103
6 Food Security in the Context of Fisheries and Aquaculture…
moderate, (M) or high (H). For the fi rst method (I), a rapid, empirical and intuitive
quick guess was made, without reference to any of the detailed parameters and relationships used in the interactive governance approach, of the likelihood of success
(L, M, or H) of attempts to improve each link through better governance. With that
approach, governability was taken as that score for amenability to better governance
in general. With the second method (II), a systematic, though still entirely subjectively scored application of the interactive governance approach was attempted, to
score governability (L, M, or H). Following Chuenpagdee et al. ( 2008 ) , two of the
main descriptors and criteria speci fi ed in the interactive governance approach were
considered, i.e., prevalence of system properties and presence/absence of governing
interactions (see Table 6.1 ).
The two methods used for estimating governability showed similar results. The
types of links (rows) where there seemed to be scope for exploring improvement of
governability (from L-, or M-) were the same for the two methods in many cases.
The numbers of cells indicating scope for improvement of governability were also
broadly similar for the three fi sh chains. Although no fi rm conclusions can be drawn
from these governability assessments, there are indications that governability assessment can indicate weak links in the chains and potential scope for improvement. It
also seems possible that a simple approach can be as good a method for this highly
subjective, qualitative exercise, as can use of the full gamut of interactive governance descriptors and criteria.
General Discussion
Fish chains start with ecosystems and end with consumers. Fish as food come, directly
or indirectly, from open water ecosystems that are exploited by capture fi sheries and
agro-ecosystems that host aquaculture. The health of those ecosystems is the non-negotiable bottom-line for optimizing and sustaining contributions of fi sh to food security.
Some of the world’s historical fi sh chains no longer exist because of ecosystem change
or collapse. Folke et al. took the view that “a resilient social-ecological system may
make use of a crisis to transform into a more desired state” ( 2005 , 441). Fish chains
have plenty of ongoing crises, and food security is more than just a desired state, it is
an essential need. But it is usually speci fi c links in fi sh chains that are seen as the systems-to-be-governed, not the whole chain and not whole social-ecological systems,
resilient or not. Chain-long policies and their effective implementation, through chainlong governance are still rare. Any chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
At the institutional level, the most important entry points along a fi sh chain are
those where institutional visions, roles and responsibilities can be broadened to recognize and to respond to the needs of the rest of the chain and of other interdependent sectors. Changes in human behaviour, as well as new and reformed institutions,
are sorely needed, at international, national and local levels, to learn and to tell the
truth about what is possible and sustainable in terms of the contributions of wild
caught and farmed fi sh to food security, and then to act accordingly. Such
6 Food Security in the Context of Fisheries and Aquaculture…
moderate, (M) or high (H). For the fi rst method (I), a rapid, empirical and intuitive
quick guess was made, without reference to any of the detailed parameters and relationships used in the interactive governance approach, of the likelihood of success
(L, M, or H) of attempts to improve each link through better governance. With that
approach, governability was taken as that score for amenability to better governance
in general. With the second method (II), a systematic, though still entirely subjectively scored application of the interactive governance approach was attempted, to
score governability (L, M, or H). Following Chuenpagdee et al. ( 2008 ) , two of the
main descriptors and criteria speci fi ed in the interactive governance approach were
considered, i.e., prevalence of system properties and presence/absence of governing
interactions (see Table 6.1 ).
The two methods used for estimating governability showed similar results. The
types of links (rows) where there seemed to be scope for exploring improvement of
governability (from L-, or M-) were the same for the two methods in many cases.
The numbers of cells indicating scope for improvement of governability were also
broadly similar for the three fi sh chains. Although no fi rm conclusions can be drawn
from these governability assessments, there are indications that governability assessment can indicate weak links in the chains and potential scope for improvement. It
also seems possible that a simple approach can be as good a method for this highly
subjective, qualitative exercise, as can use of the full gamut of interactive governance descriptors and criteria.
General Discussion
Fish chains start with ecosystems and end with consumers. Fish as food come, directly
or indirectly, from open water ecosystems that are exploited by capture fi sheries and
agro-ecosystems that host aquaculture. The health of those ecosystems is the non-negotiable bottom-line for optimizing and sustaining contributions of fi sh to food security.
Some of the world’s historical fi sh chains no longer exist because of ecosystem change
or collapse. Folke et al. took the view that “a resilient social-ecological system may
make use of a crisis to transform into a more desired state” ( 2005 , 441). Fish chains
have plenty of ongoing crises, and food security is more than just a desired state, it is
an essential need. But it is usually speci fi c links in fi sh chains that are seen as the systems-to-be-governed, not the whole chain and not whole social-ecological systems,
resilient or not. Chain-long policies and their effective implementation, through chainlong governance are still rare. Any chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
At the institutional level, the most important entry points along a fi sh chain are
those where institutional visions, roles and responsibilities can be broadened to recognize and to respond to the needs of the rest of the chain and of other interdependent sectors. Changes in human behaviour, as well as new and reformed institutions,
are sorely needed, at international, national and local levels, to learn and to tell the
truth about what is possible and sustainable in terms of the contributions of wild
caught and farmed fi sh to food security, and then to act accordingly. Such