What are the most effective stakeholder dialogue methods for the fishing industry?

2 How to design dialogue

To design effective stakeholder dialogue, the fishing industry needs to consider several factors, such as the purpose, scope, participants, format, and facilitation of the dialogue. The purpose defines the objectives and outcomes of the dialogue, such as information sharing, consultation, collaboration, or decision making. The scope determines the topics, issues, and boundaries of the dialogue, as well as the time frame and frequency. The participants are the stakeholders who are invited or involved in the dialogue, based on their relevance, influence, diversity, and representation. The format is the way the dialogue is structured and organized, such as workshops, roundtables, surveys, or online platforms. The facilitation is the process of guiding and managing the dialogue, such as setting the agenda, rules, roles, and expectations, as well as ensuring participation, respect, and feedback.

3 What to avoid in dialogue

Stakeholder dialogue can also face some challenges and pitfalls that can undermine its effectiveness and credibility. Some of the common mistakes to avoid in stakeholder dialogue are: lack of clarity, transparency, and alignment on the purpose and scope of the dialogue; exclusion or domination of certain stakeholders or perspectives; poor or biased communication and information sharing; lack of trust, respect, and empathy among stakeholders; insufficient or inappropriate resources and support for the dialogue; lack of follow-up, monitoring, and evaluation of the dialogue outcomes and impacts.

4 What are some examples of dialogue

There are many examples of stakeholder dialogue in the fishing industry, both at the global and local levels. Some of the global initiatives are: the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which is a certification and labeling scheme for sustainable seafood that involves stakeholders from the fishing, retail, NGO, and consumer sectors; the Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability (GDST), which is a platform for developing and implementing standards and tools for seafood traceability that involves stakeholders from the seafood industry, technology providers, governments, and civil society; and the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI), which is a partnership for benchmarking and harmonizing seafood certification schemes that involves stakeholders from the seafood industry, NGOs, governments, and international organizations.

Some of the local initiatives are: the Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs), which are collaborative efforts to improve the environmental and social performance of specific fisheries that involve stakeholders from the fishing, processing, retail, NGO, and government sectors; the Community Supported Fisheries (CSFs), which are direct marketing and distribution models that connect local fishermen with consumers and communities that support sustainable fishing practices and livelihoods; and the Fishery Co-management (FCM), which are shared governance arrangements that involve fishermen, local communities, NGOs, and governments in the management of fisheries resources and policies.

5 How to measure dialogue

To measure the effectiveness and impact of stakeholder dialogue, the fishing industry needs to establish and use indicators and metrics that can capture the inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the dialogue. Inputs are the resources and efforts that are invested in the dialogue, such as time, money, staff, and materials. Outputs are the immediate results and products of the dialogue, such as reports, agreements, recommendations, or actions. Outcomes are the intermediate changes and effects of the dialogue, such as awareness, knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, or relationships. Impacts are the long-term and broader changes and benefits of the dialogue, such as environmental, social, economic, or institutional.

Some of the indicators and metrics that can be used to measure stakeholder dialogue are: the number and diversity of stakeholders involved; the quality and quantity of information and feedback exchanged; the level and quality of participation and engagement; the degree and nature of consensus and disagreement; the satisfaction and trust of stakeholders; the implementation and compliance of dialogue outputs; the improvement and performance of dialogue outcomes; and the contribution and attribution of dialogue impacts.