the political ecology and biopower of resourcemanagement in the dutch ijsselmeer and markermeer
I wrote this essay in 2019 within the context of my master Development and Rural Innovations in Wageningen. Happily not everything in this essay is up to date anymore. There are recent studies who describe the positive role of fyke fishermen on the food availability for fish eating birds.
Introduction
Increasing human population and climate change puts high demands on the global food production and leads to environmental degradation by pressuring natural and cultural landscapes, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. In order to provide the growing population with sufficient and nutritious food and maintain the world’s biodiversity, it is crucial to prevent environmental degradation and to manage natural resources in a sustainable way (Godfray et al., 2010; Tscharntke et al., 2012; Bommarco et al., 2013). The complexity, dynamics and multi-scaled interactions between humans and the environment and the involvement of multiple stakeholders (such as ENGO’s, scientists, resource users, government) however, make natural resources, including fisheries, among the most challenging systems to govern (Song et al., 2013). This shows in the many examples of natural resource management, including community based resource management, where environmental policies and measures to protect biodiversity and to prevent environmental degradation are proven to be ineffective or counter-productive. Additionally, they often lead to conflict and unequal division of cost and benefits amongst the stakeholders, and in some cases affected people being worse off (Fairhead & Leach, 1995, forsyth 2003, Rist 2002). Critical researchers attributed this to the dominant role for (natural) science, incorrect assumptions about the socio-ecological relations, simplified views or explanations about ecological cause and effect relations in resource management, unequal power-relations and the neglect of the broader system, complexity, history and the environmental knowledge and practices of local communities (Escobar 1996, Forsyth 2003, Fairhead & Leach, 1995, Rist 2002, Budds 2009). These examples put the ability of the current centralized governance regimes and scientific fisheries management to manage the complexities of social-ecological systems into questioning (Ingalls & Stedman 2016).
Also in the IJsselmeer a large lake in the Netherlands, resource management has shown to be ineffective as can be seen in Talma (2014):
“The IJsselmeer and the Markermeer are in a state of ecological decline. Objectives under the Nature2000 (birds), Water Frame Directive and sustainable exploitation of the fish stock (Fishery Law) are not met. For fishermen and nature, the chances ended in a downward spiral, policy has failed”.
Despite many years of research, implemented policies, reorganizations, further limitations of the fishing capacity, attempts for co-management and nature restoration projects in recent years, the current situation is undesirable for fish, birds and fishermen as fish and bird populations have been decreasing (Talma 2014, Noordhuis et al., 2014). Leeuw et al. (2008) addresses the small steps and the slow response to prevent excessive fishing levels since the 1970s as the main failure to achieve biological, socio-economical and political sustainability. However, the decrease of the fish and bird populations is not solely the result of the fisherman, but the effect of different parallel processes amongst others: land reclamation, shared responsibility of fisheries management, European directives, natural fluctuations in surplus and improved water quality with reduced nutrients (Leeuw et al., 2008, Talma 2014, Noordhuis et al., 2014). Where the latter, the reduction in nutrients due to the European Water Frame Directive (WFD), is addressed as the main cause for the negative trend in the fish and bird populations and can therefore be seen as conflicting with the Fisheries law and the Natura 2000 directive (Noordhuis et al., 2014).
Similar to the examples above, most of the governance in the IJsselmeer is dominated by a natural science perspective. Despite attempts for co-management and stakeholder processes, fishermen are in continuous contestation to science and the measures being taken and feel excluded from decision-making. In this essay a critical political ecology approach and the concept of biopower will be used to critically asses the effectiveness of the governance with the dominant role for science and its directives, objectives and measures. First, political ecology will be used to look at the way ecological cause and effect relations within the socio-ecological system are commonly understood by science and represented in the directives. Followed by an assessment of the way these directives, objectives and measures, relate to each other and to the complexity of the social-ecological system. Secondly, the political dynamics surrounding resource management in the IJsslemeer area will be explored using the political ecology approach together with a biopower perspective according to Faucault. This will be used to look at the way the stakeholders as well as the dominant role for science resulted in conflicting directives and led to unsuccessful outcome of resource management in the IJsslemeer area and how this creates unequal division on costs and benefits.
For the content, I draw on available literature, outings of stakeholders in the news, magazines and websites as well as personal observations and conversations with fishermen during my work as a fisheries biologist for Wageningen Marine Research (previously Imares), interviews with fishermen conducted as data for my attempted master thesis and several days of filming on board of two fishing companies.
Theories and concepts
First the critical political ecology perspective and Foucault’s concept of biopower will be further explained.
Political Ecology
Political ecology is an interdisciplinary study derived from cultural ecology and political economy. It attempts to integrate natural and social science approaches in order to understand the relationship between human and ecological systems, with explicit considerations of power and knowledge (Peterson, 2000; Robbins, 2011; Quant, 2016). It does so with a normative understanding that the socio-ecological interactions underlying resource management are much more complex then is assumed and are often based on well-known explanations of how environmental problems occur, called “orthodoxies” by Forsyth 2003, also referred to as institutionalized but highly criticized conceptualizations of environmental degradation such as deforestation and soil erosion (Forsyth 2003). A central idea in political ecology is therefore the consideration that a socio-ecological system or environmental problem cannot be understood without taking into account the political and economic context in which they are created as it is seen as ‘a politicized environment’ (Rist, 2002, Robbins, 2011).
From a political ecology perspective, stakeholders or actors are positioned in political, economic and ecological contexts. This context influences their diverse interests and values and carry with them a multiplicity of perspectives, world- views, and discourses (Bixler, 2013). This leads to different conceptualizations of the environment and the nature of human-environment relations as well as different ideas and framings on appropriate uses and management (Ebbin, 2011). Within a social-ecological system, competing individuals or groups of actors, that differ in power and knowledge seek to influence the policy formation; by doing so they use narratives and discourses and employ a range of strategies that include debating, negotiating and framing, the very ways in which environmental issues are commonly understood and represented (Bryant, 1996; Berkes et al., 2006; Fabinyi et al., 2014). Actors that manage or are empowered to define problems can influence the solutions that are considered and ultimately adopted within the policy process (Ebbin 2011).
What constitutes as the socio-environmental relations, the way problems and solutions are defined, resulting in policies and managed practices can therefore not be reduced to a matter of objective analysis (Escobar, 1999; Ingalls & Stedman, 2016). Institutions and state policies governing human–environment relationships resulting from this aggregate decision-making processes can be seen as an embodiment of societal division and struggle in which power-relations play an important role (Bryant, 1996). Power relations then mean that some voices can be marginalized or privileged, of easy identification or invisible (Brosius, 1999 in Fabinyi, et al. 2014). Consequently, power relations define whose knowledge is seen as legitimate, how it is generated, codified, and brought to bear on the problems and solutions of management (Ingalls & Stedman, 2016).
Biopower
Michel Foucault conceptualized biopower as the power to “make live and let die” (Foucault, 2003, page 241). With its focus on regimes of authority over knowledge and power, biopower can explain a large part of the “politicized environment” and unequal-power relations in governance. With a focus on the dominant role for science via the directives many of the conceptualizations of nature and human-environmental relations as well as appropriate use within the governance of socio-ecological systems can be explained (Biermann 2014). Biopower, emerged particularly in modern states in the 17th and 18th century and refers to the non-disciplinary management of entire populations, nations, or races and legitimized authority through the claim that governance serves to enhance the health and vitality of the subject ‘population’ (Foucault, 2003, page 241 In (Bierman & Mansfield 2014, Fletcher 2010). Based on demographic statistics on birth and death rates and diseases, norms and indicators were established and programs were implemented to decrease death and illness rates and to increase birth and literacy rates enabling to bring biological life under the purview of law live (Bierman & Mansfield 2014, Fletcher 2010). Similarly, efforts to conserve biodiversity, where nonhuman life is approached in terms of distinct populations to be counted and managed as statistical entities, can be seen as an exercise of biopower (Biermann & Mansfield 2014, Fletcher 2010). In this context, Fletcher 2010, describes assessment as: “a paradigmatic biopolitical approach to conservation, endeavoring to appraise the total health of global life according to a set of statistical indicators and thereby establish a baseline upon which to intervene in order to manipulate these indicators (reducing the rate of fish depletion, for instance) so as to augment and sustain this life-as-a-whole”. Legitimized through the urgency of the biodiversity crisis, scientists with their sovereign claims to truth and objectivity, became authorized to speak for nonhuman nature, to carry out these assessments, advise policymakers as well as to identify appropriate measures against the actors and actions— both human and nonhuman—that threaten the future of life (Bierman & Mansfield 2014). Indirectly, biopolitical conservation policy aimed at populations is often applied to individual human bodies through disciplinary techniques intended to influence their natural resource use (Borgerhoff Mulder & Coppolillo 2005, In Fletcher 2010).
Background IJsselmeer
The lake Ijsselmeer is a part of the river Rhine catchment area and was created between 1927 and 1932 by the construction of the afsluitdijk, which locked the former estuary ‘Zuiderzee’ from marine influences, transforming it into a shallow freshwater lake with a mean depth of 4 meters, with gullies up to 8 meters deep. In the period of 1930 to 1960 land reclamation took place, creating three polders and the border lakes, then reducing the surface of the IJsselmeer in more than 40% to about 1900 km2. The Houtribdijk, a dike constructed in 1975, split the lake into a northern part, still called Ijsselmeer, with 1100 km2 and a southern part called the Markermeer, with 700 km2. These lakes and the Border lakes are often referred to as the IJsselmeer area (de Leeuw et al., 2008; Lammers et al., 2008). A schematic map of the area is show in Figure 1.
Governance towards a transition of freshwater fisheries
Before the closure of the Zuiderzee, fishermen were the only active users of the sea in the area (Huitema 2012). Surrounding the Zuiderzee there were several fishing communities that got their living from it, in 1920 approximately 2000 fishing boats in the area with their respective fishermen. Some were fishing year-round while others fished part time and had side-jobs in peat exploitation, carrying ships, and in North Sea fisheries. Two types of fishing techniques were used: standing fishing gear, as standing riggs, hook line, fykes and pots; and towed nets, as saine and trawls. These techniques were used to fish haddock, flounder, herring, and anchovies. Around the end of the 19th century, especially fisheries of herring and anchovies were important, creating jobs in distribution and processing (Redeke 1939, Gmelich Meijling-van Hemert & Groen, 2008).
name picture
In 1891 the plan of poldering the Zuiderzee was presented to protect the Dutch from the water and to provide more agricultural land to increase food production in order to feed its population, which was received with many objections and resistance of the fisherman and fishing communities. The proponents of the poldering however effectively portrayed the fishery communities as a marginal affair, and after the flood of the Zuiderzee in 1916 the plan, which was presented as a solution to the chronic flooding and creating additional agricultural land, was granted (Huitema, 2012, Gmelich Meijling-van Hemert 2008;). The Dutch government anticipated the loss of fishing area with the Zuiderzee support law in 1925 (Zuiderzeesteunwet), based on the expected changes of the environment due to the transformation of the area from an open estuary to a dammed fresh water lake, limitations of allowed fishing gears and support for the fishermen were established (Leeuw et al., 2008).
In 1936, in the newly formed IJsselmeer, a new rich fresh water fish community emerged with 1354 fishing vessels that were still in practice, catching species such as eel (Anguilla anguilla), pike-perch (Sander lucioperca), perch (Perca fluviatilis), and smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) (Leeuw et al. 2008). Also several bird species adapted to the new environment. Management in the IJsselmeer and Markermeer initially focused on optimizing the economic and social sustainability of fisheries, much ecological and biological research was executed to support the responsible national authorities on management decisions and measures that often entailed to reduce the fishing capacity and their bycatch of the often over-exploited eel and pikeperch populations (Leeuw 2008). In 1963, the Fisheries law 1963 (Visserijwet) was implemented to sustainable manage the fish stock accompanied with fishing restrictions (Leeuw 2007). In 1970, the Fisheries law lead to the ban of trawling, the main fishing technique on eel in the IJssel and Markermeer. Thereafter the eel fisheries with large fykes, summer fykes, eel boxes, and hook line further developed as the main fishing techniques for eel. A net fisheries and seine fishery started for bream (Abramis brama), roach (Rutilus Rutilus), white bream (Blicca bjoerkna), and rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus).
From 1960 until 1980, the fisheries as well as several bird populations benefitted from the increased supply of nutrients (phosphate and nitrogen) from the Rhine. This lead to an increased production of algae, mollusks and fish in the lakes. Making the Ijsselmeer area of international importance for several bird populations (Noordhuis et al. 2014, Klein Breteler et al., 2007). The situation evolved with the realization of directives and other measures, described in chapter 3.2.
From the 80s the fish stock as well as bird numbers decreased due to the implementation of the directives and measures to improve the water quality (Wet Verontreiniging Oppervlakte Water, wasmiddelen convenant and Water Frame Directive in 2000). These directives reduced the supply of nutrients, diminishing the productivity of the lake and increasing transparency of the water (Kruiswagen et al. 2013, Leeuw et al. 2008, Noordhuis et al., 2014). The reduced fish stock, together with reorganizations and modernization, reduced the number of fishing companies from 1354 in 1936 to 827 in 1995 to around 70 fishing license holders fishing with 20-25 active vessels in 2013 (Kruitwagen et al., 2013, Gmelich Meijling-van Hemert & Groen 2008). Despite the dramatic reduction in fishery numbers and their current struggle to have profit, the scale of fisheries in the IJsselmeer and the Markermeer is considered to be unsustainable for the last few years, as the fishing pressure is too high in comparison to the fish stock present in the lakes (Talma, 2014; Tien et al., 2015; Tien & Hammen, 2016).
Directives
Throughout the years, a growing number of functions were attributed to the IJsselmeer area such as recreation, water reservoir and nature protection, gradually changing the management and management goals from a solely economic focus, to focus on the social-economic, biological and ecological sustainability (Leeuw 2008, Klein Breteler et al 2007, PO IJsselmeer & Sportvisserij Nederland 2011). This lead to the further development of institutions and legislation to protect the bird populations as the Bird and Habitat Directives and to improve the water quality as the Water Frame Directive, and the European Eel Directive to protect the eel (Talma 2014, Kruitwagen et al., 2013). Together, these directives define the context for its use, sustainable fisheries, healthy bird populations and an ecological resilient IJsselmeer and Markermeer. These directives and their objectives are intermingled on several aspects and cannot be seen separate from each other (Kruitwagen et al., 2013).
Fishery law and fishing rights
The Fishery law 1963 is the legal framework to regulate sea, coast, and inland fisheries in the Netherlands for the effective management of the fish stock, taking the interests of nature and social welfare into account (Breteler et al., 2007). The Fishery Law determines how and under which conditions fishing activities can be conducted via fishing rights. For the IJsselmeer the Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ) manages these, which is responsible for the licenses of each commercial fishing company. Within the licenses the EZ can assign additional measures to regulate the fisheries. The limitations on the fishing pressure are defined by: the allowable fishing technique, minimum catch size, fishing season, authorized gears, fishing seasons, and the allowed combination of methods to be used by one ship. An overview of these fishin glimitations currently in place can be found in (Appendix I), Leeuw et al., (2008) give an extended overview of the fisheries measures until 2007.
In 2006, the Regulation IJsselmeer Fishery, 1996 (Regeling IJsselmeervisserij) was enforced with the objective of ending overfishing via the reduction of fishing capacity. With this regulation, individual fishermen have to make a fishing plan describing how they would accomplish the fishing reduction, via the reduction of fishing time, capacity, or a combination of both depending on the fishing gear (Leeuw et al., 2007). Via the Product organization IJsselmeer (PO) the EZ has to approve the plan, after which the EZ determinate the maximum fishing capacity for that year. Because of the fishermen’s own involvement this regulation can be seen as an attempt to introduce co-management (Leeuw et al., 2008). In their plan, hook line fishermen were bound to reduce fishing capacity by ten days per fishing unit per season. For other fishing techniques, the individual fishermen could opt between different scenarios. For large fyke, summer fyke and the eel box the yearly reduction was 32% per fishing units or 8% per week. The implementation of the European Eel Directive in 2009 however, where September, October and November are closed for eel fisheries, makes that the eel fishermen comply to the limitation of 32% previously established and are allowed to use all their gear in the allowed period. For net fisheries, the allowable fishing capacity since 2009, was set to be 50% (PO IJsselmeer & Sportvisserij Nederland 2011). In 2014-2015 a further reduction of 85% of the net fishing capacities was implemented. For the season 2015/2016 the ministry of EZ changed the policy objectives for the pikeperch, bass, bream and roach from ‘prevention of reduction’ to restore of stocks’ (Tien et al., 2015).
Under the Fisheries law, fisheries with large fykes is place dependent, while saine fishermen additionally to the licenses require permission from the municipalities in some of the harbors (Kruitwagen et al., 2013). For the other fishing techniques, fishing companies do not have their own area in the lakes, but rather share the whole lakes area. This can be seen as a multiple use common resource pool (gemene weide visserij) (Leeuw 2008, Talma 2014). The common resource pool is widely described for its complexity in management (Adams et al. 2003, Hardin 1968, Willet 2002). The large fykes and saining are exceptions, the former, are place dependent, and the later also require the fisherman to receive permission from the municipalities in some of the harbors (Kruitwagen et al., 2013). Since 1996 the fishing license system is liberalized, making it possible to transfer the licenses or part of the license by leasing or selling them to other fishing companies (PO IJsselmeer & SportvisserijNederland 2011).
European Water Frame Directive
The European Water Frame Directive (WFD) was implemented in 2000 with the objective to protect and improve the chemical and ecological quality of the European water bodies and to promote their sustainable use. Reaching a good ecological status and preventing degradation of all water bodies are central to it. The WFD builds forth on national and international measures (Wet Verontreiniging OppervlakteWater, wasmiddelen convenant) that were implemented since 1979 to improve the quality of the water bodies that suffered from eutrophication due to pollution from agricultural production and wastewater treatment plants (Noordhuis, 2014; Veraart et al., 2016).
In order to reach this good ecological status, the WFD obligates individual countries to make a management plan for their water bodies once in every six years, providing accountability towards Europe. In the Netherlands, the Water Board (RWS) is responsible for these plans and the operationalization of the WFD (Tien et al., 2015). Within these management plans all water bodies need to be identified, classified into water types (rivers, lakes, transition-waters, and coastal water), and parameters for ecological status need to be set for fish, macrophytes, macro fauna, and phytoplankton. For each water body and type also a reference situation needs to be identified, which is done based on a combination of reference water bodies, historical data, models, and expert judgment. The current state is compared to the reference situation, after which the water bodies are defined as ‘natural water bodies’, ‘artificial water bodies’ or ‘highly modified water bodies’ (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2012; Kruiswagen et al., 2013).
The IJsselmeer lakes are defined as water type M21, or large deep buffered lakes. Due to the many hydro-morphological changes, as land reclamations, and construction of the Afsluitdijk, and Houtribdijk, both lakes are defined as highly modified. Since these hydrological changes cannot be restored to the original situation due to safety reasons, the goal for the lakes was set as realizing the maximum ecological potential, which intends to describe the best possible approximation to a natural aquatic ecosystem, within the possibilities to restore human induced hydrological and physiological changes. Improving fish migration and the creation of more natural transitions between land and water are important goals in order to reach these standards (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 2012).
For the fish stock and the fisheries to comply to the WFD a healthy length distribution needs to be present for all the present species and the fish stock must remain the same. For pikeperch, this means that a minimum of 50% of the fish stock must consist of individuals bigger than 40 cm (Tien et al., 2015).
Nature2000
The European Union started an initiative to set up the Natura 2000 to preserve the unique nature of Europe by protecting and enhancing a network of nature areas. Natura 2000 embraces all the nature areas that are protected under the Bird Directive (1979) and the Habitat Directive (1992), which are currently implemented in the Netherlands by the nature conservation act of 2017 (Wet Natuurbescherming. The implementation and regulation is the responsibility of the provinces, which for the IJsselmeer lakes case are Noord-Holland, Friesland, and Flevoland (Tien et al., 2013).
The IJsselmeer and the Markermeer are appointed as Natura 2000 area, to which species and habitats have been attributed. In the attachment IV of the NB-legislation the species and habitats are mentioned, for each one maintaining objectives or improvement objectives are set. Protected birds can be placed into two categories: the benthiforous birds that are protected, tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), common pochard (Aythya ferina), great scaup (Aythya marila), and common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula); and the piscivorous birds, grebe (Podiceps cristatus), common merganser (Mergus merganser), smew (Mergellus albellus), common tern (Sterna hirundo), black tern (chlidonias niger), and little gull (Hydrocoloeus minutus) (Noordhuis et al.2014). The Chabot bullhead (Cottus perifretum), is the only fish species that, including its habitat, hard substrate as mollusk beds and the basalt blocks of the dykes, is protected under nature2000.
In order to receive a license to fish under the Natura 2000 directive, fishermen have to prove that their direct and indirect fishing practices do not significantly affect the bird populations. This is needed for the gillnet fisheries, where by-catch of birds is the potential negative effect, and for smelt fisheries, where fisheries are seen to be influencing the availability of smelt for the piscivourous birds (Deerenberg 2013, Kruitwagen et al. 2008). The stricter enforcement of the Nature2000 directive in recent years, prevented fishermen to obtain a license for smelt fisheries and made it harder for the net fisheries to obtain a license. Additional to this, some restrictions and obligations are implemented to prevent negative effect on the birds. Fishermen are obligated to use reflecting strip on the floats of their gillnets and gillnets are not allowed to be placed in water shallower then 2 meters and gillnets are not allowed to be standing close to large flocks of birds with more than 200 individuals, amongst other measures (Kruitwagen 2013).
European Eel Directive
Despite several measures to protect the eel population on a national and international level, the European eel stock is considered to be on a critical level (Graaf & Bos, 2016). According to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, the recruitment of glass eel as well as young yellow eel continue to decline and show no sign of recovery, the current glass eel recruitment is 1-5 % form the recruitment of the 60s and 70s (Bierman et al., 2012). This lead the European Union to oblige member states to make an eel management plan in 2007, the “EU Regulation for the Recovery of the Eel Stock (EC 1100/2007)”. The goal of the eel management is to reduce anthropogenic mortalities so as to permit with high probability the escape to the sea of at least 40 % of the silver eel or adult eel biomass, relative to the best estimate of escape that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the stock. In 2009 the European Eel directive was implemented in the Netherlands and to allow 40% of the silver eel (adult) to escape eel fishing was banned in the months of September and October in 2009 and from 2010 onwards for September, October and November (Bierman et al., 2012). The fishing ban in those months fulfilled the requirements of the previous eel regulation of 2006. For the fishing reduction, the fishermen were compensated for three years.
A political ecology perspective on the directives of the IJsselmeer and the underlying socio-ecoloigical relations
For good management, it is needed that the directives and measures complement each other, however, as shown by Noordhuis et al. (2014) the directives conflict. This lack of coherence and the complexity of the directives in the IJsselmeer area, also referred to as a Gordian knot (Talma 2014), deserve some more attention. This will be done according to the political ecology perspective assuming that the socio-ecological interactions underlying resource management including these directives are much more complex than that they are represented in literature, debates and policy recommendations (Forsyth 2003). First a brief overview will be given of the common ways the socio-ecological interactions between fish, fishermen and birds are understood and represented. Followed by a critical assessment of the Fisheries Law, WFD, the Natura 2000 directive and the European Eel directive to see how their objectives and measures, relate to each other and to the complexity of the social-ecological system.
Interactions between fish, birds and Fishermen
Much ecological and biological research has been carried out on the fish and fisheries interactions as well as on conflicts within the fisheries bird domain (Eerden et al. 1993, Leeuw & Tulp (2004), Leeuw et al. 2008). This research shows that fisheries and especially overexploitation of eel, perch, pikeperch and smelt negatively influenced the fish stock. Leeuw et al. (2008) gives a rich account of research that shows overfishing is taking place throughout the years. Furthermore, an intensive exploitation of small fish, either directly or as bycatch, may influence the outcome of the fishery for eel, perch and pikeperch, as well as the viability of piscivorous bird populations as this influences the food availability for these species (Mous et al., 2003). Eerden et al. (1993) and Leeuw & Tulp (2004) for example show how smelt fisheries and grebes as well as common terns are in direct competition for smelt, and Mous (2000) shows this for cormorants and fisheries, of which figure 2 gives a schematic overview. The effect and survival of bycatch by the fyke fisheries in the IJsselmeer area is also broadly studied (Mous 2000, Deerenberg 2004, Bult et al. 2007, Griffioen & Tien 2016). Where Deerenberg 2004, found eel – discards percentages for the fyke fisheries in the IJsselmeer and Markermeer of 81-96% for large fykes and 82-98% for shooting fykes. Bult et al,. 2007, found that there was much bycatch of undersized perch and pikeperch in the shooting fykes and estimated a total of 9 million pikeperch and 5 million perch. The direct mortality of this bycatch was estimated to be 13% and the combined mortality, direct and indirect was estimated to be 83%.
Net fisheries and to a smaller extend fyke fisheries also negatively influence diving bird populations directly by birds being trapped in the nets (Mous 2003, Deerenberg 2003). However, several sources argue that the over-exploitation of the predatory perch and pikeperch stocks by commercial fisheries most likely has a positive effect on food availability for piscivorous birds, as depicted in figure 3. This link is also mentioned in the granting of the licenses for net fisheries under the Natura 2000 directive (Eerden et al., 1993, Leeuw & Tulp 2004, PO IJsselmeer & Sportvisserij Nederland 2011). It is argued that an increase in perch and pikeperch will increase predation of small fish but reduce competition amongst them (Leeuw et al 2006). On the other hand, a possible positive influence between perch and pikeperch on piscivorous birds is discussed by Leeuw & Tulp 2004, where these predator fish might chase other small fish to the surface and make them available for shallow diving birds like the common tern. Altogether, fisheries can therefore have a steering function in the IJsselmeer as they can influence the composition and size of the fish, however, other interactions between fish eating birds and fishery must be mentioned, the compensatory mechanisms as cannibalism in piscivorous fish species, and second-order interactions as the food competition between fish species and cormorants (Mous, 2000).
Another important factor in the food availability of smelt and small fish for fish eating birds (that is not fisheries dependent), is the transparency of the water (figure 3), as many shallow diving birds such as the common tern, the black tern and the little gull, can only dive 15-20 cm deep. The reductions in nutrients by the Water Frame Directive together with the introduction of the (invasive) exotic Quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis), led to increased transparency of the IJsselmeer as the quagga mussel filters the water at a higher rate than the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). When the water is too clear, smelt occupies lower (less transparent) water column, making it harder for the common tern, black tern and the little gull to find smelt (Mous 2000, Noordhuis et al. 2014, Broekmeyer et al. 2017).
Discrepancies amongst the WFD, fisheries law and Natura2000 objectives
The recent studies by Noordhuis (2014), puts a larger emphasis on the effect of the WFD on the ecosystem and clearly shows that the WFD has a negative effect on the production of the lakes and therefore negatively affects the amount of food present in the lakes for fish and for fish and mollusk eating birds. Broekmeyer et al. 2017, refers to this study and writes that there is a lack of coherence between the directives, arguing that European directives, by the implementation of the WFD, can negatively influence goals for the Natura2000 directive. A closer look at the literature published on the implementation and execution of the WFD, shows that, Klein Breteler et al. 2007 already predicted discrepancies between the aspirations and goals of the fisheries sector, recreational fisheries, the water managers (KRW) and nature conservationists (VHR), which shows in the desired biomass of smelt, bream and pikeperch and has consequences for management in the IJsselmeer and Markermeer. The study argued that the implementation of the WFD reduces eutrophication and can lead to clearer and less productive water, which is undesirable for pikeperch and smelt and will much likely negatively influence the biomass of bream and carp.
Additionally, Klein Breteler et al. in 2007, foresees that measures to reach the KRW length distributions on pikeperch, will indirectly negatively affect food availability for pisciforous birds. The intense net fisheries on pikeperch and perch, disrupts the natural length distribution needed for the WFD and recreational fisheries (Klein Breteler et al. 2007). In order to reach the WFD goals (50% of the pikeperch biomass needs to be above 40 cm) and to reach sustainable fisheries and healthy fish populations, additional reductions of fishing capacity of net fisheries on pikeperch would be necessary. Here they argue, lays another discrepancy between the WFD and the conservation targets of the VHR for fish eating birds (Klein Breteler et al. 2007). The high net fishing pressure reduces the pikeperch and perch populations, decreasing the predation on young fish and therefore utilizes the numbers of prey fish available for piscivorous birds (Eerden et al., 1992, leeuw et al. 2007, Kruitwagen et al., 2013). As a result, Klein Breteler et al. (2007), suggests that the goals within the directives should be fine-tuned in further trajectories of implementation.
Measures to reduce net fishingpressure in relation to natura2000 protected birds
As Klein Breteler et al., (2007) foresaw, several measures to reduce the net fisheries were implemented in recent years, to meet the WFD and the Fisheries law for pikeperch, perch, roach and bream. In 2009, a 50% reduction took place and in 2015 a further 85% of the fishing capacity was reduced. In the implementation process however, the positive relation of the net fisheries for the food availability of fish eating birds was not taken into account. Similarly, this relation has not been taken into account during the recent process of license granting for the net fisheries under the Natura 2000 directive. Because fishermen did not manage to prove that their fishing practices did not significantly affect the bird populations via by catch, the start of the fishing season was postponed with two weeks. However, if they had failed to do so, this would affect the food availability for birds. The effects of a reduced fishing pressure, either via a reduction in fishing capacity or via a ban are unknown as fishing pressure has always been high. Hammen et al., (2017), estimated that on an average, pikeperch eat 1991 ton of fish a year of which 617 ton smelt and perch eats 824 ton of fish a year of which 313 ton smelt. This is based on the 137-ton pikeperch and 40 ton perch, that on an average has been caught by fisheries over the last 5 years. Compared to the fish consumption by birds which is estimated to be 1549 ton of which 334 ton smelt, the yearly fish consumption by pikeperch and perch is considerable (Hammen et al, 2017). Reductions in the catches of perch and pikeperch, will most likely increase predation and directly affect the available fish in the end of the year and indirectly the spawning population of smelt. Both are very important for the food availability of fish for birds.
Discrepancies within the WFD itself and the fisheries law
Taking a closer look at the way the goals of the WFD are measured, a discrepancy within the own objectives of the WFD can be found. On the one hand, the availability of pikeperch itself, weather 50% of the biomass is above the minimal size of 40 cm, forms one of the criteria to score the water quality and to see the influence of fisheries (Tien et al 2015). On the other hand, the goal to improve the water quality reduces the productivity and increases the transparency of the water, making it less of an attractive habitat for pikeperch, for which turbid and eutrophic water is optimal (Aarts 2007). With the reduced nutrients and increased transparency of the water, a transition in fish stock from pikeperch and bream towards perch and roach can be expected, with a lower production of commercially interesting fish (Leeuw et al. 2006, Aarts 2007, Klein Breteler et al. 2007).
Similarly, as the WFD affects the fish production of the lakes, it also conflicts with current objectives for the fisheries law, to improve the fish populations of bream, roach and potentially eel (Klein Breteler et al. 2007, Tien & Hammen 2015). Where bream, similarly to the pikeperch, is a species that is known to have benefitted from the eutrophic water, because of the reduction in phosphates in the water its populations are negatively affected and decreasing (Emmerink et al., 2008). Within the WFD, too much bream, exceeding 15% of the biomass negatively influences the WFD score and in many waterbodies bream was actively fished away to meet the WFD scores (Molen & Pot 2004). Similarly, to the pikeperch, the fishermen are blamed for overfishing of the bream, while the influence of the water quality is not taken into account.
Discrepancies within the WFD itself and the fisheries lawbetween european eel directive and nature2000
As mentioned above, the WFD has a potential negative effect on the Europoean Eel Directive as it could lower the eel production. Also other potential discrepancies exist amongst the European Eel Directive and the Natura2000 objectives and within the objectives of the European Eel Directive itself. The discrepancies amongst the European Eel directive and nature2000 objectives I argue, results in a decrease in food availability for piscivorous birds, especially for the black tern for which the nature2000 objectives in the current situation will not be met (Noordhuis 2014). Within the European Eel Directive itself, the discrepancy makes the directive inefficient on the long term or even counterproductive. First the relation between the measures for the European Eel Directive and the nature2000 objectives will be examined.
Via the European Eel directive, fishermen are not allowed to fish in the months September, October and November, in order to allow sufficient silver eel to migrate towards the Saragossa Sea to spawn. Besides the increased escapement of silver eel that this eel ban realizes it also prevents the bycatch of young fish as a result of the fyke fisheries. As mentioned above, studies have showed that the bycatch and mortality of fish is significant (Deerenberg 2004, Bult et al,. 2007). Considering the reduced mortality of prey, the Eel directive could be considered to have a positive effect on the food availability of small fish for predator fish and piscivorous birds as this (Mous 2000). However, Bicknell et al., (2013) describes positive discard – bird relations in the North Sea and Blaber & Wassenberg (1989) does this for the Mediterranean Sea and Australia, where different bird species including common terns and black terns were making use of or were depending on fishing discards as an important source of food. For the IJssemeer area this positive discard – bird relation deserved little attention. Even though, Griffioen et al., 2016, mentions that the predation of birds negatively influences the survival of the discards of fyke fisheries, the only mentioning of a bird foraging on discarded fish in the IJsslemeer area is the black headed gull by (Voslamber 1991 in Mous 2000). Other mentioning of this potential positive feedback loop in research, policy documents and the whole discussion surrounding the protection of birds is completely absent similar as in figure 2 from Mous (2000) and figure 3 from Tulp (2004).
Also in food analyses of the common terns in 2011 and 2012 and in the recent extensive food analysis for common terns in 2017, that found smelt, roach, ruffe, perch, pikeperch and the exotic gobi’s in their diet (Winde 2017), the origin of their catch is not elaborated on (Winde et al., 2013, Winde 2017). However, personal observations and (nonscientific) experimentations of several bird species scavenging on discards (1), and mentioning’s of this relation by fishermen (2), confirm that birds in the IJsselmeer area, scavenge on discarded fish. Taking into account that the gobi, ruffe and to a lesser extend young perch and pikeperch are bottom species, as well as the increased transparency of the water in spring due to the WFD and the increased filtering of the Quakka mollusk (Noordhuis 2014), it can be assumed that many if not most of the gobi’s, ruffe and pikeperch in the diets of the common terns originate from the discards.
From this reasoning, it can be assumed that scavenging on discards has provided a source of food for many of the fish-eating birds in the IJsselmeer and Markermeer. A relation, that potentially goes back even before the construction of the Afsluitdijk. First trawling fulfilled this role and after the trawling ban fyke fisheries provided surface-feeding birds with a meal. And, similar to Blaber & Wassenberg (1989) en Bicknell et al., (2013) some of the bird species might actually depend on the fisherman and their fishing techniques for their survival. Eel fisheries with fykes and eel boxes then play a more important role in the socio- ecological system of the IJsselmeer and Markermeer than is represented by research and the policy domain.
With this interaction in mind, how then is the European eel directive influencing food availability for the piscivorous birds? As mentioned above, the eel directive prohibits eel fisheries in the months September, October and November, as these are the months that silver eel migrates to sea to spawn in the Sargasso Sea. In these months eel fishermen since the ban of trawling typically use large fykes to effectively catch these migrating silver eels and to a lesser extend summer fyke nets, hooks and eel boxes. Yellow eel fisheries are focused in the months may, June, July and August using summer fyke nets, hooks, eel boxes as well as large fykes (Kruitwagen 2010). As eel fisheries in September and October is no longer allowed since 2009 and since 2010 in September, October and November, there are also no longer discards available in these months. Augustus and September are important months for the black tern population, as they come to the IJsselmeer area for a pit stop to recover from their journey from Eastern Europe and Westen, to fuel for their further migration to South Africa. During good years at least 45% of the total European population of black terns (ca. 200,000 individuals) had been counted on roosting sites in the IJsselmeer in the 80s and 90’s (Rose & Scott 1994 in Mous 2000), but in recent years, with 20.000 birds their numbers are considerably lower. Within the Natura2000, recovery targets are set for the black tern of 49700 stayovers, which in the current situation, will not be met without further measures (Noordhuis et al., 2014). The eel ban, prevents discards brought to the surface in the months September, October and November. As the black tern can no longer benefit from the discarding in September, it can therefore be argued that the eel ban does not contribute to the nature2000 goals for the black tern.
Previous eel measures and food availability for bitrds
The eel ban is not the first measure limiting fishing pressure of the eel fishermen and other measures to sustainable manage the eel fisheries, like the restriction of the amount of nets (Leeuw et al., 2018). Placing this interaction against historical measures, changes in the fishing communities and practices over time might reveal a potential explanation for the decrease in piscivorous birds. Measures and reductions in fishing gear as well as other incentives, changed the fishing communities and their practices over time. The number of fishing companies reduced from 1354 in 1936 to 913 in 1947, 827 in 1995, 69 in 2007 to around 20-25 active vessels in 2013 (Kruitwagen et al., 2013, Gmelich Meijling-van Hemert & Groen 2008). These reorganizations led to a reduction in fishing companies and presumably also fishing pressure. However, the liberalization of the fishing gear in 1974, enabled fishing companies to invest in fishing gear from other companies and enabled them to grow in size. Many licenses and nets of quitting fishermen were bought by the remaining fishing companies resulting in fewer but larger companies. This was possible as mechanization of the fisheries made hauling more efficient, enabling the fishermen to set and haul more nets in a shorter period of time
One recent measure on the summer fykes is the implementation of the survival bin for the summer fyke nets in 2007. With the emerging focus of the impact of the discards in the summer fyke, a summer fyke ban was proposed and a compensation was offered to the fishermen that wanted to sell their licenses and nets. After some fishermen had “sold” their nets, the invention and implementation of the survival bin, that reducing the mortality of the discards of the summer fykes to 27% – 28%, the summer fyke was allowed again on the condition that the survival bin was used (Aarts et al., 2007). Nevertheless, the fishermen that were bought out, did not get the chance to buy their summer fykes back again, leading to a reduction in “thousands” of summer fykes. This reduction, together with the use of the survival bin, that significantly reduced the mortality of small prey fish, positively influencing the survival of prey fish in the IJsselmeer area, but at the same time reduced the chance for birds to forage on the discarded fish.
Changed the fishing communities and their practices over time also affect this discard – bird relation. In the past, there were thousands to hundreds of fishermen fishing relatively dispersed over the Zuiderzee and later the IJsselmeer and Markermeer. First mainly with trawls, taken over by fykes after the trawl ban. Fyke fishermen would visit their nets a couple of times a week and fishing was not limited to May, June, July and August, with the effect that, with normal weather conditions, birds could find holing fishing vessels to scavenge on the discards all over the lakes more equally dispersed in time.
Reorganizations (fewer, but larger companies), mechanization and lower eel-catches, resulting in longer standing durations up to 12 days (personal observation via monitoring project), the closed fishing season (January-April and September-November), reduced the availability of discards (in numbers, time and special), for the birds considerably. Especially in the breeding season, the availability of food in the close surroundings of the colonies is very important: if the flying distance becomes too large, insufficient food can be brought to the nest as every fish needs to be delivered individually (Hammen et at., 2017).
Eeldirective not efficient or counterproductive
Besides the discrepancies amongst the European Eel Directive and Nature2000 objectives, I also argue that the Dutch implementation of European Eel Directive is not optimal and in the worst case having a negative effect on the eel population and eel fisheries on long run.
In order to meet the European Eel directive objectives, in 2009 eel fishing was banned in the months of September and October and from 2010 onwards for September, October and November (Bierman et al., 2012). The implementation of this directive created much resistance by the commercial fishermen as it resulted in a significant reduction of income for the eel fishermen and especially the large fyke fishermen, fishing for silver eel in these months (Hoefnagel & Dekker 2005, Kruitwagen 2010). Additionally, the research by Hoefnagel & Dekker (2005), fishermen expressed that they are against this measure and expected it to work counterproductive as they foresee that there will be a more intensive fishery for yellow eel (younger eel) earlier in the year. The increase fishing pressure for yellow eel can be expected because of the need for the fishermen to compensate for the loss of income, increasing fishing pressure in the months May, June, July and August. Especially in these months, the percentages of yellow eel in the catches are relatively higher and fishermen target yellow eels with eel boxes, longlines and shooting fykes, and to a lesser extend with large fykes (Kruitwagen 2010). The increase in fishing pressure for yellow eel is reinforced as the fishing capacity reduction on eel via the Regulation IJsselmeer Fishery, 1996 (32% of the large fykes, summer fykes and eel boxes and 10 fishing days for the hook line) was no longer necessary as the ban was assumed to sufficiently limit fishing pressure in the IJsselmeer and Markermeer. It can therefore be assumed that the catches of silver eel do decreases, enabling more silver eel to spawn in the Saragossa Sea, which will have a positive effect on the recruitment of glass eel (Vriese et al., 2007). The question however, is whether there will be sufficient silver eel in the long run, as the yellow eels that are caught more intensively are the ones that need to reach maturity, become silver eel in order to migrate to the Sargasso sea.
The increase in fishing pressure on the yellow eels might also undo the presumed increase in glass eel due to the increased numbers of silver eel escaping to sea and might not lead to increased silver eel escapement in 8-15 years. Herten & Runhaar (2013), also found this critical perspective towards the European Eel Directive by the stakeholder coalition of fishermen and the consultancy agency Witteveen & Bos, who state that:
“a closed fishing season is in the best case ineffective, and in the worst case counterproductive”
Vriese et al., 2007 and Dekker et al, 2008, reports on which the Dutch implementation supposedly is based, clearly states that measures only focused on silver eel will not be sufficient in the long run. Vriese et al., 2007 conclude:
“only limiting Inland fisheries for silver eel offers on the short-term a real and efficient possibility to improve the escapement of silver eel. Because the protection of silver eel alone is not sufficient to restore the eel population, also measures to limit fishing mortality of yellow eel to need to be taken”.
Consequences of the directives for the fishermen
Besides the effect the measures have on the food availability for the birds and the fish, the measures also affect the fishermen. As mentioned in the introduction, the changes in management objectives and the implementation of the directives and accompanying measures directly and indirectly reduced the ecological and social boundaries for the activities of the fishermen (Leeuw et al., 2007). Indirectly, the directives and measures also influenced the socio-economic situation of the fishermen, limited their flexibility and changed their fishing practices going against fishermen logic and market demand influencing fish prices and income.
direct effect of directives and measures for the fishermen
The measures to improve the water quality (Wet Verontreiniging OppervlakteWater, wasmiddelen convenant and Water Frame Directive in 2000), play an important role in this process as it reduced the carrying capacity of the lake by reducing the supply of nutrients, diminishing the productivity and increased the transparency of the water (Kruiswagen et al. 2013, Leeuw et al. 2008, Noordhuis et al., 2014). This has been addressed as one of the cause for the reduction in bird numbers, smelt, pikeperch, perch and bream populations and the associated catches by the fishermen (Noordhuis 1014, Beun 2016). In this way, it can be seen as one of the triggers for several events and the introduction of several measures that negatively influenced the fishermen. In order to meet the fisheries law and the WFD goals for fish, the fishing pressure needed to be reduced to adjust to the lower carrying capacity as well as to improve the length-distribution of pikeperch and bream (Tien et al., 2015). The recent reduction of 85% of the net fisheries in 2015, is one of the examples of that and currently additional 36% reductions is discussed as the bream and roach population is not healthy.
The smelt population suffered from increased water temperatures, the changes in phytoplankton composition, and potentially fisheries. Due to the low numbers in the surveys, fishing was not allowed from 2004 onwards with exception of 2006, 2009 and 2012, as their numbers in the yearly monitoring were under the limit reference point for fishing to take place (Hammen et al., 2017). In 2017, the smelt population exceeded this reference point to allow fishing according to the fisheries law, the stricter enforcement of the nature2000 however, prevented fishing from taking place as it could not be proven that fishing would not significantly reduce food availability for piscivorous birds. The stricter enforcement of the nature2000, also impacted the net fisheries. At first, measures were implemented to reduce their bycatch such as the use of fluorescent strings and restriction of some areas for fishing (300m) (Kruitwagen et al., 2013). In the fishing season of 2018 however, because the fishermen did not manage to prove for the Natura2000 directive that their net fishing activities, despite the measures and the reduction of 85%, did not significantly affect bird populations, their licenses was only granted two weeks after the season had already started.
After many limitations on the eel fisheries, the European Eel Directive, further restricted eel fishermen to fish for eel in September, October and November, especially effecting silver eel fishermen for whom this fishery contributes most to their yearly income (Hoefnagel & Dekker 2005, Kruitwagen 2010). At first large fyke fishermen could obtain a special license to fish for Chinese Mitten Crabs, if they inserted a panel in the fyke with a wide mesh size to allow eel to escape. This became an important substitution for the income of the eel fisheries. Since a few years, however, because of the expected influence on the fisheries law due to the bycatch of scale fish and especially bream in the nets, this is no longer allowed
Flexibility
All together the direct and indirect reduction of the ecological and social boundaries for the activities of the fishermen, influenced the socio-economic situation of the fishermen and resulted in a considerable reduction in income over the year, making it hard for the fishermen to make a proper living (Kruitwagen et al., 2013). Directly, because of the reduction in fishing pressure and indirectly because it affected their flexibility and traditional fishing practices. These traditional fishing practices, its associated targeted fish and optimal fishing periods have developed over time, based on their practical experience and knowledge on the ecology of the lake and the fish species as well as social aspects such as supply and demand. The silver eel fisheries can be seen as one of these traditional practices where adult eel is targeted very efficiently, with relatively little bycatch and the best possible yield from one individual glass eel.
Flexibility is very important for the fishermen to be able to anticipate to fluctuations and changes of the fish populations over time and changes in the (inter) national water-, nature- and fisheries policies. Additionally, flexibility also spreads the fishing pressure on individual fish populations, as fishermen are free to choose the species they like to target (Klein Breteler et al., 2007, Scholten 2015). This also has to do with regional/cultural differences amongst the fishing communities. The fishermen targeting silver eel traditionally centered along locks and the dykes, the Houtribdijk and the Afsluitdijk, using large fykes, from August onwards with peek catches around September and October. Other fishermen, and especially on Urk, specialized on yellow eels with longlines, eel boxes and shooting fykes, in summer and perch and pikeperch with nets from July onwards. Fishermen that have eel licenses as well as net fishing licenses, could start fishing for eel in May and decide to switch back and forth to net fisheries from the 1st of July onwards. Some fishermen might choose to continue fishing for eel until the end of the year or until the lake freezes, while others might already switch to pikeperch and perch. They could do so based on the fish population, their catches and the market demand. This gave them flexibility and at the same time spreads the fishing pressure and market demand for these species. With the eel ban, eel fishing is no longer allowed in September, October and November potentially stimulating all fishermen with licenses for net fisheries to switch to target pikeperch and perch from September onwards. The same happens with limitations on the net fisheries as was the case in 2018, the fishermen that are not allowed to fish for perch and pikeperch from the 1st of July, will most likely continue fishing for eel in July and August.
This further affects the prices the fishermen get for their catches. As fishermen need to compensate for the loss in income and because fishermen are fishermen, the eel market is overflown with eel in the months May, June, July and August, which lowers the price of the eel considerably. While the demand for eel in the months September and October are higher as fun fairs take place in these months where it’s a tradition to consume eels, increasing the prices of the eel (personal notification fishermen). Indirectly, the eel directive can also influence perch and pikeperch prices. In the beginning of the fishing season, prizes are negatively affected by the import of pikeperch from eastern Europe. Later in the season, there is a chance for ice forming in eastern Europe, which stops this supply resulting in a positive effect on the prizes. However, in the previous years, when net fisheries was allowed, because everyone switches to net fisheries in September, a large part of the stock will already be caught in the case that the supply from eastern Europe stops.
Unequal affected by measures
While all fishermen are affected by the directives and the measures, some fishermen are affected harder. As mentioned above, there are some companies, especially towards the Afsluitdijk that are specialized on the silver eel fisheries, this is what they have been doing for generations and their whole business is organized around this. Compared to the companies that target yellow eel in the Markermeer and the IJsselmeer, who are enabled to fish more intensively, these silver eel fishermen are affected harder. In the months that are optimal for them, they are not allowed to fish, while the intensity of the fisheries for yellow eel increases, in the long term, leaving less adult eel for them to catch (Bootsma h). Additionally, with the construction of the fish migration river, their most successful fishing locations are taken away for the construction of the fish migration river. As they are currently not allowed to fish there in September, October and November, their compensation for these locations is very limited compared to the income these locations would provide the fishermen if they would be allowed to fish again as well as compared to the total cost of the fish migration river. Also for the realization of Trintelzand, a nature restoration project on the Markermeer side of the Houtribdijk, large fyke fishermen will lose some of their fishing locations (MER trintelzand) .
Simmilarly, with the restrictions on net fisheries the fishermen are unequally affected, fishermen who did not invest in net fishing licenses are left with only 8 nets of 100m. Many fishermen argue that that does not allow them to catch enough to pay for the costs of a fishing trip. On the other hand, fishing companies that invested in net fishing licenses are affected as they need to be able to catch enough fish in order to earn back their investments.
While fishermen are generally affected negatively, it can be argued that other stakeholders, such as researchers, water managers, policymakers and nature conservationists are benefiting from the current situation. These stakeholders manage to apply for funding and subsidies for research, stakeholder participation projects and nature restoration projects. For example, the construction of the fish migration river is estimated to cost approximately 80 million euro and first four islands of the Markerwadden 75 million euro. Additionally, as part of the “Verkenning Grote Wateren” (Exploration Large Waters) and the “Gebiedsagenda 2050” a plan exists to implement measures worth 860 million and yearly costs for maintenance and management of 7 million euro to tackle the current bottle necks. These bottlenecks are the lack of essential habitats of sufficient quality and size and the lack of sufficient connections amongst these habitats. With these measures, the goal is to make the water system robust and resilient enough, to be able to overcome the consequences of climate change, sustainable use and new developments in usage (RWS 2017).
political dynamics in resource management of the IJsselmeer and Markermeer
Resource management is not neutral and should be seen as a ‘politicized environment’ and in order to understand a socio-ecological system or environmental problems, one needs to take the political and economic context into account in which the problems are created (Rist, 2002, Robbins, 2011).
Biopower and political ecology
From a biopower perspective as well as from a political ecology approach, the way the IJsselmeer area is managed, definitions on what nature entails, how many birds and fish species should be maintained, how problems and solutions are defined and what activities are allowed is largely set by policymakers, supported by scientific data, models and expert judgment as well as influences by other stakeholders. The creation of the IJsselmeer can therefore be seen as a result of biopower, as the construction of the Afsluitdijk had the objective to maintain and sustain live by protecting the Dutch from the sea and to increase food production. Similarly, the implementation of the fisheries law had the aim to increase economical revenues for the fishermen and indirectly to sustain sufficient catches of fish for consumption. The changes in governance objectives from economic to social and ecological sustainability, shows a change in biopower from solely humans (optimizing fisheries revenues) towards the inclusion of nature and its biodiversity. This needed additional research, monitoring, modeling and goal setting and an important role for science in this process. Based on models, reference points and statistics they advise the Dutch National government, which has the objective to use a scientific approach to the management for the commercial fish species (Tien et al., 2013). Resulting in the current directives and measures to protect and manage the biodiversity (Leeuw et al. 2008, Talma 2014)
the scientific approach to resource management
The analysis of the directives shows that the socio-ecological relations amongst fish, birds and net fisheries are in fact much more complex than the way they are represented in the directives. This shows one limiting aspect of the scientific approach to resource management, the fact that directives and measures with their reference points, models, statistics and underlying data are always based on a reductionist approach and come with estimations. This effects resource management in the IJsselmeer, as some feedback loops are not taken into account. Individual goals within the directives therefore negatively affect the conditions under which goals of other directives can be met. In turn, efforts to improve the situation to meet these goals, also fail to address the complexity and its interactions, affecting other species, creating an ongoing chain of measures to meet the goals.
Also the way international and national directives are translated and applied to the local situation and what reference periods, situation and indicators are chosen also play an important role. Where the goals for the WFD and Natura 2000 and the Fisheries law, are based on different reference points in time. The WFD goals aim to reach a water quality similar as before the increase in nutrients and eutrophication in the 1950’s, where the goals for the Natura 2000 refer to the 1980’s, a situation where bird and fish populations were much larger as there was much more food available because of a higher productivity (Noordhuis et al. 2014). The current concentration of P in the Rhine comes close to the situation of the 1950’s and the current organic load is even lower than in the 1950’s (Beun 2017). For the Natura2000 goals, this has the effect that the current conservation targets for the greater scaup, tufted duck, little gull, black tern and the common tern cannot be reached without measures. The reduction in productivity and the increase in transparency via the WFD is seen to be the main cause for this (Noordhuis et al. 2014). However, because the reduction in productivity is the result of several decades of measures to tackle eutrophication, embedded in European directives, it is argued that this cannot be reversed with measures (Noordhuis et al. 2014). Similarly, the reference point in the past, affects the fisheries law as the assessment of the fisheries law is based on a time series where the current fish stock is compared to that of the previous years. With an estimated fish production in 2010 that is already 70% lower than in the 1980’s (Beun 2017), this way of assessing will result in a negative trend until the moment that the production of the lake has completely stabilized and is stable for a couple of years. The effect of the WFD on the eel is currently not taken into account in goal setting for the Eel directive, while it influences the production of the lakes and possibly also the biomass of the eel population (Graaf et al. 2013).
Besides that, in all of the scientific assessments and recommendations there is a degree of uncertainty involved that possibly affects the effectiveness of resource management. Imares expresses’ uncertainties in their fish stock assessments for (glass) eel, smelt, bream and roach, resulting in larger precautionary measures in their recommendations (Wolfshaar et al., 2015, Tien et al 2018). Also changes in monitoring methods and changes in the ecosystem, affected the parameters and catch ability of the fish that could both result in changes and insecurities in the data (Leeuw et al., 2007, Tien et al 2018). At last, much of the ecological interactions and effects of measures are still unknown, for example the effect of the exotic gobi’s on other fish species, the effect of the construction of the Marker Wadden and how large the actual escapement of silver eel is.
A struggle fot influence
The different actors involved try to influence the public opinion and the policy process, in accordance to their interests. Unequal power relations amongst the stakeholders can influence the outcomes as actors that manage or are empowered to define problems can influence the solutions that are considered and ultimately adopted within the policy process (Ebbin 2011).
Despite these studies, the dominant narratives surrounding the management of the IJsselmeer still focuses on the reduction of the fishing pressure. Policies, measures, websites and magazines of stakeholders show that there’s a common held belief that fisheries is a major cause in the decline of the fish population and are a threat for the bird numbers in the IJsselmeer area (Vogelbescherming 2017, Witteveen & Bos 2017, SportvisserijNederland 2017. These stakeholders actively communicate this to their members and try to influence policymaking via lobbying. Sportvisserij Nederland send a statement of objection on the license for net fisheries to the province of Friesland in 2011. In their letter they argued that the argument that the high fishing pressure could be beneficial for the nature2000 goals on birds should not be a reason to allow overfishing to take place. In 2012, Sportvisserij Nederland together with the bird protection agency successfully went to court to demand the revocation of the smelt fishing license issued by the province of Friesland, due to conflict with the NB-legislation. This legal battle acted as an incentive for the provinces of Friesland, Flevoland, and Noord-Holland to enforce the NB-legislation as well as to create the Transition IJsselmeer Fisheries (Transitie IJsselmeer VIsserij). In 2015, the bird protection agency, together with Coalition Het Blauwe Hart, asked the parliament, to completely ban net fisheries (Bongers, 2015; Vogelbescherming). A coalition of stakeholders also managed to get the Marker Wadden and the Fishmigration river on the agenda and found sufficient funding for the realization of it. Also in the stakeholder processes like the common reality and the Gebiedsagenda2050 they are well represented.
Fisherman on the other hand are in continuous contestation of the way that realities are framed by stakeholders, the dominant knowledge system, the narratives or stories that underlie the policy domain and feel excluded from the decision-making processes and (Kruitwagen et al., 2013, Herten & Runhaar 2016). The fishermen criticize many implemented directives, measures, proposed solutions and question their sole responsibility on the bird and fish decline.
In the research report from the ecological consultancy Witteveen & Bos for the Transition Fisheries IJsselmeer, Kruitwagen (2013) interviews of a workshop with fishermen is transcribed. In which the fishermen address feeling left behind and not taken serious by politicians, feeling judged by society as environmental criminals, the strong lobby of the recreational angler’s organization, and that their knowledge is not acknowledged and not used. Furthermore, this report shows a lot of distrust towards research institutes regarding the monitoring of the fish stock. In the report, it is shown that the fishermen see the fish stock decreasing and fear for further reductions (Kruitwagen et al., 2013). The fishermen argue that the WFD is the main cause for the undesirable changes, saying that it resulted in a decrease in nutrients and an increase on water transparency, reducing the fish population and making the fish unavailable for the common tern (Herten & Runhaar 2016, Kruitwagen, 2013; Landschap, 2017). One fishermen highlighted the conflict between directives in the magazine “Landschap” (2017) and argues that the WFD and the Natura 2000 directive are working contradictory, saying: “What do they find more important, the Water Frame Directive or the Bird and Habitat Directive?… We can only comply with one of those”. Herten & Runhaar (2016) in a discourse analysis on eel management shows that the fishermen together with a coalition of ecological consultancy Witteveen & Bos opposes that the eel ban as the most effective solution and argue it could even work counter–effective. Huitema (2012) in the EUWARENESS research project on European Water Regimes and the Notion of a Sustainable Status, describes many struggles between the fishermen and the government and other actors starting from the very first moment the plans were constructed to close off the Zuiderzee. Resulting in court cases, the failure of the ban on trawling to improve the eel population and writes of non-compliance of measures and about competition amongst fishermen groups.
Even though the fishermen seem to be taken into account in research projects (Hoefnagel & Dekker 2005, Kruitwagen, 2013, Herten & Runhaar, 2016), in stakeholder processes, such as the common reality (Beun 2017) and the Gebiedsagenda 2050 and manage to reach out to the media. Much of their knowledge and perspectives, does not make it into policies or not even into the end reports. In the report of the Gebiedsagenda2050, fisheries are depicted as opposing the objections on nature conservation. In the report of the common reality, where the fishermen were closely involved, any mentioning of the positive feedback loops of fisheries towards the birds was lacking (Beun 2017). This while during interviews that I conducted with fishermen, some mentioned that they finally felt listened to.
Discussion
In this essay, I tend to be more critical towards policies, measures, policymakers, researchers and nature organizations then towards the fishermen. This however, does not mean that I think that the fishermen are “innocent”, as they too can make changes towards more sustainable fisheries. Many fishermen for example explore the boundaries of what is considered legal and crossing the line somehow seems to be inherent to the fishermen’s life and mentality. This of course does not contribute to the sustainable management of the IJsselmeer area and seriously affects their name and positions. However, considering their situation and position in resource management, I somehow understand what drives them and it can be considered as a form of resistance (Muth and Bowe 2008). Bell et al 2007, concludes that “poaching cannot be understood only as an individual action, but as one where collective and personal identities are defended in the face of seemingly irrevocable economic and social decline”. Regardless weather this is the reason, the fishermen’s ecological and social boundaries have been declining in recent years because of the changes in governance towards the inclusion of nature and its biodiversity (Leeuw et al., 2008).
With the political ecology and biopower approaches, this essay is in line with the EUWARENESS research report by Huitema (2002), arguing that “What the (IJsselmeer and Markermeer) basin looks like, is a human choice and each option has positive and negative sides”, relating to the different interests and values on appropriate uses of the IJsselmeer. This however, assumes that the socio-ecological relations on which the directives and measures are based are correct and that nature responds in a linear way. With the political ecology and biopower approach and focus on the governance and interactions of the Fisheries law, the Natura 2000 directive, the WFD and the Europoean Eel directive, this essay has showed that resource management in the IJsselmeer area is not efficient or even counterproductive. Similar to Fairhead & Leach, (1995) and what forsyth (2003) describe, governance of the IJsselmeer area with its directives and measures is based on simplistic and incorrect representations of the socio-ecological system resulting in conflicting policies, ineffective measures and unequal distribution of the costs as a result. The conflict in policies shows in the directives to manage the IJsselmeer area in a sustainable way, the Fisheries law, WFD, Nature 2000 and European Eel directive, which goals conflict on different levels (Noordhuis et al., 2014, Broekmeyer et al., 2017). Despite recommendations to fine-tune these directives in 2007 by Klein Breteler et al. (2007) the conflicts still exist (Broekmeyer et al. 2017). Especially the WFD has a large effect on the ecology of the IJsselmeer and negatively affect the conditions under which the goals for the Nature 2000 directive and the Fisheries law can be met (Noordhuis et al., 2014).
In turn, efforts to improve the situation to meet the goals for the Natura 2000 directive and Fisheries law, fail to address the complexity of the socio-ecological system, affecting other species and fishermen’s practices, creating an ongoing chain of measures to meet the goals. The directives also affect the fishermen’s traditional socio-economic and cultural practices that developed over time, working against the fishermen’s logic and Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), negatively affects the sustainability of the fisheries, reinforces the tragedy of the commons and reduces the value of their catch. Hardin’s concept of the tragedy of the commons does apply to the IJsslemeer area, but I argue that it is actually reinforced by the directives and measures, as it limits the possible spread amongst the fishing gear that is allowed throughout the year, stimulating competition for the same fish (Hardin 1968). The effects of the directives and measures therefore has similarities to what Smith (2011) argues, “the idea of an ongoing ecological crisis, is used to legitimate yet further technocratic interventions, to further extend the state and corporate management of biological live …”. In this way, the “paradigmatic biopolitical approach to conservation” as described by Fletcher 2010, and the associated important role for scientists in resource management with their data, models, statistics and reference points have failed to address the complexity of the socio-ecological system and contributed to inefficient resource management.
In line with political ecology, which is concerned with inequality and how this relates to material struggles over access to and control over natural resources and socio-ecological environments. There are fishermen that are more affected by the measures then others, some fishermen only have one net fishing license, with the 85% reduction they went from 50 nets of 100 meter to only 8 which some argue is not enough to pay the expenses to the fishing trip. Other fishermen largely invested in net fishing licenses and therefore have more fishing capacity, they however highly depend on this fisheries to take place. Eel fishermen fishing with large fykes for silver eel are most affected as this fisheries takes place in Augustus, September, October and November of which the most important months, September, October and November are the most important once. Fishermen that have traditionally focused their fisheries in May, June, July and August with hookline, eelboxes and summer fykes benefit as they are allowed to fish with 32% more equipment as before the implementation of the Eel Directive. This is also the reason that I argue that this measure is not effective in the long term as the fishing intensity for young eel is increased. On the other hand it could be argued that the current crisis of fish and bird species in the IJsselmeer area is positive for the researchers and nature organizations. There are loads of questions to be answered resulting in many research and stakeholder participation projects and additionally, the assumptions that natural shores, the Marker Wadden and the Fish migration river are going to help the current situations creates a lot of work for researchers and construction workers.
Additionally, with the dominant focus on science, the fishermen struggle to be heard and feel excluded from decision making. Despite multiple attempts to include fishermen’s knowledge in research and stakeholder processes, the current approaches do not seem to be effective. This while Bixler (2013) highlights the importance of engaging local people and their knowledge in resource governance as he writes, “any intervention that is inattentive to historical and geographical specificities, local conditions, and local knowledge will likely fail”. Fishermen, including IJsselmeer fishermen have showed a rich understanding of the socio-ecological interactions (Neis 2000, Kruitwagen et al., 2013, Hind, 2014) and many of the perspectives I described in this essay are inspired on dialogues and interviews, I conducted with fishermen. Fishermen’s knowledge, when acknowledged and used, could therefore contribute to better management and could have prevented the discrepancies amongst the directives and many of the measures in the current situation.
One aspect that particularly interests me is the relation between fish, birds and fishermen and how this is represented in governance. As mentioned earlier, the over-exploitation of the predatory perch and pikeperch stocks by commercial fisheries most likely has a positive effect on food availability for pisciforous birds (Eerden et al., 1993, Leeuw & Tulp 2004). While implementing measures on the net fisheries, however, this relation is not taken into account. The lack of an ecosystem approach is certainly contributing to this. But it can also be attributed to a particular western worldview in which nature is separated from culture a nature-culture divide or the nature-culture dichotomy (Latour 2004, Inglis & Bone 2006). For the governance of the IJsselmeer area this means that the lakes and its biodiversity are approached as nature that is negatively affected by human activities and fisheries in particular and therefore need protection. However, similar to most of the biodiversity rich landscapes in the Netherlands, I argue the Ijsselmeer should be seen as a socio-ecological system where humans and the natural world interact or as a cultural landscape as defined by Farina (2000):
“Geographic areas in which the relationships between human activity and the environment have created ecological, socioeconomic, and cultural patterns and feedback mechanisms that govern the presence, distribution, and abundance of species assemblages”
If the IJsselmeer area would be approached as a cultural landscape and fishermen with their traditional practices would be seen as an essential part of the socio-ecological system and if they would (again) be appreciated for their role in food provisioning. This might also change the way the fishermen are portrayed and the way they are involved in the policy process. Because the moment their practices are valued for what they are, their knowledge might as well.
I do have some hope that the governance of the IJsselmeer area will change in the near future. The minister of LNV recently proposed a further reduction of 36% of the net fishing capacity as bream and roach are not doing well. Where Imares explains their approach to this on their website: Currently, Wageningen Marine Research and Wageningen Economic Research are working on recommendations of how to come up with a number of conceivable measures to reduce the catches of bream and roach without any undesirable side effects on perch and pike fishery. This advice will take along the potential indirect implication of the measures for the fish stocks and the ecology of the IJsselmeer region, the economic consequences for the fishing sector and how the enforceability of the measures. We therefore look for measures that are sustainable from a broad perspective.
Additionally the minister has expressed that she will explore the possibilities to better adjust the Fishery law, the Nature 2000 and the WFD, with the aim to prevent involved governing bodies to make contradicting decisions.
Conclusions
In this essay the effectiveness of resource management in the IJsselmeer area, with its dominant role for science in the implementation of directives, objectives and measures has been assessed using a critical political ecology approach and the concept of biopower. Focusing on the governance of the Fisheries law, the Natura 2000 directive the WFD, this essay shows that resource management in the IJsselmeer area can be considered as inefficient or even counterproductive. The dominant natural science approach failed to address the complexity of the socio-ecological relations. Together with unequal power-relations amongst the stakeholders this lead to simplistic and incorrect representations of the socio-ecological system resulting in conflicting policies, ineffective measures and unequal distribution of the costs as a result.
As Song et al (2013) argued: natural resources, including fisheries, are among the most challenging systems to govern. The case of the IJsselmeer area with its complexity in socio-ecological interactions, with its multiple functions and associated stakeholders, directives and measures that are subjected to change re-affirm this. There is a growing awareness that for effective management and to understand the underlying human and ecological systems, its complexity, interdependence, dynamics, multi-scaled interactions and feedback loops, including governance, politics and power relations need to be taken into account (Ommer et al., 2012, Song et al., 2013, Ingalls & Steadman 2016). Obviously this understanding needs to be taken into practice, but recent developments make me hopeful as there is renewed understanding by Imares that an ecosystem approach is needed and their statement on their website is promising “This advice will take along the potential indirect implication of the measures for the fish stocks and the ecology of the IJsselmeer region”. Also the ministers promise to “explore the possibilities to better adjust the Fishery law, the Nature 2000 and the WFD…” does give me some hope.
appendix 1
references
Adams, William M., et al. “Managing tragedies: understanding conflict over common pool resources.” Science 302.5652 (2003): 1915-1916.
Bell, Sandra, Kate Hampshire, and Stella Topalidou. “The political culture of poaching: a case study from northern Greece.” Biodiversity and conservation 16.2 (2007): 399-418.
Berkes, Fikret, et al. “Globalization, roving bandits, and marine resources.” Science 311.5767 (2006): 1557-1558.
Bixler, R. Patrick. “The political ecology of local environmental narratives: Power, knowledge, and mountain caribou conservation.” Journal of Political Ecology 20 (2013): 273-285.
Bommarco, Riccardo, David Kleijn, and Simon G. Potts. “Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security.” Trends in ecology & evolution 28.4 (2013): 230-238.
Bongers, Joop. “Aanpak Niet Effectief Genoeg Voor Herstel.” Letter to Ministerie Van Economische Zaken. 7 May 2015. MS. N.p.
Broekmeyer, M. E. A., et al. Kansen en knelpunten bij de uitvoering van de Europese Vogelrichtlijn en Habitatrichtlijn. No. 2705. Alterra Wageningen UR, 2016.
Bryant, Raymond L. “Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review.” Progress in physical geography 22.1 (1998): 79-94.
Budds, Jessica. “Contested H 2 O: science, policy and politics in water resources management in Chile.” Geoforum 40.3 (2009): 418-430.
Deerenberg, C. M., et al. Wetenschappelijk advies kennis voor herijking en harmonisatie spieringprotocol. No. C177/13. IMARES, 2013.
Ebbin, Syma Alexi. “The problem with problem definition: mapping the discursive terrain of conservation in two Pacific salmon management regimes.” Society and natural resources 24.2 (2011): 148-164.
Eerden, Mennobart R., Theunis Piersma, and Rob Lindeboom. “Competitive food exploitation of smelt Osmerus eperlanus by great crested grebes Podiceps cristatus and perch Perca fluviatilis at Lake IJsselmeer, The Netherlands.” Oecologia 93.4 (1993): 463-474.
Escobar, Arturo. “Construction nature: Elements for a post-structuralist political ecology.” Futures 28.4 (1996): 325-343.
Escobar, Arturo. “After nature: steps to an antiessentialist political ecology 1.” Current anthropology 40.1 (1999): 1-30.
Farina, Almo. “The cultural landscape as a model for the integration of ecology and economics.” BioScience 50.4 (2000): 313-320.
Fabinyi, Michael, Louisa Evans, and Simon J. Foale. “Social-ecological systems, social diversity, and power: insights from anthropology and political ecology.” (2014).
Fairhead, James, and Melissa Leach. “False forest history, complicit social analysis: rethinking some West African environmental narratives.” World development 23.6 (1995): 1023-1035.
Fletcher, Robert. “Neoliberal environmentality: towards a poststructuralist political ecology of the conservation debate.” Conservation and society 8.3 (2010): 171-181.
Forsyth, Timothy. Critical political ecology: The politics of environmental science. Routledge, 2013.
Gmelich Meijling-van Hemert, G. R., and M. Groen. Vissen op een zoete zee: het verhaal van de IJsselmeervissers. 2008.
de Graaf, M., van der Sluis, M. T., & de Waal, A. (2013). Quick Scan Streefbeeld Aal (No. C144/13). IMARES.
Godfray, H. Charles J., et al. “Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people.” science 327.5967 (2010): 812-818.
Hardin G: The tragedy of the commons. Science 1968, 162:1243-1248
Het Blauwe Hart. “Over Ons” http://www.hetblauwehart.org/over-ons/. Accessed 17 April 2017.
van Herten, Marlous L., and Hens AC Runhaar. “Dialogues of the deaf in Dutch eel management policy. Explaining controversy and deadlock with argumentative discourse analysis.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56.7 (2013): 1002-1020.
Herpen et al., 2015).
Hilborn, Ray. “Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives.” Marine Policy 31.2 (2007): 153-158.
Hind, Edward J. “A review of the past, the present, and the future of fishers’ knowledge research: a challenge to established fisheries science.” ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil (2014): fsu169.
Huitema, Dave. “Case Study 1: IJsselmeer Basin.” (2002).
Ingalls, Micah, and Richard Stedman. “The power problematic: exploring the uncertain terrains of political ecology and the resilience framework.” Ecology and Society 21.1 (2016).
Inglis, David, and John Bone. “Boundary maintenance, border crossing and the nature/culture divide.” European Journal of Social Theory 9.2 (2006): 272-287.
Klein Breteler, J. G. P., J. J. de Leeuw, and O. A. van Keeken. “De Kaderrichtlijn Water en Visserij op de binnenwateren.” (2007).
Kruitwagen, G., and M. Klinge. “Transitie visserij Ijsselmeer, Markermeer en IJmeer” (2013).
Landschap. “Op pad met… Patrick Schilder op het Markermeer” www.landschap.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014-1_024-029.pdf Accessed 16 April 2017.
Latour, B. Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. (2004). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
De Leeuw, de J. J., et al. “Veranderingen in de visstand van het IJsselmeer en Markermeer: trends en oorzaken.” (2006).
De Leeuw, J. J., W. Dekker, and A. D. Buijse. “Aiming at a moving target, a slow hand fails! 75 years of fisheries management in Lake Ijsselmeer (the Netherlands).” Journal of Sea Research 60.1 (2008): 21-31.
Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (2012) Brondocument waterlichaam Markermeer. Rijkswaterstaat, Lelystad
Mous, P. J. Interactions between fisheries and birds in IJsselmeer, The Netherlands. sn], 2000.
Mous, P. J., et al. “Interactions in the utilisation of small fish by piscivorous fish and birds, and the fishery in IJsselmeer.” Interactions Between Fish and Birds: Implications for Management (2003): 84-118.
Muth, Robertm. ; Bowe, Johnf. Illegal harvest of renewable natural resources in North America: Toward a typology of the motivations for poaching Society & Natural Resources, (1998), Vol.11(1), p.9-24 [Peer Reviewed Journal]
Neis, Barbara, and Lawrence Felt. “Finding our sea legs.” Linking Fishery People and Their (2000).
Noordhuis, Ruurd, et al. “Wetenschappelijk eindadvies ANT-IJsselmeergebied-Vijf jaar studie naar kansen voor het ecosysteem van het IJsselmeer, Markermeer en IJmeer met het oog op de Natura-2000 doelen. 2014.” Deltares: Delft (2014): 82.
Ommer, Rosemary E., et al. “Social–ecological dynamism, knowledge, and sustainable coastal marine fisheries.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4.3 (2012): 316-322.
Peterson, Garry. “Political ecology and ecological resilience: An integration of human and ecological dynamics.” Ecological economics 35.3 (2000): 323-336.
PO IJsselmeer en Sportvisserij Nederland, 2011. Visplan IJsselmeer en Markermeer 2010-2011. PO IJsselmeer en Sportvisserij Nederland, uitgave VBC IJsselmeer en Markermeer p/a Bilthoven.
Redeke, H. C. “The effect of the closure of the Zuiderzee on fish and fisheries.” Journal du Conseil 14.3 (1939): 337-346.
Robbins, Paul. Political ecology: A critical introduction. Vol. 16. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
SportvisserijNederland. “Jaarverslag Bilthoven 2015” http://www.sportvisserijnederland.nl/files/ja arrekening-2015-sportvisserij-nederland_10963.pdf Accessed 17 April 2017.
SportvisserijNederland “Nieuws” http://www.sportvisserijnederland.nl/actueel/nieuws/12539/stop-overbevissing-ijsselmeer-en-markermeer.html. 03-02-2011, Accessed 18 Juni 2017
Talma, K. G. “Masterplan Toekomst IJsselmeervisserij: visstand, visserij en natuur in balans toon extra info. projectbegeleiding en redactie van Klaas G. Talma. (2014)”
Tien, N.S.H., Miller, D.C.M. en Griffioen, B. (2013) Inspannings- en monitoringsadviezen voor snoekbaars, baars, blankvoorn en brasem in het IJsselmeer en Markermeer: IMARES rapport C202/13.
Tien, Nicola Stella Henriette, T. van der Hammen, and R. van Hal. Vangstadviezen voor snoekbaars, baars, blankvoorn en brasem in het IJsselmeer en Markermeer. No. C045/15. IMARES, 2015.
Tien, N., van der Hammen, T., & Steenbergen, J. (2018). Bestandsoverzicht van snoekbaars, baars, blankvoorn en brasem in het IJssel-/Markermeer (No. C018/18). Wageningen Marine Research.
Tscharntke, Teja, et al. “Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification.” Biological conservation 151.1 (2012): 53-59.
Veraart, J. A., et al. “Ecologische kantelpunten in de Nederlandse grote wateren: Discussie memo over recente inzichten, voorbeelden en onderzoeksvragen.” (2016).
Vogelbescherming. “Vogels, Van wie is het Ijsselmeer: van vissers of vogels?” http://www.blauwehart.com/ dodo/images/Nieuws/Vogels_p22-24_IJsselmeer.pdf Accessed 20 April 2017.
Vogelbescherming. “Wat Wij Doen” https://www.vogelbescherming.nl/bescherming/wat-wij-doen/in-vogelvlucht. Accessed 17 April 2017.
van der Winden, Jan & Dirksen, Sjoerd & Gyimesi, Abel & Poot, Martin. (2013). Broedsucces en voedsel van visdieven op de Kreupel 2011-2012 – Voortgangsrapport met overzicht van 2009-2012. 10.13140/RG.2.1.3206.4246.