Search

The sustainable management of common pool resources, like fisheries, relies heavily on trust and reciprocity between managers and stakeholders (fishers). The UK Fisheries Act of 2020 and the Joint Fisheries Statement of 2022 seek to reinvent post-Brexit fisheries governance and the economic and environmental sustainability of the sector. Management of the fisheries sector through Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) is still under development but changes in governance arrangements are likely to significantly impact fishers' livelihoods. This highlights a need for improved collaboration between fishers and the governing institutions. Using a novel survey design, representatives of the English fisheries sector were surveyed to capture their level of different forms of trust (rational, affinitive, system-based) towards national and regional governing institutions. Overall, low levels of trust were found, although regional institutions (i.e., Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities) were more trusted than national institutions (i.e., Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and Marine Management Organisation). Exploring different forms of trust revealed nuance between the institutions and distinctive regional differences. To build on this, interviews were conducted revealing feelings of apathy and conflict towards the governing institutions rather than inclination towards collaborating. Trust has a role in fostering more resilient fisheries management and fishers discussed the need for sustained institutional efforts to rebuild trust post-Brexit through greater transparency, face-to-face interaction, and meaningful consultation. Our research also reveals that FMPs will need to factor in geographical differences and that current institutions will need to work more collaboratively in order to foster local adaptive management. • Trust between managers and fishers is crucial for the governance of sustainable fisheries. • Our novel approach combined different aspects of trust for quantitative analysis. • Across many fisheries there was evidence of low levels of trust in institutions. • Extenuating local circumstances and issues drive low levels of trust. • Rebuilding diverse forms of trust would enhance future fisheries management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To investigate the impact of litigation on consultants and senior registrars and to establish their views on methods of reducing adverse events and litigation., Design: Postal survey., Setting: Acute hospitals in the North Thames (West) Regional Health Authority., Subjects: 1011 consultants and senior registrars in acute hospitals., Main Measures: Perceived causes and effects of adverse events; views on methods of reducing litigation and adverse events., Results: 769 (76%) doctors responded. 288 (37%) had been involved in litigation at some point during their career; 213 surgeons (49%) and 75 (23%) doctors in the medical specialties. Anger, distress, and feeling personally attacked were common responses to litigation. Clinicians' views on reducing litigation emphasised the need for change at the clinical level. Supervision of junior staff, workload, and training in communication skills were to the fore., Conclusions: The high frequency of doctors who have experienced litigation and the emotional responses described indicate that clinicians require support at several levels. At a personal level, support can be offered to clinicians going through the litigation process or after an adverse event. Also, managerial support is needed by offering financial and practical help in correcting the factors that have been consistently identified as producing high risk situations to minimise the possibility of a reoccurrence. Accidents in medicine are, by their very nature, costly in human and financial terms and the root causes must be tackled. Recommendations are made for clinicians and risk management teams.