Managers interacting where they work, whether this be within or
outside their jurisdiction, in the field or in the lab, or other forum where they both

conduct their work

3.2 How valuable is it to have Great Lakes Fisheries Law Enforcement Officers and

Great Lakes Fisheries Biologists/Managers interact through the following

platforms? For each of the statement below please select your answer from the following

answer choices: No value, Low value, Low to moderate value, Moderate value, Moderate

to high value, High value.

Officers and Biologists/Managers interacting through the Lake Committees
Officers and Biologists/Managers interacting through the Law Committee

Officers and Biologists/Managers interacting through the Council of Lake

Committees

268

0 Officers and Biologists/Managers interacting through the Council of Great Lakes
Agencies

0 Officers and Biologists/Managers interacting within their common organization

0 Officers and Biologists/Managers interacting where they work, whether this be
within or outside their jurisdiction, in the field or in the lab, or other forum where

they both conduct their work

3.3 To assure the sustainability of shared Great Lakes fisheries, what relative amount of
management decisions do you think should be made by each jurisdiction independently
(uni-jurisdictional) and what relative amount of management decisions should be made
jointly by all involved jurisdictions (multi-jurisdictional) concerning shared fisheries?
Scenarios range from: (1) all management activities pertaining to shared fisheries are
implemented based only on a jurisdiction’s decisions. Decisions do not take into account
input from other jurisdictions (only uni-jurisdictional); (2) individual jurisdictions make
no independent management decisions for the shared fishery (only multi-jurisdictional);
and (3) a combination of these two approaches. Sustainability refers to using a fishery
resource, and the ecosystem that supports the fishery resource, in such a way to assure
that the fishery maintains a healthy population size. Shared fisheries refers to fisheries
that cross jurisdictional boundaries, thus having more than one jurisdiction with
management and enforcement authority of these fisheries.

0 Only unijurisdictional

- Mostly unijurisdictional

0 Half unijurisdictional and half multijurisdictional

269

0 Mostly multijurisdictional
0 Only multijurisdictional

o I do not know

3.4 How effective do you believe is the Joint Strategic Plan in achieving an inter-
jurisdictional coordinated fishery management in the Great Lakes? The Joint Strategic
Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries was adopted in 1981 as a commitment to
interjurisdictional coordinated fishery management based upon an ecosystem approach.
The entire text is available online at http://www.glfc.org/fishmgmt/jsp97.htm

0 Completely ineffective

o Moderately ineffective

o Mildly ineffective

o Mildly effective

0 Moderately effective

0 Completely effective

0 I do not know

3.5 How effective are Fish Community Objectives as a tool for guiding the Committee's
effort in achieving its desired fish community structure? Fish Community Objectives: the
Lake Committees will define objectives for the structure of each of the Great Lakes fish
communities and develop a means of measuring progress toward their achievement.

0 Completely ineffective

o Moderately ineffective

270

o Mildly ineffective

0 Mildly effective

0 Moderately effective
0 Completely effective

0 I do not know

3.6 How valuable is the combined role of the Boards, Committees, and Partners under the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission umbrella in assuring the sustainability of the Great
Lakes' shared fisheries? Boards include: Board of Technical Experts; Sea Lamprey
Integration Committee; and Great Lakes Fish Habitat Conservation Committee.
A gency-Appointed Committees include: Council of Great Lakes Fishery Agencies;
Council of Lake Committees; Law Enforcement Committee; Fish Health Committee;
Lake Superior Committee; Lake Michigan Committee; Lake Huron Committee; Lake Erie
Committee and Lake Ontario Committee. Partners include: Fisheries and Oceans
Canada; Michigan State University; US. Army Corps and Engineers; U.S. Geology
Survey; University of Guelph and US. Fish and Wildlife Service Sustainability refers to
using a fishery resource, and the ecosystem that supports the fishery resource, in such a
way to assure that the fishery maintains a healthy population size. S haredfisheries
refers to fisheries that cross jurisdictional boundaries, thus having more than one
jurisdiction with management and enforcement authority of these fisheries.

o No value

0 Low value

0 Low to moderate value

271

0 Moderate value
0 Moderate to high value
0 High value

0 I do not know

You are finished with Section 3!
You have only 2 more short sections (section 4 & 5) to complete before you are done
with Part 1 of the survey. Section 4 focuses on your opinion about Great Lakes lake

sturgeon topics. Thank-you!

Section 4: Great Lakes Lake Sturgeon
4.1 How would you describe the current Great Lakes lake sturgeon population found
within your committee's jurisdiction?
0 Extirpated (no longer found within your jurisdiction)
0 Endangered (very few in numbers)
0 Threatened (few in numbers)
0 Moderate, healthy population, that can support a limited recreational and/or
commercial harvest
0 Large, healthy population, that can support a substantial recreational and/or
commercial harvest

0 I do not Know

272

4.2 In your opinion, what amount of effort would be needed to rehabilitate
threatened/endangered Great Lakes lake sturgeon populations? Effort refers to the
amount of financial and human resources invested.

o No effort needed (population healthy)

0 Very low amount of effort

0 Moderately low amount of effort

0 Low amount of effort

0 High amount of effort

0 Moderately high amount of effort

0 Very high amount of effort

0 An incredibly high amount of effort

0 I do not know

4.3 To assure the sustainability of shared Great Lakes lake sturgeon, what relative
amount of management decisions do you think should be made by each jurisdiction
independently (uni-jurisdictional) and what relative amount of management decisions
should be made jointly by all involved jurisdictions (multi- jurisdictional) concerning
shared fisheries? Scenarios range from: (I) all management activities pertaining to shared
fisheries are implemented based only on a jurisdiction's decisions. Decisions do not take
into account input from other jurisdictions (only uni-jurisdictional); (2) individual
jurisdictions make no independent management decisions for the shared fishery (only
multi-jurisdictional); and (3) a combination of these two approaches. Sustainability refers

to using a fishery resource, and the ecosystem that supports the fishery resource, in such

273

a way to assure that the fishery maintains a healthy population size. Shared fisheries

refers to fisheries that cross jurisdictional boundaries, thus having more than one

jurisdiction with management and enforcement authority of these fisheries.

Only unijurisdictional

Mostly unijurisdictional

Half unijurisdictional and half multijurisdictional
Mostly multijurisdictional

Only multijurisdictional

I do not know

4.4 What priority level do you think the 7 Great Lakes committees should give to Great

Lakes lake sturgeon fishery issues? Great Lakes committees include: Lake Ontario

Committee, Lake Erie Committee, Lake Huron Committee, Lake Michigan Committee,

Lake Superior Committee, Law Enforcement Committee, Council of Lake Committee.

Very low
Moderately low
Mildly low
Mildly high
Moderately high
Very high

I do not know

274

4.5 What level of value do you think that the Great Lakes committees should assign to
the input of lake sturgeon stakeholder groups? Great Lakes committees include: Lake
Ontario Committee, Lake Erie Committee, Lake Huron Committee, Lake Michigan
Committee, Lake Superior Committee, Law Enforcement Committee, Council of Lake
Committee.

0 No value

0 Low value

0 Low to moderate value

0 Moderate value

0 Moderate to high value

0 High value

0 I do not know

4.6 Please write the full name, affiliated organization, and other relevant information in
the spaces provided below for up to 5 people with whom you have discussions related to
Great Lakes lake sturgeon. These people can be external to or part of the Great Lakes
agency-appointed committees. If you do not discuss this topic with anyone please write
"none" in the first box. The people you list below will not be contacted. They will only be
included within the information exchange network that I will be analyzing. The identity of
the individuals you list will not be revealed. All data pertinent to them will be anonymized
and generalized.

0 First Name & Middle Initial

0 Last Name

275

0 Organization

0 Types of Lake Sturgeon Topics Discussed?

You are now starting the 5th and final section of the first part of this survey.
The first question in this section is question # 5.3

Thank-You!

Section 5: Personal Information
5.3 Please select which of the following best describes your current employer.
0 Federal agency
0 State agency
0 Provincial agency
0 Tribal/First Nations agency
0 Commercial fishery organization
0 Recreational fishery organization
0 Stakeholder organization
0 Academic institution

0 Public outreach organization

5.4 Please write your current job title:

Job Title:

 

276

5.5 Among the list below select all the terms that describe the type of work you currently

do.

Public education/outreach

0 Stakeholder representative

0 Policy

0 Lobbying

0 Fisheries management

0 Habitat management

0 Enforcement of fisheries regulations
0 Enforcement of habitat regulations
«- Facilitator

0 Research

0 lntemational level

0 National level

0 Regional level

0 Local level

Other? Please specify

5.6 Select the range of years that best corresponds to the total number of years you have
been associated with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission or any of its related boards,
committees, and sub-committees. Associated includes attending meetings as an invited

guest presenter, as a participant, as an official member, or any other type of activity that

277

resulted in you interacting with other people associated with the Great Lakes Fishery

Committee 's boards, committees, or subcomittees.

0 to 1 year
2 to 5 years
6 to 10 years

more than 10 years

5.7 Among the list of organizations listed below, please indicate all the organizations of

which you are a member.

American Fisheries Society, Parent organization

American Fisheries Society, Division or Chapter

American Sportfishing Association

Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network
Canadian Conference for Fisheries Research

Canadian National Sport Fishing Foundation

lntemational Association for Great Lakes Research

Ontario Commercial Fisheries' Association

Wisconsin Commercial Fishermen's Association

Other? Please specify:

5.8 Where do you live?

Canada

United States

278

o Other? Please specify:

5.9 Please select your gender:
0 Female

0 Male

5.10 Please select your age group:
0 under 25 years of age
0 25 to 34 years of age
0 35 to 44 years of age
0 45 to 59 years of age

0 over 60 years of age

5.1 1 What is your race?

Race reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they
most closely identify. Race categories include White, Black, Afiican American, American
Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Pacific Islander, combination of two or more races, and so

forth.

0 Race:

 

5.12 From the categories below please select the highest level of education level that you
have completed.

0 General Equivalency Diploma,

279

0 High School equivalency diploma (GED)
0 High School Diploma

0 College Degree (2-years)

0 Bachelor Degree

0 Master Degree

0 PhD Degree

0 Other? Please specify:

Thank you for completing part 1 of this survey.

Part 2 of the survey contains only one section which serves to gather important
information on the information exchange among the Great Lakes Agency Appointed
Committees. This second part of the survey is a crucial component of this research
project as it will provide the information needed to reveal and analyze the structure
of information exchange among members and participants of the committees.

Thank-you for your participation. You are almost finished with the survey.

280

 

APPENDIX E

Survey Questions and Answer Choices for Part Two

Great Lakes Fishery's Network of Information Exchanges
Thank-you for participating in the second and final part of my survey. This second part of
the survey contains the Your Network of Information Exchanges section, which is a

crucial component of this research project.

, In this section I will be asking you to identify who you know and to describe your
professional relationship with each individual. This information is extremely important as
it allows me to construct the network diagram of the flow of fishery related information
among all individuals involved in the Great Lakes' Agency Appointed Committees
(figure 1). Once constructed this diagram will increase our understanding of the current
flow of information among participants and thereby contribute to enhancing our
management of Great Lakes fishery resource. If a person that you know appears under
more than one committee, please indicate that you know them under each committee but

only answer the more in-depth questions for them once.
Thank-you for taking the time required to provide me with the critical information
needed to build a complete network diagram of the fishery related information exchanges

in the Great Lakes!

Nancy Leonard

281

Michigan State University
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
13 Natural Resources Building

East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Leonar80@msu.edu

(734) 662-3209 ext.29

Your Network of Information Exchanges

To be able to construct your information exchange network and merge it with other
respondents' networks I need to have your full name and affiliation. I will assign a unique
number to you, which will be used in the data analysis stage. Your name and other
identifiable characteristics will not be shared with anyone or included in any publication.
Thank you for participating in my research on the Great Lakes F ishery's Network of
Information Exchanges. This survey is confidential. Your answers will be kept
confidential. We will not identify you by name or any other unique characteristic or set of
characteristics in any written documents. However, as this survey includes name rosters
compiled using attendance sheets from Great Lakes Committee meetings, your name
along with other names may be listed in the survey. You may contact Peter Vasilenko,

Ph. D. Chairperson of UCRIHS (the human-subjects research review board) at Michigan
State University (T elephone:355-21 80 / Fax: 432-4503 / E-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu), in
case you have concerns or questions about your rights in participating in this human-

subjects research.

282

0 Your First and Last Name:

 

0 Your affiliation (agency, university, tribe, organization, etc.):

 

Your Network of Information Exchanges - GLFC Commissioners, Secretariat, and
Advisors

1. Below is a partial list of Great Lakes Fishery Conunission Commissioners, Great
Lakes Fishery Commission Secretariat, and Advisors. If there are two or more

people in the network with the same name their affiliation is noted in { } to facilitate
differentiating between them. Please select all the individuals that you know including
casual acquaintances and close colleagues. Next copy the names you have selected in the
space provided on the fold-out page located on the left. If you selected more than 10
person write the names of those with whom you prefer to discuss important topics
relevant to your work (up to 10 names). If your name is among those listed below do not
select your name. If you do not know any of the people listed below please check the “I

do not know any of these people” box.

0 Arcuri, Don C Jackson, Don C Quinney, Terry

0 Atkinson, Arthur 0 Jackson, John 0 Reuss, Dick
B.(Bert) o Jensen, Paul 0 Russell, Merlynn

o Barnhart, Gerry 0 Johnson, Vermont 0 Ryan,

0 Beamish, Bill a Kenyon, Roger Michael(Mike)

o Bodin, Jeff 2 0 Knight, Roger G Sander, Edmund

0 Burkett, Dale - Krueger, Chuck 0 Scott, Steven(Steve)
0 Christie, Gavin o Kustich, Rick 0 Sisler, Sean

283

o Conlin, Mike

0 Cowan, E.R.(Ted)

o Culligan,
William(Bill)

0 Davis, John

(Affiliation: DFO}

0 Davis, Larry

0 Dexter, Jim

0 Dochoda, Marg

o Engel, Matt

0 Eshenroder, Randy

o Finster, Jill

o Gaden, Marc

0 Garton , Robert

9 Goddard, Chris

0 Grinold , Dennis

o Hansen, Bernard

0 Hansen, Michael

0 Haslerud, Charles

0 Hecky, Robert

0 Hetz, Robert

0 Hickey, Dennis

Laitinen, Ronald
LaPan, Steve
Lawrence, Ted
Leonard, Nancy
Lewis(Bronkowski),
Pat

Lonsdale, David
Lutz, Heather
Makauskas, Ed
Manson, Craig
Mathers, Jerry
Matta,
Michael(Mike)
Matthews, Robert
May, Gerald
McLeod, Scott
Merckel,
Kenneth(Ken)
Newcomb, Tammy
Newman, Kurt
Niggemyer, Allison

Obert, Eric

284

Sivertson , Stuart
Smith, Kelley
Staples,
Barbara(Barb)
Stein, Roy
Taylor,

William(Bill)

{Affiliationz MSU}

Trudeau, Tom
Wallace, Peter
Watson-Wright,
Wendy
Weisinger,
Russell(Russ)
Wendler, Paul
Wilcox, Ralph
Williams , Forrest
Wingate , Paul

J .(Jack)

Wofford
(Martineau), Sean

Zhuang, Hao

0 House, Alfred(Al) 0 Pierce, Ray 0 Zuverink, Gordon
0 Hoven, Harvey o Pistis, o I do not know any
Charles(Chuck) of these people

0 Pollesch, Todd

2. Beside each name please indicate how ofien you have interacted with each person
during the last 12 months.

0 l to 3 times (x) a year

0 4 to 6x a year

0 1 to 3x a week

0 Daily

0 No interactions during last 12 months

3. Beside each name, please indicate how long you have known each person.
0 less than 6 months
0 6 to 11 months
0 l to 5 years
0 6 to 10 years

0 more than 10 years

4. Beside each of the names, please indicate how much you value the information you
gain from discussions with each individual regarding Great Lakes fishery topics. If you
do not discuss Great Lakes fishery related topics with a person please select "We do not

discuss fisheries topics" as your answer.

285

No value

Low value

Low to moderate value
Moderate value
Moderate to high value
High value

We do not discuss fisheries topics

5. Beside each of the names that you identified in the previous question as people with

whom you have Great Lakes fishery related discussions, please indicate what proportion

of your discussions include Great Lakes lake sturgeon related topics.

None of our discussions

Few

Less than half

About half

More than half

Almost all

All of our Discussions

6. Are there other past or current Great Lakes Fishery Commission Commissioners, Great

Lakes Fishery Commission Secretariat, and Advisors not listed in the previous roster with

whom you have important discussions on Great Lakes fisheries related topics?

Yes

286

7. Please type the full name, affiliated organization, and other relevant information in the
spaces provided below for up to 10 people who are past or current Great Lakes Fishery
Commission Commissioners, Great Lakes Fishery Commission Secretariat, and Advisors
and with whom you have important discussions on Great Lakes fisheries related topics.

0 First Name & Middle Initial

- Last Name

0 Organization

0 Types of Fisheries Topics Discussed (general, lake sturgeon, other)?

Your Network of Information Exchanges - Council of GLFC Agencies and Council
of Lake Committees

8. Below is a partial list of members and attendees of the Council of Great Lakes Fishery
Commission Agencies and Council of Lake Committees. If there are two or

more people in the network with the same name their affiliation is noted in { } to
facilitate differentiating between them. Please select all the individuals that you know
including casual acquaintances and close colleagues. Next copy the names you have
selected in the space provided on the fold-out page located on the left. If you selected
more than 10 person write the names of those with whom you prefer to discuss important
topics relevant to your work (up to 10 names). If your name is among those listed below
do not select your name. If you do not know any of the people listed below please check

the “I do not know any of these people” box.

287

Archambault, Bill
Breidert, Brian
Cairns, Vic

Carl, Leon

Colin, Mike
Cooley, John
Culligan, William
(Bill)

Cullis, Ken
Dexter, Jim
Fynn-Aikin, Kofi
Galloway, Jim
Gannon, John
George, Sandra
Gesl, Dave
Gillman, D. Victor
Gorenflo, Torn
Grannemann,
Norman

Groat, Chip

Haseltine, Sue
Hoopes, Rick
Horns, William
(Bill)

Horvatin, Paul
Isbell, Gary
Jackson, Gerry
James, William
Kenyon, Roger
Kmiecik, Neil
Knight, Roger
Krantzberg, Gail
Lange, Robert (Bob)
LaPan, Steve
Locke, Brian
MacGregor, Rob
Mack, Cameron
(Cam)

Mattes, Bill
McLeish, David

(Dave)

288

Morencie, Mike
Morrison, Bruce
Newcomb, Tammy
Newman, Kurt
Orsatti, Sandra
Payer, Ronald (Ron)
Reid, David (Dave)
Scott, Steven
(Steve)

Shipman, Stuart
(Stu)

Smith, Kelley
Staggs, Michael
(Mike)

Trudeau, Tom
Wingate, Paul J.
(Jack)

Zorn, James

I do not know any

of these people

9. Beside each name please indicate how often you have interacted with each person

during the last 12 months.

0 1 to 3 times (x) a year

4 to 6x a year

1 to 3x a week

Daily

No interactions during last 12 months

10. Beside each name, please indicate how long you have known each person.
0 less than 6 months
0 6 to 11 months
0 1 to 5 years
0 6 to 10 years

0 more than 10 years

1 1. Beside each of the names, please indicate how much you value the information you
gain from discussions with each individual regarding Great Lakes fishery topics. If you
do not discuss Great Lakes fishery related topics with a person please select "We do not
discuss fisheries topics" as your answer.

0 No value

0 Low value

289

0 Low to moderate value
0 Moderate value

0 Moderate to high value
a High value

0 We do not discuss fisheries topics

12. Beside each of the names that you identified in the previous question as people with
whom you have Great Lakes fishery related discussions, please indicate
what proportion of your discussions include Great Lakes lake sturgeon related topics.

0 None of our discussions

0 Few

0 Less than half

0 About half

0 More than half

0 Almost all

0 All of our Discussions

13. Are there people who attend meetings of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Agencies and Council of Lake Committees not listed in the previous roster with whom
you have important discussions on Great Lakes fisheries related topics?

0 Yes

0No

290

14. Please type the full name, affiliated organization, and other relevant information in
the spaces provided below for up to 10 people who attend the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission Agencies and Council of Lake Committees meetings and with
whom you have important discussions on Great Lakes fisheries related topics.

0 First Name & Middle Initial

0 Last Name Organization

0 Types of Fisheries Topics Discussed (general, lake sturgeon, other)?

Your Network of Information Exchanges - Law Enforcement Committee

15. Below is a partial list of members and attendees of the Law Enforcement Committee.
If there are two or more people in the network with the same name their affiliation is
noted in { } to facilitate differentiating between them. Please select all the individuals
that you know including casual acquaintances and close colleagues. Next copy the names
you have selected in the space provided on the fold-out page located on the left. If you
selected more than 10 person write the names of those with whom you prefer to discuss
important topics relevant to your work (up to 10 names). If your name is among those
listed below do not select your name. If you do not know any of the people listed below

please check the “I do not know any of these people” box.

0 Bennett, David 0 Johnson, John 0 Pestinger, Matthew

0 Bishop, Darren o Jondle, Jeff 0 Quaintance, Patrick

0 Boraski, James 0 Jones, Ross 0 Quinney, Terry
(Jim) 0 Kitt, Michael (Mike) 0 Ramsey, Kevin

0 Collins, Robert 0 Knight, Roger C Rooney, Gordon

291

(Bob)

Cottrell, Randy
Culligan, William
(Bill)

de Bros, Jr., Arthur
Leonard

Delis, Michael
(Mike)
Desloover, Larry
Edwards, Thomas
(Tom)

Erickson, Woody
Fisher, Matt
Fuller, James (Jim)
Gerould, Steven
Gibson, Robert
(Rob)

Halley, Mark
Hansen, Thomas
(Tom)

Harrod, Tom

Hausman, David

Hopkins, Daniel
(Dan)

Humber, Derrick
Ingham, Bill
Insley, Sean
Johncox, Charles
Lafferty, Bill
LeClair, Daniel
Lumadue, Robert
(Bob)

Manley, Gary
Maulson, Fred
McCharles, Scott

Mysak, John

Neal, Patrick (Mike)

Nestor, Robert
(Bob)

Orok, Matthew
(Gord)

Santel, Tim
Scott, Michael

(Mike)

292

Serdar, Neil
Sheill, Daniel
Shults, Steve
Smith, Jim
Stein, Roy
Tetzlaf, Michael
(Mike)

Tilson, Tim
Tolbert, Brook
Tomlinson, Bruce
VanDerOetelaar,
Edwin

Weakley, Jim
Willis, Kevin
Wilson, Gary
Wulflcuhle, Gus
White, Gerald

I do not know any

of these People

l6. Beside each name please indicate how often you have interacted with each person

during the last 12 months.

1 to 3 times (x) a year
4 to 6x a year

1 to 3x a week

Daily

No interactions during last 12 months

17. Beside each name, please indicate how long you have known each person.

less than 6 months
6 to 11 months

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

more than 10 years

18. Beside each of the names, please indicate how much you value the information you

gain from discussions with each individual regarding Great Lakes fishery topics.

If you do not discuss Great Lakes fishery related topics with a person please select "We

do not discuss fisheries topics" as your answer.

No value

Low value

Low to moderate value

293

0 Moderate value
0 Moderate to high value
0 High value

0 We do not discuss fisheries topics

19. Beside each of the names that you identified in the previous question as people with
whom you have Great Lakes fishery related discussions, please indicate what proportion
of your discussions include Great Lakes lake sturgeon related topics. Draw a line
through, or leave blank, the check boxes beside the names with whom you do not discuss
fishery topics.

0 None of our discussions

0 Few

0 Less than half

0 About half

0 More than half

0 Almost all

a All of our discussions

Are there other past or current Law Enforcement Committee meeting participants who
are not listed in the previous roster with whom you have important discussions on Great
Lakes fisheries related topics?

0 Yes

0 No —> Go to #22

294

21. Please type the full name, affiliated organization, and other relevant information in
the spaces provided below for up to 10 people who attend the Law Enforcement
Committee meetings and with whom you have important discussions on Great Lakes
fisheries related topics.

0 First Name & Middle Initial

0 Last Name

0 Organization

0 Types of Fisheries Topics Discussed (general, lake sturgeon, other)?

Your Network of Information Exchanges - Lake Ontario Committee

22. Below is a partial list of members and attendees of the Lake Ontario Committee. If
there are two or more people in the network with the same name their affiliation is noted
in { } to facilitate differentiating between them. Please select all the individuals that you
know including casual acquaintances and close colleagues. Next copy the names you
have selected in the space provided on the fold-out page located on the left. If you
selected more than 10 person write the names of those with whom you prefer to discuss
important topics relevant to your work (up to 10 names). If your name is among those
listed below do not select your name. If you do not know any of the people listed below

please check the “I do not know any of these people” box.

0 Adair, Robert (Bob) 0 Johannsson, Ora o Pearsall, Webster
0 Anderson, Janet 0 Johnson, James 0 Mathers, Alastair
0 Andrew, Wayne (Jim){Affiliation: o McCullough,

o Belasco, Barbara USGS} Russell

295

Bishop, Dan
Bowen, Kelly
Bowlby, Jim
Brown, Dave
Burgess, Mary
Cassehnan, Stephen
Clark, Mandi
Connerton, Michael
Cooper, John
Corradin, Lisa
Correa, Cristian
Craine, Ian
Culligan, William
(Bill)

Dakin, David
Daniels, Marion
Day, Quentin
Dermott, Ron
Desjardine, Ron
Dietrich, Jay
Dittman, Dawn

Doka, Susan

Johnson, Nick
Johnson, Tim
Keir, Michael
(Mike)

Klindt, Rodger
Koops, Marten
Kovecses, Jen
Lake, Colin
Lange, Robert (Bob)
Lange, Cameron
Lantry, Brian
Lapan, Steve
Lavis, Dennis
(Denny

Lellis, Bill
Lepak, Jesse
MacGregor, Rob
Mackey, Scudder
MacNeill, David
Markham, James
(Jim)

Meisenheimer, Peter

296

McKeown, Paul
Portiss, Rick
Prindle, Scott
Quinney, Terry
Reid, Kevin
Riley, Stephen
(Steve)

Ritchie, Bev
Roseman, Edward
(Ed)

Sanderson, Matt
Schaner, Ted
Smythe, Garry
Stewart, Tom
Strang, Theodore
Sullivan, Patrick
(Pat)

Sullivan, Paul
Thomas, Dan
Timmins, Bud
Trometer, Betsy

Vaughan, Raymond

Domske, Helen Millard, Scott Walsh, Dawn
Edwards, Bill Morencie, Walsh, Maureen
Edwards, Patricia Michael(Mike) Ward, Rocky
Einhouse, Don Morrison, Bruce Whittle, Mike
Elliott, Will Morse, Terry Wilkinson, Michael
Ferguson, Mark Munawar, Mohi Williston, Bill
Fitzpatrick, Mark Nalbone, Jennifer Wright, Elizabeth
Fitzsimons, John Neave, Fraser (Beth)

Flack, Frank Newman, Kurt Young, Robert
Fodale, Michael Nichols, Jerrie (Rob)

(Mike) Noakes, David Zelazny, Donald
Fynn-Aikins, Kofi O'Gonnan, Robert (Don)

Gouveia, Suzanne (Bob) Zollweg, Emily
Hoeve, John Owens, Randy I do not know any
Hoyle, Jim Patch, Stephen Of these people
Jarvie, Scott (Steve)

Patel, Aviva
Patterson Jr., Neil

Marks, Thomas

23. Beside each name please indicate how often you have interacted with each person
during the last 12 months.

0 l to 3 times (x) a year

297

o 4 to 6x a year
0 1 to 3x a week
0 Daily

0 No interactions during last 12 months

24. Beside each name, please indicate how long you have known each person.
0 less than 6 months
0 6 to 11 months
0 1 to 5 years
0 6 to 10 years

0 more than 10 years

25. Beside each of the names, please indicate how much you value the information you
gain from discussions with each individual regarding Great Lakes fishery topics.
If you do not discuss Great Lakes fishery related topics with a person please select "We
do not discuss fisheries topics" as your answer.

0 No value

0 Low value

0 Low to moderate value

0 Moderate value

0 Moderate to high value

0 High value

0 We do not discuss fisheries topics

298

26. Beside each of the names that you identified in the previous question as people with
whom you have Great Lakes fishery related discussions, please indicate what proportion
of your discussions include Great Lakes lake sturgeon related topics. Draw a line
through, or leave blank, the check boxes beside the names with whom you do not discuss
fishery topics.

0 None of our discussions

0 Few

0 Less than half

0 About half

0 More than half

0 Almost all

0 All of our Discussions

27. Are there people who attend meetings of the Lake Ontario Committee not listed in the
previous roster with whom you have important discussions on Great Lakes fisheries
related topics?

0 Yes

0 N0 —+ Go to #29

28. Please type the full name, affiliated organization, and other relevant information in
the spaces provided below for up to 10 people who attend the Lake Ontario
Committee meetings and with whom you have important discussions on Great Lakes

fisheries related topics.

299

0 First Name & Middle Initial
0 Last Name
0 Organization

0 Types of Fisheries Topics Discussed (general, lake sturgeon, other)?

Your Network of Information Exchanges - Lake Erie Committee

29. Below is a partial list of members and attendees of the Lake Erie Committee. If there
are two or more people in the network with the same name their affiliation is noted in { }
to facilitate differentiating between them. Please select all the individuals that you know
including casual acquaintances and close colleagues. Next copy the names you have
selected in the space provided on the fold-out page located on the left. If you selected
more than 10 person write the names of those with whom you prefer to discuss important
topics relevant to your work (up to 10 names). If your name is among those listed below
do not select your name. If you do not know any of the people listed below please check

the “I do not know any of these people” box.

0 Adair, Robert (Bob) 0 George, Sandra 0 Newman, Kurt
o Adragna, Claudio o Haas, Robert 0 Niven, Stu

o Barbetti, Felix o Herr, Joe 0 Obert, Eric

0 Boase, James (Jim) 0 Hoopes, Rick 0 Ramsey, Kevin
0 Bur, Mike 0 Isbell, Gary 0 Reider, Robert

0 Clayton, Don C Johnson, Tim (Bob)

0 Clapsadl, Mark 0 Kayle, Kevin 0 Reisen, Kelly

0 Cook, Andy 0 Kenyon, Roger 0 Reynolds, Frank

300

Corkum, Lynda
Culligan, William
(Bill)

Domske, Helen
Edwards, Bill

Einhouse, Don

Kissell, Ed

Knight, Roger
Kocovsky, Patrick
Lavis, Dennis
(Denny)

Levan, Edward (Ed)
Locke, Brian
Ludsin, Stuart (Stu)
MacLennan, Don
Marinelli, Alfred
Markham, James
(Jim)

Morencie, Michael
(Mike)

Morse, Terry

Murray, Chuck

Ryan, Phil
Siddall, Wayne
Stapanian, Martin
Sullivan, Paul
Thomas, Dan
Thomas, Michael
(Mike)

Tyson, Jeff
Vandergoot, Chris
Whittle, Mike
Witzel, Larry

I do not know any

Of these people

30. Beside each name please indicate how often you have interacted with each person
during the last 12 months.
0 1 to 3 times (x) a year

0 4to6xayear

301

o 1 to 3x a week
0 Daily

0 No interactions during last 12 months

31. Beside each name, please indicate how long you have known each person.

less than 6 months

6 to 11 months

I to 5 years

6 to 10 years

more than 10 years

32. Beside each of the names, please indicate how much you value the information you
gain from discussions with each individual regarding Great Lakes fishery topics. If you
do not discuss Great Lakes fishery related topics with a person please select "We do not
discuss fisheries topics" as your answer.

0 No value

Low value

0 Low to moderate value
0 Moderate value

0 Moderate to high value
0 High value

0 We do not discuss fisheries topics

302

33. Beside each of the names that you identified in the previous question as people with
whom you have Great Lakes fishery related discussions, please indicate what proportion
of your discussions include Great Lakes lake sturgeon related topics. Draw a line
through, or leave blank, the check boxes beside the names with whom you do not discuss
fishery topics.

0 None of our discussions

0 Few

0 Less than half

0 About half

0 More than half

0 Almost all

0 All of our Discussions

34. Are there people who attend meetings of the Lake Erie Committee not listed in the
previous roster with whom you have important discussions on Great Lakes fisheries
related topics?

0 Yes

0 No —-» Go to #36
35. Please type the full name, affiliated organization, and other relevant information in
the spaces provided below for up to 10 people who attend the Lake Erie Committee
meetings and with whom you have important discussions on Great Lakes fisheries related
topics.

0 First Name & Middle Initial

303

0 Last Name
0 Organization

0 Types of Fisheries Topics Discussed (general, lake sturgeon, other)?

Your Information Exchanges - Lake Michigan Committee

36. Below is a partial list of members and attendees of the Lake Michigan Committee. If
there are two or more people in the network with the same name their affiliation is noted
in { } to facilitate differentiating between them. Please select all the individuals that you
know including casual acquaintances and close colleagues. Next copy the names you
have selected in the space provided on the fold-out page located on the left. If you
selected more than 10 person write the names of those with whom you prefer to discuss
important topics relevant to your work (up to 10 names). If your name is among those
listed below do not select your name. If you do not know any of the people listed below

please check the “I do not know any of these people” box.

0 Adair, Robert (Bob) 0 He, Ji Xe 0 Olsen, Erik
0 Adams, Jean 0 Herman, Mike 0 Peeters, Paul
0 Allen, Paul - Hewett, Steve 0 Pilara, Joe
0 Argyle, Ray 0 Hogler, Steve 0 Pistis, Charles
0 Beck, Judy - Holey, Mark (Chuck)
- Bence, James (Jim) 0 Horns, William 0 Reider, Robert
0 Brandt, Stephen (Bill) (Bob)
(Steve) o Jensen, Paul 0 Richards, Jessica
0 Brege, Dorance 0 Jenson, Olaf 0 Ripple, Paul

304

Breidert, Brian
Bronte, Charles
(Chuck)

Carl, Leon
Casselman, John
Chong, Stephen
(Steve)

Clapp, Dave
Claramunt, Randy
Cook, Andy
Cuddy, Doug
Davis, Bruce
Desorcie, Timothy
Dettmers, John
Dexter, Jim
Donofrio, Mike
Ebener, Mark
Eggebraaten, Ted
Eggold, Bradley
(Brad)

Gorenflo, Tom

Grondin, Jason

Johnson, James
(Jim)

{Affiliationz
Michigan DNR}
Jonas, Jory
Kapuscinski, Kevin
King, David
Kinnunen, Ronald
(Ron)

Klar, Gerald (Gary)
Knutzen, David
Koon, Ellie
Koops, Marten
Kubisiak, John
Elliott, Robert
(Rob/Bob)
Fielder, David
(Dave)

Lavis, Dennis
(Denny)
Madenjian, Chuck

Martel], Archie

305

Robillard, Steve
Rozich, Tom
Rutherford, Ed
Savino, Jaci
Schneeberger, Phil
(P.J.)

Schreiner, Don
Scott, Steve
Shipman, Stuart
(Stu)

Smith, Kelley
Smith, Kregg
Staggs, Michael
(Mike)
Stockwell, Jason
Thomas, Dan
Todd, Tom
Toneys, Mike
Trudeau, Tom
Twohey, Mike
Warner, Dave

Wesley, Jay

Fodor, Geogina
Friez, Curtis
Gulvas, Joan

Hasz, Justine

Mason, Doran
McClain, Jerry
Mullett, Katherine
(Kasia)

Newcomb, Tammy
Ollila, Dale
McSawby, Suzanne
Michael, Edward
(Ed)

Morse, Terry

Moy, Philip (Phil)

Westerhof, Rick
Whelan, Gary
Wingate, Paul J.
(Jack)

Wright, Greg
Young, Robert
(Rob)

Yule, Daniel (Dan)
Zorn, Troy

I do not know any

Of these people

37. Beside each name please indicate how often you have interacted with each person

during the last 12 months.

1 to 3 times (x) a year

4 to 6x a year
1 to 3x a week

Daily

No interactions during last 12 months

306

38. Beside each name, please indicate how long you have known each person.
0 less than 6 months

6 to l 1 months

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years more

than 10 years

39. Beside each of the names, please indicate how much you value the information you
gain from discussions with each individual regarding Great Lakes fishery topics. If you
do not discuss Great Lakes fishery related topics with a person please select "We do not
discuss fisheries topics" as your answer.

0 No value

Low value

0 Low to moderate value
0 Moderate value

0 Moderate to high value
0 High value

0 We do not discuss fisheries topics

40. Beside each of the names that you identified in the previous question as people with

whom you have Great Lakes fishery related discussions, please indicate what proportion

of your discussions include Great Lakes lake sturgeon related topics. Draw a line

307

through, or leave blank, the check boxes beside the names with whom you do not discuss

fishery topics.
0 None of our discussions
0 Few
0 Less than half
0 About half
0 More than half
0 Almost all

0 All of our Discussions

41. Are there people who attend meetings of the Lake Michigan Committee not listed in
the previous roster with whom you have important discussions on Great
Lakes fisheries related topics?

0 Yes

0 N0 —+ Go to #42

41. Please type the full name, affiliated organization, and other relevant information in
the spaces provided below for up to 10 people who attend the Lake Michigan
Committee meetings and with whom you have important discussions on Great Lakes
fisheries related topics.

0 First Name & Middle Initial

0 Last Name

0 Organization

308

0 Types of Fisheries Topics Discussed (general, lake sturgeon, other)?

Your Information Exchanges - Lake Huron Committee

42. Below is a partial list of members and attendees of the Lake Huron Committee. If
there are two or more people in the network with the same name their affiliation is noted
in { } to facilitate differentiating between them. Please select all the individuals that you
know including casual acquaintances and close colleagues. Next copy the names you
have selected in the space provided on the fold-out page located on the left. If you
selected more than 10 person write the names of those with whom you prefer to discuss
important topics relevant to your work (up to 10 names). If your name is among those
listed below do not select your name. If you do not know any of the people listed below

please check the “I do not know any of these people” box.

0 Adair, Robert (Bob) 0 Gibson, Robert 0 Morse, Terry
«- Agawa, Gregory (Rob) 0 Neal, Patrick (Mike)
0 Argyle, Ray 0 Gordon, Graham 0 Newcomb, Tammy
0 Baker, James (Jim) 0 Gorenflo, Tom 0 Ollila, Dale
0 Bence, James (Jim) 0 Gorrnan, Owen o Riley, Stephen
0 Bergstedt, Roger C Holey, Mark (Steve)
0 Boase, James (Jim) 0 Holleszko, Jeffrey o Ripple, Paul
0 Borgeson, David 0 Horns, William 0 Savino, Jaci
(Dave) (Bill) 0 Schaeffer, Jeff
0 Bredin, Jim 0 Huntly, David 0 Schreiner, Don
o Brege, Dorance 0 Johnson, Chris 0 Schroeder, Brandon

309

Carl, Leon
Cuddy, Doug

de Bros, Jr., Arthur
Desloover, Larry
Dobiesz, Norine
Ebener, Mark
Edsall, Carol
Enterline, Heather
Fielder, David
(Dave)
Fitzsimons, John
Fodale, Michael
(Mike)

French, John
Gonder, David
He, Ji Xe

Hill, Tracy

Hogler, Steve

Johnson, Jim

{AffiliationzMichiganDNR}

Kinnunen, Ronald
(Ron)

Klar, Gerald (Gary)
Koon, Ellie
Linauskas, Arunas
Lumadue, Robert
(Bob)

Madenjian, Chuck
McClain, Jerry
McLeish, David
(Dave)

Mcleod, Scott
Michael, Edward
(Ed)

Mohr, Lloyd
Morbey, Yolanda
Olsen, Erik
Peeters, Paul
Plautz, Jeremy

Reid, David (Dave)

310

Scott, Steven
(Steve)

Seyler, John
Sullivan, Paul
Thomas, Dan
Todd, Tom
Tomlinson, Bruce
Toneys, Mike
Twohey, Michael
(Mike)

Warner, Dave
Westerhof, Rick
Wingate, Paul J.
(Jack)

Wright, Greg
Young, Robert
(Rob)

I do not know any

Of these people

43. Beside each name please indicate how often you have interacted with each person

during the last 12 months.
0 l to 3 times (x) a year
0 4 to 6x a year

1 to 3x a week

Daily

No interactions during last 12 months

44. Beside each name, please indicate how long you have known each person.
0 less than 6 months
0 6 to 11 months
0 1 to 5 years
0 6 to 10 years

0 more than 10 years

45. Beside each of the names, please indicate how much you value the information you
gain from discussions with each individual regarding Great Lakes fishery topics.
If you do not discuss Great Lakes fishery related topics with a person please select "We
do not discuss fisheries topics" as your answer.

0 No value

0 Low value

0 Low to moderate value

0 Moderate value

311

0 Moderate to high value
0 High value

0 We do not discuss fisheries topics

46. Beside each of the names that you identified in the previous question as people with
whom you have Great Lakes fishery related discussions, please indicate what proportion
of your discussions include Great Lakes lake sturgeon related topics. Draw a line
through, or leave blank, the check boxes beside the names with whom you do not discuss
fishery topics.

0 None of our discussions

0 Few

0 Less than half

0 About half

0 More than half

0 Almost all

a All of our Discussions

47. Are there people who attend meetings of the Lake Huron Committee not listed in the
previous roster with whom you have important discussions on Great Lakes
fisheries related t0pics?

0 Yes

0 N0 —+ Go to #49

312

48. Please type the full name, affiliated organization, and other relevant information in
the spaces provided below for up to 10 people who attend the Lake Huron Committee
meetings and with whom you have important discussions on Great Lakes fisheries related
topics.

0 First Name & Middle Initial

0 Last Name

0 Organization

0 Types of Fisheries Topics Discussed (general, lake sturgeon, other)?

Your Information Exchanges - Lake Superior Committee

49. Below is a partial list of members and attendees of the Lake Superior Committee. If
there are two or more people in the network with the same name their affiliation is noted
in { } to facilitate differentiating between them. Please select all the individuals that you
know including casual acquaintances and close colleagues. Next copy the names you
have selected in the space provided on the fold-out page located on the left. If you
selected more than 10 person write the names of those with whom you prefer to discuss
important topics relevant to your work (up to 10 names). If your name is among those
listed below do not select your name. If you do not know any of the people listed below

please check the “I do not know any of these people” box.

0 Adair, Robert (Bob) 0 Horns, William 0 Pratt, Dennis

0 Baker, James (Jim) (Bill) 0 Pratt, Tom

0 Bence, James (Jim) 0 Hrabik, Tom 0 Quinlan, Henry
0 Bowman, Rich 0 Jackson, Gerry o Richards, Jessica

313

Brege, Dorance
Bronte, Charles
(Chuck)
Chong, Stephen
(Steve)

Cuddy, Doug
Cullis, Ken
Donofrio, Mike
Dryer, Mark
Ebener, Mark
Elliot, Robert
(Rob/Bob)
Fielder, David
(Dave)

Gesl, Dave
Gibson, Robert
Gorenflo, Tom
Gorman, Owen
Greenwood, Susan
Hewett, Steve
Hogler, Steve

Holey, Mark

Kinnunen, Ronald
(Ron)

Klar, Gerald (Gary)
Kmiecik, Neil
Madenjian, Chuck
Martell, Archie
Mason, Doran
Mattes, Bill
McClain, Jerry
McSawby, Suzanne
Mensch, Gene
Michael, Edward
(Ed)

Mohr, Lloyd
Morse, Terry

Moy, Philip (Phil)
Mullett, Katherine
(Kasia)

Newcomb, Tammy
Ollila, Dale

Olsen, Erik

Peeters, Paul

314

Ripple, Paul
Savino, Jaci
Schneeberger, Phil
Schram, Stephen
Schreiner, Don
Scott, Steven
(Steve)

Seider, Michael
Staggs, Michael
(Mike)

Steeves, Mike
Stockwell, Jason
Sutton, Trent
Thomas, Dan
Todd, Tom
Toneys, Mike
Wingate, Paul J.
(Jack)

Young, Robert
(Rob)

I do not know any

Of these people

50. Beside each name please indicate how often you have interacted with each person

during the last 12 months.

1 to 3 times (x) a year
4 to 6x a year

1 to 3x a week

Daily

No interactions during last 12 months

51. Beside each name, please indicate how long you have known each person.

less than 6 months
6 to 11 months

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

more than 10 years

53. Beside each of the names, please indicate how much you value the information you

gain from discussions with each individual regarding Great Lakes fishery topics.

If you do not discuss Great Lakes fishery related topics with a person please select "We

do not discuss fisheries topics" as your answer.

No value

Low value

Low to moderate value

Moderate value

315

0 Moderate to high value
0 High value

0 We do not discuss fisheries topics

53. Beside each of the names that you identified in the previous question as people with
whom you have Great Lakes fishery related discussions, please indicate what proportion
of your discussions include Great Lakes lake sturgeon related topics. Draw a line
through, or leave blank, the check boxes beside the names with whom you do not discuss
fishery topics.

0 None of our discussions

0 Few

0 Less than half

0 About half

0 More than half

0 Almost all

0 All of our Discussions

54. Are there people who attend meetings of the Lake Superior Committee not listed in
the previous roster with whom you have important discussions on Great
Lakes fisheries related topics?

0 Yes

0 No —-r Go page 50

316

55. Please type the full name, affiliated organization, and other relevant information in
the spaces provided below for up to 10 people who attend the Lake Superior Committee
meetings and with whom you have important discussions on Great Lakes fisheries related
topics.

0 First Name & Middle Initial

0 Last Name

0 Organization

0 Types of Fisheries Topics Discussed (general, lake sturgeon, other)?

Thank you for completely Part 2 of my survey!
You are now finished with my survey. Please us the pre-stamped addressed envelope
included at the back of your survey
booklet to return your completed survey to:
Nancy Leonard
2100 Commonwealth Blvd., suite 100
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
USA

Thank you for participating in my research survey!

317

REFERENCES

318

REFERENCES

Abrahamson, E. and L. Rosenkopf. 1997. Social network effects on the extent of
innovation diffusion: a computer simulation. Organization Science 8: 289-309.

Acheson, J. M. 1975. Fisheries Management and Social Context: The Case of

the Maine Lobster Fishery. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104
(4): 653-668.

Alba, R. D., and G. Moore. 1978. Elite social circles. Sociological Methods and
Research 7: 167-188

Andersson, F. 2006. A policy for the fish or the fishermen? Summary of SLI-REPORT
2006: 3 (Full report in Swedish: En politik fbr fisken eller fisket?— en studie av
EU-fOrhandlingarna om 2003 ars reform av fiskeripolitiken). Lund, Sweden:
Livsmedelsekonomiska institutet. Available:
http://www.sli.lu.SE/eng_item_detail. asp?activity_id=95 (June 2007).

Anonymous. 2001. Russia: Russia temporary halts sturgeon fishing. Marketnews, 21 July
2001, Fishround Inc. Available:
https://www.fishround.com/fishround/JapaneseVersion/gate/news/mnews/Russia/
7_21_1.html (April 30, 2003).

Auer, N. A (ed). 2002. A lake sturgeon rehabilitation plan for Lake Superior. Great Lakes
Fishery Commission Miscellaneous Publication. Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Barkin, J. S. and E. R. DeSombre. 2000. Unilateralism and multilateralism in
international fisheries management. Global Governance 6(3): 339—360.

Beeton, A. M., C. E., Sellinger, and D. E. Reid. 1999. An introduction to the Laurentian
Great Lakes ecosystem. Pages 3-54 in Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and
Management. Edited by W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Bennett E. and W. Clerveaux. 2003. Size Matters: Fisheries Management and Social
Capital on the Turks and Caicos Islands. 54th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries
Institute: 136-146.

Benitah, M. 2004. Ongoing WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies. ASIL insights. The

American Society of lntemational Law. Available: http: //www. asil.
org/insights/insighl36. htm. (June 7 2006).

319

Booking, S. 2001. The politics of endangered species: a historical perspective. Pages 119-
136 in Politics of the Wild: Canada and endangered species. Edited by K. Beazley
and R. Boardman. Oxford University Press, Ontario.

Bogue, M. B. 2000. Fishing the Great Lakes: an environmental history 1783-1933.
Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Bolland, J. M., and J. V. Wilson. 1994. Three faces of integrative coordination: a model
of interorganizational relations in community-based health and human services.
Human Services Research 29(3): 341-365.

Bomberg, E. and A. Stubb. 2003. The European Union: how does it work? Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

Brown, R. W., M. Ebener, and T. Gorenflo. 1999. Great Lakes commercial fisheries:
historical overview and prognosis for the future. Pages 307-354 in Great Lakes
Fisheries Policy and Management a binational perspective. Edited by W. W.
Taylor and C. P. Ferreri. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University
Press.

Bruch, R. M. 1999a. Management of lake sturgeon on the Winnebago System — long term
impacts of harvest and regulations on population structure. Journal of Applied
Icthyology 1 5(4-5): 142-152.

Bruch. R. M. 1999b. Management and trade of lake sturgeon in North America. Pages
106-120 in Proceedings of the Symposium on the Harvest, Trade and
Conservation of North American Paddlefish and Sturgeon, May 7-8, 1998,
Chattanooga, TN. Edited by D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz and C. M. Hoover.
TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA.

Bunt, C. M., C. Katopodis, and R. S. McKinley. 1999. Attraction and passage efficiency
of white suckers and smallmouth bass by two Denil fishways. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 19(3): 793-803.

Bunt, C. M., S. J. Cooke, and R. S. McKinley. 2000. Assessment of the Dunnville
Fishway for passage of walleyes from Lake Erie to the Grand River, Ontario.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 26(4): 482-488.

Burt, R. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

Campion, M. A., G. J. Medsker, and A. C. Higgs. 1993. Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work

groups. Personnel Psychology 46(4): 823-850.

Carin, B., R. Higgott, J. Aart Scholte, G. Smith, and D. Stone. 2006. Global governance:

320

looking ahead, 2006—2010. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and
lntemational Organization 12(1): 193.

Cashore, B. 2002. Legitimacy and privatization of environmental governance: how
nonstate market-driven (N SMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority.
Governance: An lntemational Journal of Policy 15(4): 503—508.

Christie, G. C. and C. I. Goddard. 2004. Sea Lamprey lntemational Symposium (SLIS
II): Advances in the Integrated Management of Sea Lamprey in the Great Lakes.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 29 (Supplement 1): l-14.

CITES. 2001. Press Release: Governments to consider trade restrictions on Caspian Sea
caviar. Available: http://www.CITES.org/eng/news/press/SC45_caviar1.shtrnl
(March 13, 2003).

CITES. 2003a. Catch and export quotas for specimens of Acipenseriformes species
included in Appendix II for 2003. Available:
http://www.CITES.org/common/quotas/2003/2003sturgeon.pdf (March 13, 2003).

CITES. 2003b. Member countries. Available:
http://www.CITES.org/eng/parties/index.shtml (June 13, 2003).

CITES. 2003c. How CITES works? Available:
http://www.CITES.org/eng/disc/how.shtml (June 13, 2003).

CITES. 2003d. A brief history of sturgeon & CITES. Available:
http://www.CITES.org/eng/prog/sturgeon.shtml (March 13, 2003).

CITES Secretariat. 2003. National contacts: Canada. Available:
http://www.CITES.org/common/directy/e_directy.html (March 13, 2003).

Clapp, J. 1998. The privatization of global environmental governance: ISO 14000 and the
developing world. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and
International Organization 4(3): 297.

Cohen, H. 2007. Proposed establishment of a global list of irresponsible vessels.
PowerPoint presentation presented in Rome, March 9, 2007. Available:
http://siteresources. worldbank. org/INTARD/986366—

1 1 13566763061/21292871/PROFISH_GlobalList.pdf (May 2007).

Cole, H. 2003. Contemporary challenges: globalization, global interconnectedness and
that 'there are not plenty more fish in the sea'. Fisheries, Governance and
globalization: is there a relationship? Ocean and Coastal Management 46: 77-102.

Colligan, M, T. Sheehan, J. Pruden, and J. Kocik. 2008. The Challenges Posed by
International Management of Atlantic Salmon: Balancing Commercial,

321

Recreational and Societal Interests - The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation
Organization (NASCO). Pages 383-404 in lntemational Governance of Fisheries
Ecosystems: Learning from the Past, Finding Solutions for the Future. Edited by
M. G. Schechter, N. J. Leonard, and W. W. Taylor. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.

Commission on Global Governance. 1995. Our global neighborhood: the report of the
Commission on Global Governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

COSEWIC. 2002a. About us: operating procedures. Available:
http://www.COSEWIC.gc.ca/eng/sct6/sct6_5_e.cfm (March 18, 2003).

COSEWIC. 2002b. About us: celebrating 25 years of science and knowledge for species
at risk in Canada. Available:
http://www.COSEWIC.gc.ca/eng/sct6/sct6_3_e.cfm#hist (March 18, 2003).

COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC’s Assessment Process and Criteria. Available
http://www.COSEWIC.gc.ca/pdf/English/Assessment_process_e.pdf (June 12,
2003).

Coull, J. R. 1993. World fisheries resources. Routledge, New York.

Cox, R. W. 1992. Globalization, multilateralism and democracy. The John W. Holmes
Memorial Lecture. ACUNS (Academic Council on the United Nations System),
Providence, Rhode Island.

Cross, R., A. Parker, L. Prusak, and S. P. Borgatti. 2001. Knowing what we know:
supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational
Dynamics 30(2): 100-120.

CWS (Canadian Wildlife Service). 11. d. . Backgrounder: recovery of nationally
endangered wildlife. Ref: 830-728/04A4. Available:
http://www.scics.gc.ca/cinf001/83072804a4_e.html (March 18, 2003).

CWS (Canadian Wildlife Service). 2002. News release: Species at Risk. Available:
www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/species/media/back1_e.cfm (March 11, 2003).

Czech, B. and P. Krausman. 2001. The endangered species act: history, conservation,
biology, and public policy. The John Hopkins University Press, Maryland.

Decker, D. J. and C. C. Kruger. 1999. Communication for Effective
Fisheries Management. Pages 61-81 in Kohler, C. C and W. A Hubert, editors.

Inland Fisheries Management in North America, 2'"ll Edition. American Fisheries
Society, MD.

Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. 1994. Letter to Franz Fischler, (European Union)

322

Commissioner for Fisheries. Available: www.3avethehighseas.org (May 2007)

Degnbol, P. 2004. Fisheries science in a development context. Pages 131—155 in
Fisheries development: the institutional challenge. Edited by B. Hersoug, S.
Jentoft, and P. Degnbol. Eburon Publishers, The Netherlands.

DeSombre, E. R. 2000. Domestic sources of international environmental policy: industry,
environmentalists and US. power. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

DeSombre, E. and J. S. Barkin. 2002. Turbot and tempers in the North Atlantic. Pages
335—340 in Conserving the peace: how protecting the environment today can
prevent conflict and disaster tomorrow. Edited by R. A. Matthew, M. Halle and J.
Switzer. lntemational Institute for Sustainable Development. Winnipeg, Canada.

DeVault, D., P. Bertram, D. Whittle, and S. Rang. 1994. Toxic contaminants in the Great
Lakes. State of the Lakes Conference Working Paper presented at the State of the
Lakes Conference (SOLEC), October 26-28, 1994, Dearborn, Michigan.
Environmental Canada and United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Dingwerth, K. and P. Pattberg. 2006. Global governance as a perspective on world
politics. Global governance: a review of multilateralism and international
organization 12: 191—199.

Dochoda, M. R. 1999. Authorities, Responsibilities, and Arrangements for Managing
Fish and Fisheries in the Great lakes Ecosystem. Pages 93-112 in Great Lakes
Fisheries Policy and Management a binational perspective. Edited by W. W.
Taylor and C. P. Ferreri. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University
Press.

Dochoda, M. R. and M. L. Jones. 2002. Managing Great Lakes Fisheries Under Multiple
and Diverse Authorities. Pages 221-242 in Sustaining North American Salmon:
perspectives across regions and disciplines. Edited by K. D. Lynch, M. L. Jones
and W. W. Taylor. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Dodgson, M. 1993. Learning, trust and technological collaboration. Human relations
46(1): 77-95.

Doha Development Agenda. No date. Doha work programme—key dates for 2006.
World Trade Organization. Available:
http://www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/dda_e/dohatimelines2006_e.htm (June
2007).

Donovan, M. A., F. Drasgo, and T. M. Probst. 2000. Does computerizing paper-and-
pencil job attitude scales make a difference? New IRT analysis offers insight.
Journal of Applied Psychology 85(2): 305-313.

323

Doyon, C., R. Fortin, and P. A. Spear. 1999. Retinoic acid hydroxylation and
teratogenesis in lake sturgeon (Acipenserfulvescens) from the St. Lawrence River

and Abitibi region, Que'bec. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
56: 1428-1436.

Dumont, J ., W. Caragata, and B. Wallace. 1995. Canada seizes Spanish boat. Maclean’s.
(March 20). Available:
http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1 ART
M0010344 (November 2006).

Egan, M. 2002. Hinterland Who’s Who fact sheet: endangered species in Canada.
Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. Available: http://www.cws-
scf.ec.gc.ca/hww-fap/hww-fap.cfm?ID_species=84&lang=e (March 18, 2003).

Environmental Canada. 1991. Toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes and associated effects-
synopsis. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environmental Canada.

Environmental Canada. 2002. News release: Species at risk act given royal assent. The
Green Lane, Environmental Canada’s World Wide Web Site. Available:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/press/2002/021212_n_e.htm (March 11 2003).

Eshenroder, R. L. 1987. Socioeconomic aspects of lake trout rehabilitation in the Great
Lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118: 309-313

Eshenroder, R. L. and M. K. Burnharn-Curtis 1999. Species succession and sustainability
of the Great Lakes fish community. Pages 145-184 in Great Lakes Fisheries
Policy and Management a binational perspective. Edited by W. W. Taylor and C.
P. Ferreri. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press.

European Commission. 2004. About the Common Fisheries Policy. Brussels: General for
Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, Unit for Information and communication,
European Commission. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp_en.htm (June
2007)

European Commission Ireland. 2007. The EU in Ireland—sources of law. European
Commission in Ireland, Dublin. Available:
http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/general_information/legal_information_and_eu_law/so
urces_eu_law/index_en.htm (January 2007).

European Union. 2005. How the European Union works—your guide to EU institutions.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Available: http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/eu_glance/53/index_en.htm
(November 2006).

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1992. State of world fisheries. Pages 58—61 in
World marine fisheries: management and development policies. Edited by L.

324

Hinds. Marine Policy 16(5): 394-403.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1996. The state of world fisheries and
aquaculture—1996(SOF IA). Fisheries Department of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available:
http://www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_en.htrn (June 2007).

F AO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2001. Indicators to assess the performance of
regional fishery bodies. Second meeting of FAO and non-FAO regional fishery
bodies or arrangements. Rome, Italy 20-21 February 2001. Available:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/003/x9376e.htm (March 2007).

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2004. The state of world fisheries and
aquaculture 2004; part 1: world review of fisheries and aquaculture. Food and
Agriculture Organization, Rome. Available:
http://www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_en.htm (June 2007).

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2006a. FAO at work—a short history of
F AO. Available: http://www.fao.org/UN F AO/about/history_en.html (July 2006).

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2006b. FAO Fishery Department—COFI,
Committee on Fisheries.
Available: http://www.fao.org/fi/body/cofr/cofi.asp (July 2006).

F AO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2006c. Constitution. Basic texts of the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Volume I, Part A. Food and

Agriculture Organization, Rome. Available:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/j803 8e/j8038e00.htm#TopOfPage (June 2007).

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2007a. The state of world fisheries and
aquaculture 2006; part 1: world review of fisheries and aquaculture. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available:
http://www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_en.htm (June 2007).

F AO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2007b. F A0 at work home—structure and

finance. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Available: http:/lwww.fao.org/UNFAO/about/finance_en.html (June 2007).

F AO-F isheries (Food and Agriculture Organization- Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department). 2007. State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Food and
Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO—Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. 2007a. Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department mission. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Available:
http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=org&xml=FI_org.xml&
xp_nav=1 (June 2007).

325

F AO—F isheries and Aquaculture Department. 2007b. Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department Principle Authority COFI, Committee on Fisheries. Food and
Agriculture Organization, Rome. Available:
http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=org&xml=FI_org.xml&
xp_nav=3 (June 2007).

FAO—Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. 2008. Search fishery governance fact
sheets—regional fishery bodies. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
Available: http://www.fao.org/fishery/rfb/search (January 2008).

F AO Governing Bodies. 2007. FAO Governing bodies. Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome. Available: http://www.fao.org/unfao/govbodies/ (28 June
2007)

Ferguson, M. M. and G. A. Duckworth. 1997. The status and distribution of lake
sturgeon, Acipenserfulvescens, in the Canadian Province of Manitoba, Ontario
and Quebec: a genetic perspective. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 299-309.

Ferreri, C. P., W. W. Taylor, and J. M. Robertson. 1999. Great Lakes fisheries futures:
balancing the demands of a multijurisdictional resource. Pages 515-538 in Great
Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management a binational perspective. Edited by W.
W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University
Press.

Fielder, D. G., J. P. Baker, L. C. Mohr, A. Liskaukas and J. R. McClain. 2003. Status of
the near-shore fish community. In The State of Lake Huron in 1999. Edited by M.
P. Ebener. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Special Publication 03-draft. Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Finkelstein, L. S. 1995. What is global governance? Global governance: a review of
multilateralism and international Organization 1: 369.

Fisheries Working Group. 2007. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. Fisheries Working
Group. Available:
http://www.apec.org/apec/apec_groups/working_groups/fisheries.html
(November 2006).

Folsom, R. H. 1995. European Union Law. 2nd Edition. West Publishing Company, St.
Paul, Minnesota.

Fortin, R., J-R Mongeau, G. Desjardins, and P. Dumont. 1993. Movements and biological
statistics of lake sturgeon (Acipenserfulvescens) populations from the St.
Lawrence and Ottawa River system, Quebec. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71:

63 8-650.

326

Foster-Fishman, P. G., D. A. Salem, N. A. Allen, and K. Fahrbach. 2001. Facilitating
interorganizational collaborations: the contributions of interorganizational
alliances. American Journal of Community Psychology 29(6): 875-905.

France (France Minister of Foreign Affairs). 2006. The common fisheries policy.
Available: http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/european-union_157/european-
policies_2 l 90/fisheries-and-maritime-affairs_3 73 7/the-common-fisheries-
policy_8702.html (May 2007).

Frank, K. A. A theory and empirical test of identification with a collective as a Quasi-Tie.
American Behavioral Scientist. In press.

Frank, K. 1995. Identifying cohesive subgroups. Social Networksl7: 27-56.

Frank, K. 1996. Mapping interactions within and between cohesive subgroups. Social
Networks 18: 93-119.

Frank, K., K. Mueller, A. Krause, W. W. Taylor, and N. Leonard. 2007. The intersection
of global trade, social networks, and fisheries. Pages 385—423 in Globalization:
Effects on Fisheries Resources. Edited by W. W. Taylor, M. G. Schechter, and L.
G. Wolfson. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Frank, K. A. and J. Y. Yasumoto. 1998. Linking Action to Social Structure Within a
System: Social Capital Within and Between Subgroups. American Journal of
Sociology 104 (3): 642-686.

Frank, K. A, Y. Zhao, and K. Borman. 2004. Social Capital and the Diffusion of
Innovations within Organizations: Application to the Implementation of
Computer Technology in Schools. Sociology of Education 77: 148-171.

Freedman, B., L. Rodger, P. Ewins, and D. M. Green. 2001. species at risk in Canada;
Pages 26-48 in Politics of the Wild: Canada and endangered species. Edited by K.
Beazley and R. Boardman. Oxford University Press, Ontario.

Friedman, T. L. 2000. The lexus and the olive tree. New York: Anchor Books.

Gaden, M. E. 2007. Bridging Jurisdictional Divides — collective action through A Joint
Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. PhD Dissertation. The
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Garcia, S. M., A. Zerbi, C. Aliaume, T. Do Chi, and G. Lasserre. 2003. The ecosystem
approach to fisheries: issues, terminology, principles, institutional foundations,
implementation and outlook. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper No. 443.

Gatewood, J. B. 1984. Cooperation, Competition, and Synergy: information-sharing

327

groups among Southeast Alaskan salmon seiners. American Ethnologist 11(2):
350-3 70.

Gatewood, J. B. 1987. Information—Sharing Cliques and Information Networks. American
Ethnologist l4 (4): 777-778.

Gauther, D. and E. Wiken. 2001. Avoiding the endangerment of species: the importance
of habitats and ecosystems. Pages 49-74 in Politics of the Wild: Canada and
endangered species. Edited by K. Beazley and R. Boardman. Oxford University
Press, Ontario.

GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 1955. Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.

GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 1997. A Joint Strategic Plan for Management
of Great Lakes Fisheries. Ann Arbor, MI

GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 2000b. F actsheet 5: Sea lamprey barriers new
technologies help solve and old problem. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Ann
Arbor, Michigan.

GLF C (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 2000b. Factsheet 10: A Joint Strategic Plan
for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Ann
Arbor, Michigan.

GLF C (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 2002. Brochure: sea lamprey the battle
continues to protect our Great Lakes fishery. Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Gowans, A. R. D., J. D. Armstrong, and I. G. Priede. 1999. Movements of adult Atlantic
salmon in relation to a hydroelectric dam and fish ladder. Journal of Fish Biology
54(4) 713-726.

Graham, L. K. and J. L. Rasmussen. 1997. A MICRA perspective on closing paddlefish
and sturgeon commercial fisheries. Pages 130-142 in Proceedings of the
Symposium on the Harvest, Trade and Conservation of North American
Paddlefish and Sturgeon, May 7-8, 1998, Chattanooga, TN. Edited by D. F.
Williamson, G. W. Benz and C. M. Hoover. TRAFFIC North America/World
Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA.

Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak tie. American Journal of Sociology 78:
1360-80.

Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team Lake Sturgeon Committee. n.d. Priority research
need: passage. Available http://midweSt.fws.gov/sturgeon/passZ.htrn (March 13,
2003)

328

Gulbrandsen, L. 2005. Mark of sustainability? Challenges for fishery and forestry
ecolabeling. Environment 47(5): 8—23.

Hall, C. 1998. Institutional solutions for governing the global commons: design factors
and effectiveness. Journal of Environment & Development 7(2): 86—115. IMM.
2007. Fisheries code of conduct. Available:
http://www.innovation.ex.ac.uk/imm/CCRF.htm (July 2007).

Hay-Chmielewski, E. M., and G. E. Whelan, editors. 1997. Lake sturgeon rehabilitation
strategy. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special
Report No. 18.

Haythomthwaite, C. 1996. Social network analysis: an approach and technique for the
study of information exchange. LISR 18: 323-342.

HC (House of Commons of Canada). 2002. Bill C-S: an act respecting the protection of
wildlife species at risk in Canada. First session, thirty-seventh Parliament, 49-50-
51 Elizabeth II, 2001-2002. Available:
http://www.parl . gc.ca/PDF / 3 7/ 1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/govemment/C-
5_3.pdf (March 18, 2003).

Hill, T. D. and J. R. McClain, editors. 2002. 2000 activities of the Central Great Lakes
Bi-National Lake Sturgeon Group. US. Fish and Wildlife Service — Alpena
Fisheries Resources Office, Michigan.

Holey, M. E., E. A. Baker, T. F. Thuemler, and R. F. Elliott. 2000. Research and
assessment needs to restore lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes. June 27-28, 2000
Workshop in Muskegon, Michigan. Great Lakes Fishery Trust, Lansing
Michigan.

Hoover, C. 1999. Import and export of sturgeon and paddlefish in the United States.
Pages 192-214 in Proceedings of the Symposium on the Harvest, Trade and
Conservation of North American Paddlefish and Sturgeon, May 7-8, 1998,
Chattanooga, TN. Edited by D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz and C. M. Hoover.
TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA.

Houston, J. J. 1987. Status of Lake Sturgeon, Acipenserfulvescens, in Canada. Canadian
Field-Naturalist 101(2): 171-185.

IJC (lntemational Joint Commission). 1989. Revised Great Lakes Water Quality

Agreement of 1978, as amended by protocol signed November, 18 1987.
Published by the International Joint Commission.

329

IJC (lntemational Joint Commission). 1991. Persistent toxic substances: virtually
eliminating inputs to the Great Lakes. Interim Report of the Virtual Elimination
Task Force. lntemational Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario.

IMM. 2007. Fisheries Code of Conduct. Available:
http://www.innovation.ex.ac.uk/imm/CCRF.htm (3 July 2007).

International Coalition of Fisheries Associations. 2006. Bottom trawling. Available:
http://www.icfa.net/polices-index.cfm (November 2006).

Iudicello, S., M. Weber, and R. Wieland. 1999. Fish, markets, and fishermen: the
economics of overfishing. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Jones, G. and J. George. 1998. The experience and evolution of trust: implications for
cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review 23(3): 532-46.

Kaul, I., I. Grunberg, and M. A. Stern. 1999. Introduction. Pages xxvi-xxxiv in Global
public goods: international cooperation in the 21st century. Edited by I. Kaul, I.
Grunberg and M. A. Stern. Oxford University Press, New York.

Keck, M. E. and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in
international politics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Keohane, R. O. and J. S. Nye, Jr. 1974. Transgovemmental relations and international
organizations. World Politics 74(27): 39.

Keohane, R. O., and J. S. Nye, Jr. 1998. Power and interdependence in the Information
Age. Foreign Affairs 77: 81—94.

Kirshman, H., and N. Leonard. 2003. Operation Kingfisher. Pages 4-5 in FORUM:
special law enforcement edition. Edited by J. Finster and M. Gaden. Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Klar, G. T., and L. P. Schleen. 2001. Integrated management of sea lamprey in the Great
Lakes 2000. Annual Report to Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Ann Arbor,
Michigan.

Knapp, H. and S. A. Kirk. 2003. Using pencil and paper, Internet and touch-tone phones
for self-administered surveys: does methodology matter? Computers in Human
Behavior 19: 117-134.

Knecht, G. B. 2006. Hooked: pirates, poaching, and the perfect fish. Rodale Book
Publisher, Emmaus, Pennsylvania.

Knight, H. G. 1975. International fisheries management: a background paper. Pages 1—4
in The future of international fisheries management. Edited by H. G. Knight. West

330

Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Kohm, K. A. 1991. The act’s history and framework? Pages 10-22 in Balancing on the
brink of extinction the endangered species act and lessons for the future. Edited
by K. A. Kohm. Island Press, Washington DC.

Kooiman, J ., M. Bavinck, S. Jentoff, and R. Pullin, editors. 2005. Fish for Life.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Krause, A. E. 2004. The role of compartments in food-web structure and changes
following biological invasions in Southeast Lake Michigan. PhD Dissertation.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Krause, A. E. and K. A. Frank. The versatility of Shannon’s measures for measuring
diversity in social-ecological systems. In Prep.

Krause A. E., K. A. Frank, D. M. Mason, R. E. Ulanowicz, and W. W. Taylor. 2003.
Compartments revealed in food-web structure. Nature 426: 282-285.

Krause, A. E., K. A. Frank, M. L. Jones, T. F. Nalepa, R. P. Barbiero, C. P. Madenjian,
M. Agy, M. S. Evans, W. W. Taylor, D. M. Mason, and N. J. Leonard.
Adaptations in a hierarchical food web of southeastern Lake. Ecological
Modelling Special Issue on Ecological Network Analysis. Submitted.

Kynard, B., D. Pugh, and T. Parker. 2003. Development of fish passage for lake sturgeon.
Final report to the Great Lakes Fishery Trust, Lansing, Michigan.

Laine A, T. Jokivirta, and C. Katopodis. 2002. Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., and sea
trout, Salmo trutta L., passage in a regulated northern river - fishway efficiency,
fish entrance and environmental factors. FME 9(2): 6577.

Le Prestre, P., and P. Stoett. 2001. lntemational initiatives, commitments, and
disappointments: Canada, CITES and the CBD. Pages 190-234 in Politics of the
Wild: Canada and endangered species. Edited by K. Beazley and R. Boardman.
Oxford University Press, Ontario.

LeBreton, G. T. O., F. W. H. Beamish and R. S. Mckinley, editors. Sturgeons and
Paddlefish of North America. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston,
Massachusetts.

Leach, J. H. ands. J. Nepszy. I976. The fish community in Lake Erie. Journal of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33: 622-63 8.

Lechner, F. J ., and J. Boli, editors. 1999. The Globalization Reader. New York:
Blackwell.

331

Lem, A. 2004. WTO Trade rules with an update on the Doha round negotiations and a
short reference to antiO-dumping action and the shrimp case. Unpublished paper.
Presented at the World Aquaculture Society convention. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Leonard, N. J ., C. Goddard, and W. W. Taylor. 2004. Multijurisdictional management of
lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Pages 231—251 in G. T.
O. LeBreton, F. W. H. Beamish and R. S. Mckinley, editors. Sturgeons and
Paddlefish of North America. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston,
Massachusetts.

Lequesne, C. 2004. The politics of fisheries in the European Union. Translated by C.
Schoch and J. Pilling. Pages 81—83 in European Policy Research Series.
Manchester University Press, New York.

Lequesne, C. 2005. Fisheries policy: letting the little ones go? Pages 355—3 72 in Policy-
Making in the European Union. Fifth Edition. Edited by H. Wallace, W. Wallace
and M. A. Pollack. The New European Union Series. Oxford University Press,
New York.

LHC (Lake Huron Committee). 2003. Lake Huron Committee Executive Summary.
Available: http://www.glfc.org/lcexsum/lhc303.htm (June 26, 2003).

Lindgren, R. D. 2001. The species at risk act: an overview. Report No. 408. Canadian
Environmental Law Association, Toronto, Ontario. Available:
http://www.cela.ca/408sara.pdf (March 13, 2003).

LMC (Lake Michigan Committee). 2003. Lake Michigan Committee Executive
Summary. Available: http://www.glfc.org/lcexsum/lmc303.htrn (June 26, 2003).

Lowie, C., editor. 2000. Great Lakes sturgeon genetics: status, needs, and standardization
workshop proceedings, Holiday Inn — Chicago, Illinois, December 8-9, 1999.
USFWS Administrative Report 2000-01. Amherst, New York. Available:
http://midwest.fivsgov/sturgeon/Genworkpro.htm#Why%20Genetic%201nformat
ion%20is (August 4, 2003).

Lynch, K. D. 2001. Formation and Implications of Interorganizational Networks Among
Fisheries Stakeholder Organizations in Michigan’s Pere Marquette River
Watershed. Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Magjuka, R. J. and T. T. Baldwin. 1991. Team-based employee involvement programs:
effects of design and administration. Personnel Psychology 44(4): 793-812.

Maiolo, J. R. and J. Johnson. 1992. Determining and utilizing communication networks

in marine fisheries: a management tool. Proceedings of the 41S" Gulf and
Caribbean Fisheries Institute: 274-296.

332

McCann, K. S. 2000. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405: 228-233.

McClain, J ., editor. 1997. Summary of the 1996 activities of the interbasin lake sturgeon
work group in waters of Lake Huron, St. Clair, and Erie. US. Fish and Wildlife
Serivce-Alpena Fisheries Resources Office, Michigan. Available:
http://midweSt.fws.gov/alpena/rpt-stnib96.html (February 8, 2003).

McLeod, P. L., S. A. Lobel, and T. H. Cox, JR. 1996. Ethnic diversity and creativity in
small groups. Small Group Research 247(2): 248-264.

McNichol, J. 2006. Transnational NGO certification programs as new regulatory forms:
Lessons from the forestry sector. Page 372 in Transnational governance:
institutional dynamics of regulations. Edited by M-L. Djelic and K. Sahlin-
Andersson. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Meffe, G. K., and C. R. Carroll. 1994. The species in conservation. Pages 50-77 in
Principles of Conservation Biology. Edited by G. K. Meffe and C. R. Carroll.
Sinauer Associated, Inc Publishers, Massachusettes.

Merriam-Webster. 1974. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. New York: Pocket Books.

Magjuka, R. J. and T. T. Baldwin. 1991. Team-based employee involvement programs:
effects of design and administration. Personnel Psychology 44(4): 793-812.

Moisan, M., and H. Laflamme. 1999. Rapport sur la situation de l'esturgeon jaune
(A cipenser fulvescens) au Québec. Direction de la faune et des habitats, Quebec.

Mueller, K. B. 2004. The role of a social network in the functioning of the grand haven
charter boat fishery, lake Michigan, Master thesis. Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan.

Myers, R. A. and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish
communities. Nature 423(6937): 280-283.

NAFO. No date. About NAFO (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization). Available:
http://www.nafo.int/about/frames/about.html (July 2006).

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997. Implementation plan for the code of conduct for
responsible fisheries, July 1997. National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US. Department of Commerce,
Document number IOFC: DM/SW/97/5. Available:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/plan.html (November 2006).

National Paddlefish and Sturgeon Steering Committee. 1993. Framework for the

management and conservation of paddlefish and sturgeon species in the United
States. US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC.

333

NAUI. No date. WWF overfishing campaign statement. Available:
http://www.scubadivinginstructor.com/environment.htm (November 2006).

Newell, S. and J. Swan. 2000. Trust and inter-organizational networking. Human
Relations 53(10): 1287-1328.

Nielson, L. A. 1999. History of inland fisheries management in North American. Pages 3-
33 in Inland fisheries management in North America. Edited by C. C. Kohler and
W. A. Hubert. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.

Odell, J. S. and B. Eichengreen. 2000. Changing domestic institutions and ratifying
regime agreements. Pages 178—179 in Negotiating the world economy. Edited by
J. S. Odell. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Peake, S., F. W. H. Beamish, R. S. McKinley, D. A. Scruton, and C. Katopodis. 1997.
Relating swimming performance of lake sturgeon, Acipenserfulvescens, to

fishway design. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 1361-
1366.

Penner, S. 1995. A study of coalition among HIV/AIDS service organizations.
Sociological Perspectives 38(2): 217-239.

Peterson, M. J. 1993. lntemational fisheries management. Pages 260—261 in Institutions
for earth: sources of effective international environmental protection. Edited by P.
M. Haas, R. O. Keohane, and M. A. Levy. Global environmental accords. The
MIT Press, Cambridge.

Pigman, G. 1998. The sovereignty discourse and the US. debate on joining the World
Trade Organization. Global Society 12(1): 75—102.

Pitts, D. and E. M. Jarry. 2005. Ethnic diversity and organizational performance:
assessing diversity effects at the managerial and street levels. Working Paper 06-
33, Andre Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University. Available
http://aysps.gsu/publications/2006/index.htm (November 2009).

Pollack, M. 2006. Delegation and discretion in the European Union. Pages 165—196 in
Delegation and agency in international organizations. Edited by D. G. Hawkins,
D. A. Lake, D. L. Nielson, and M. J. Tierney. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Potosky, D., and P. Bobko. 1997. Computer versus paper-and-pencil administration mode
and response distortion in noncognitive selection tests. Journal of Applied
Psychology 82(2): 293-299.

Pretty, J. and H. Ward. 2001. Social Capital and the Environment. World Development,

334

29 (2): 209-227.

PROF ISH. 2006. Fisheries Factsheet, No. 1. Available:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Factsheet_1_PROFISH_F
INAL.pdf?resourceurlname=Factsheet_1_PROFISH__FINAL.pdf (May 2007).

Qualtrics. 2006. Survey 2!. Qualtrics. com. Available: http://surveyz.com/ (November
2006)

QuestionPro Survey Software. 2007. QuestionPro. QuestionPro Survey Software a
Division of Survey Analytics Enterprise Survey Software. Available:
http://www.questionpro.com/ (November 2006).

Raymakers, C., and C. Hoover. 2002. Acipenseriformes: CITES implementation from
range States to consumer countries. Journal of Applied lcthyologyl8: 629-638.

Reffalt, W. 1991. The endangered species lists: chronicles of extinction? Pages 77-85 in
Balancing on the brink of extinction the endangered species act and lessons for
the future. Edited by K. A. Kohm. Island Press, Washington DC.

Rideout, S. G. and J. A. Ritter. 2002. Canadian and US. Atlantic salmon institutions and
politics: where are the fish and who cares? Pages 93-117 in Sustaining North
American Salmon: perspectives across regions and disciplines. Edited by K. D.
Lynch, M. L. Jones and W. W. Taylor. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Maryland.

Riscard, J-F. 2002. Global issues networks: desperate times deserve innovative measures.
The Washington Quarterly 26(1): 17-33.

Rishikof, R. 1997. Endangered species protection in Canada: an overview. Environment
Probe on the web June 1997. Available:
www.nextcity.com/EnvironmentProbe/pubs/ev539.htm (March 13, 2003).

Roseman, E. F., R. L. Knight, E. Wright, D. Einhouse, K. Kayle, K. Newman, and R. L.
Hoopes. 2008. Ecology and international governance of Lake Erie’s percid
fisheries. Pages 145-172 in lntemational Governance of Fisheries Ecosystems:
learning from the past, finding solutions for the future. Edited by M. G. Schechter,
N. J. Leonard, and W. W. Taylor. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Rosenau, J. N. 1995. Governance in the twenty-first century. Global Governance: A
Review of Multilateralism and lntemational Organization 1(1): 13—43.

Rudd, M. A. 2000. Live Long and Prosper: Collective Action, Social Capital and Social
Vision. Ecological Economics 34(234): 131-144.

SAS (SAS Institute Inc). 2003. SAS version 9. l. 3 Service Pack 4 XP_PRO Program.

335

SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

Sarooshi, D. 2005. lntemational Organizations and Their Exercise of Sovereign Powers.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Schechter, M. G. and N. J. Leonard. 2008. Global Fisheries Governance. Pages 3-33 in
lntemational Governance of Fisheries Ecosystems: Learning from the Past,
Finding Solutions for the Future. Edited by M. G. Schechter, N. J. Leonard, and
W. W. Taylor. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Schechter, M. G., N. J. Leonard, and W. W. Taylor, editors. 2008. lntemational
Governance of Fisheries Ecosystems: Learning from the Past, Finding Solutions
for the Future. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Scheidegger, K. 2002. Fish gotta swim. Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine on the
web April 2002. Available: www.wnrmag.com/stories/2002/apr02/fishlad.htm
(March 22, 2003).

Schrank, W. E. 2003. Introducing fisheries subsidies. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No.
437. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman. 1998. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Ontario: Galt House
Publications. p. 69-76.

SeaWeb. No date. Give Swordfish a break! Swordfish campaign timeline. Available:
http: //www.seaweb. org/programs/swordfish (August 2006).

SeaWeb. 2002. North Atlantic swordfish show dramatic recovery. Press Release October
3, 2002, Washington, DC. Available:
http://www.seaweb.org/programs/swordfish/10.3.02.release_.html (August 2006).

SFPQ (Société de la F aune et des Parcs Quebec). 2001. Especes fauniques menacées ou
vulnérables au Québec: Esturgeon jaune. Available:
http://www.fapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/etu_rec/esp_mena_vuln/esp/esturgeon_jaune.htm
(March 20, 2003).

Shannon, C. E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System
Technical Journal. 27: 379-423.

Shaw, J. B. and E. Barrett-Power. 1998. The effects of diversity on small work group
processes and performance. Human Relations 51(10): 1307-1325.

Sheskin, D. J. 2007. Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures.
New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Sissenweine, M. P., and P. M. Mace. 2003. Governance for responsible fisheries: an

336

ecosystem approach. Pages 10—12 in Responsible fisheries in the marine
ecosystem. Edited by M. Sinclair and G. Vladimarsson. CABI Publishing and
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Wallingford, UK.

Slaughter, A-M. 2004. A New World Order. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Jersey.

Smith, S. H. 1968. Species succession and fishery exploitation in the Great Lakes.
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 25: 667-693.

Smith, S. H. 1972. Factors of ecological succession in oligotrophic fish communities of
the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
29: 717-730.

Stanford Environmental Law Society. 2001. The Endangered Species Act. Stanford
University Press, Stanford, California.

Stegemann, E. C. 1994. Sturgeon — the king of freshwater fishes. Conservationist 49(1):
18-23.

Stein, R., and C. Goddard. 2008. Reconciling fisheries with rehabilitation in the
Laurentian Great Lakes. Pages 1731-1743 in Proceedings of the Fourth World
Fisheries Congress: fisheries with conservation. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.

Swan, J. 2004. Decision-making in regional fishery bodies or arrangements: the evolving
role of REFS and international agreement on decision-making processes. FAO
Circular No. 995. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome. '

Taylor, W. W. and C. Dobson. 2008. Inter-jurisdictional fisheries governance: the next
steps to sustainability. Pages 431-440 in lntemational Governance of Fisheries
Ecosystems: learning from the past, finding solutions for the future. Edited by M.
G. Schechter, N. J. Leonard, and W. W. Taylor. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.

Taylor, W. W. and C. P. F erreri, editors. 1999. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and
Management. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI.

Thomas, M. V., and R. C. Haas. 2002. Abundance, age structure, and spatial distribution
of lake sturgeon, Acipenserfulvescens, in the St Clair System. Journal of Applied
Icthyology 18(4-6): 495-501.

Thompson, P. C. 1974. Institutional constraints in fisheries management. Journal of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada 31: 1965-1981.

337

Todd, R. M. 1999. Sturgeon and paddlefish commercial fishing in North America. Pages
42-50 in Proceedings of the Symposium on the Harvest, Trade and Conservation
of North American Paddlefish and Sturgeon, May 7-8, 1998, Chattanooga, TN.
Edited by D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz and C. M. Hoover. TRAFFIC North
America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA.

USEPA (US. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Exposure and effects of airborne
contamination. Great Waters Program Report, Chapter 2. 2.

USFWS (U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service). n. d. . Lake sturgeon: giant of the Great Lakes.
Brochure published by US. Fish and Wildlife Service Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem Team Lake Sturgeon Committee. Available:
http://midweSt.fws.gov/sturgeon/lakesturgeon.pdf (March 18, 2003).

USFWS (US. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1988. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended through the 100th congress. US. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC. pp. 66-68.

USFWS (US. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. The endangered species act of 1973.
Available: http://endangered.fws.gov/esa.html (March 18, 2003).

USFWS (US. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003. Lake sturgeon population investigations.
US. Fish and Wildlife Service-Alpena Fishery Resources Office, Michigan.
Available http://midweSt.fws.gov/alpena/lakesturgeon.htm (January 30 2003).

USFWS-Green Bay (Wisconsin Ecological Services). n. (1. Lake sturgeon restoration
activities: lake sturgeon upstream and downstream passage initiative on the
Menominee River. Available:
http://midweSt.fws.gov/sturgeon/green_bay_ES_jim.htm (April 1, 2003).

USTR (Office of the US. Trade Representative). 2005. Leadership on environmental
protection at the WTO. Facts on Global Reform, Doha Development Agenda
Policy Brief—December 2005. Available:
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2005/asset_upload_fil
e937_8545.pdf (June 2007).

USTR (Office of the US. Trade Representative). 2007. US. Doha Round initiative to
prohibit harmful fisheries subsidies. Press Release. Available:
http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press__Releases/2007/March/United_Stat
es_Doha_Round_lnitiative_to_Prohibit_Harmful_Fisheries_Subsidies.html (June
2007).

US. Mission. 2007. US. Doha Round initiative to prohibit harmful fisheries subsidies.

US. Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, 21 March 2007 Press Release.
Available: www.usmission.ch/PressZOO7/0321Fisheries.htm (5 May 2007).

338

Van de Ven, A. H., and D. L. Ferry. 1980. Measuring and assessing organizations. New
York: Wiley.

Wasserman, S. and K. Faust. 1994. Social network analysis: methods and applications.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Weisser, J. 2000. Sea lamprey management program and lake sturgeon. In Update on
lake sturgeon in New York State Waters: abstracts and meeting summary. Edited
by T. E. Brooking. Lake Sturgeon Research Meeting, January 27, 2000, Syracuse,
NY. Available: www.dnr.cornell.edu/fieldst/cbfs.htm (March 18, 2003).

Westlund, L. 2004. Guide for identifying, assessing and reporting on subsidies in the
fisheries sector. F AO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 438. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Wijnstekers, W. 2001. The evolution of CITES: a reference to the convention on
international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, 6th edition.
CITES Secretariat, Switzerland.

Wimpfheimer, R., M. Bloom, and M. Kramer. 1991. Inter-agency collaboration: some
working principles. Administration in Social Work 14(4): 89-102.

World Bank. No date. About us. Available:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/0,,pagePK:
50004410—piPK:36602—theSitePK:29708,00.html (July 2006).

World Bank. 1992. A study of international fisheries research. Annex 5 The World Bank,
The United Nations Development Programme, The Commission of the European

Communities, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank. 1994. The Agricultural Technology and Services Divisions (AGRTN).
Agriculture and Technology Notes, No. 4. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2004. Saving fish and fishers: toward sustainable and equitable governance
of the global fishing sector. Report No. 29090-GLB. The World Bank,
Washington, DC. Available:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/SavingFishandFishers.pdf
(November 2006).

World Bank. 2006. World Bank Group working for a world free of poverty. The World
Bank Headquarter,Washington, D.C. Available:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTABOUTUS/Resources/wbgroupbrochure-
en.pdf (June 2007).

World Bank Group. 2007. The First PROF ISH Forum: a developing country—donor

339

dialogue on fisheries. Agriculture and Rural Development, The World Bank
Group, Washington, D. C. Available:

http: //web. worldbank. org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTARD/contentMD
K:21292984<pagePK:210058<piPK:210062<theSitePK:3 36682,00.html (May
2007)

World Trade Organization. No date. What is the WTO? Available:
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htm (July 2006).

World Trade Organization. 2007. Chair circulates draft text on rules. WTO News Items
Doha Development Agenda, 30 November 2007. Available:
http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/newsO7_e/rules__draft_text_nov07_e.htrn.
(Janaury2008).

WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2002. WWF fact sheet: 12th meeting of the conference of
the parties to CITES, Santiago, 3-15 November 2002. Available:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/CITES/pdfs/sturgeon_factsheet.pdf (March 18,
2003).

Yang, H. L and J. H. Tang. 2004. Team structure and team performance in IS
development: a social network perspective. Information & Management 41 (3):
335-349.

340

11111111141111

4