Lau á ráðstevnu um marknaðargrundaðan fiskivinnupolitikk

Lau Blaxekjær luttók í seinastu viku í eini altjóða verkstovu um marknaðargrundaðan fiskivinnupolitikk. Hetta var í samband við ráðstevnuna “The Consequences of Rights-Based Fisheries in the Arctic” sum varð hildin á Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, í døgunum 21.-23. september 2015.

Lau greiðir soleiðis frá á enskum:

The workshop is organized by the Institute of Arctic Studies at Dartmouth College and the Stefansson Arctic Institute in Akureyri, Iceland with the twin goals of (i) exploring in a general way the consequences flowing from the establishment of rights-based fisheries (RBFs) and (ii) shedding light on challenges and innovations in fisheries management in the Arctic. The plan is to work back and forth between an analysis of RBFs in general terms and an assessment of specific experiences in Arctic settings in order both to improve our understanding of RBFs generally and to illuminate concrete developments in the Arctic.

The concept of rights-based fishing encompasses a range of institutional innovations (e.g., ITQs, TURFs, CDQs, permit systems) introduced in many places around the world in recent decades as measures intended primarily to solve problems of overharvesting and economic inefficiency in marine fisheries. In general, these initiatives have emerged from work in the field of environmental economics stressing the benefits of incentive systems as devices to solve or alleviate collective-action problems that plague human-environment interactions in a wide range of settings. RBFs of one kind or another are now in operation in many places including Australia, Chile, New Zealand, and the United States.

In the Arctic, arrangements of this type have been introduced in Alaska, Iceland, Greenland, Norway, and Russia. A number of RBFs have been in place long enough to allow for systematic and evidence-based enquiries regarding their performance. Initial indications suggest that the performance of these arrangements is a complex issue fraught with considerable controversy. But systematic assessment of the results drawing on evidence provided by both social scientists and natural scientists remains to be conducted.