Competing voices: Indigenous rights in the shadow of conventional fisheries management in the tropical rock lobster fishery in Torres Strait, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Much progress has been made in recent decades in achieving high-level recognition of indigenous fishing rights. Despite these advances, actualization of indigenous rights to own and control marine resources has proven challenging. Insufficient attention to the centrality of power and its workings in fisheries are often the subject of critiques and of calls for more empirical research. This paper draws on interviews, participant observation, cognitive mapping, scenario workshops, and policy document review to examine power configurations and dynamics in the tropical rock lobster (TRL) fishery in Torres Strait (TS), Australia. Despite recognition of indigenous commercial fishing rights by the High Court in 2013, there have been only limited changes in how fisheries governance operates in the region. The current TRL management plan also risks entrenching non-indigenous interests in the fishery, thereby preventing Islanders from achieving their aspiration to fully own and control TS fisheries. Through an analysis drawing from Foucault’s theory of governmentality and Blaser’s political ontology framework, we show (1) how current fisheries management structures, processes and discourses are at odds with Islanders’ conceptions of the fisheries; and (2) how the existing regime excludes and renders silent Islander priorities. Our findings extend to indigenous-state relations in other state-managed fisheries. We believe our proposed conceptual framework can be useful in unveiling power relations that constrain indigenous rights and in identifying transformation options. We conclude that a sea change in conventional fisheries governance arrangements is needed to respond to new imperatives and expectations around indigenous fishing rights and interests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".