124
J.J. Pascual-Fernández and R. Chuenpagdee
is under stress, and that governability of such systems is truly a wicked problem. Using
the framework suggested by Jentoft and Chuenpagdee ( 2009 ) , we begin by looking at
the natural ecosystem under stress for ways to improve its governability. It has, however, been recognized that improving ecosystem health requires long-term planning
and the commitment of human and fi nancial resources. The examination of what can
be done at the social system-to-be-governed is therefore critical. As has previously
been mentioned, social, cultural and economic diversity is great among people whose
livelihoods depend on healthy fi sheries and coastal ecosystems (Pascual Fernández
1991 ; Pascual-Fernández et al. 2005 ) . The level of complexity and dynamism in these
social systems constitute both challenges and opportunities for governance.
Communities that have strong social capital and a traditional network of support tend
to cope well in stressful situations and would therefore likely be able to fi nd adaptive
mechanisms to deal with challenges. Communities with complex and multiple livelihood strategies that draw from a wide range of resources can rotate to using other
resources or can acquire food and income by other means while waiting for resource
recovery. The role of government agencies is then to develop policies that encourage
livelihood diversi fi cation. These could include appropriate incentive schemes and
capacity building and training programs. However, such policy developments have to
be based on a thorough understanding of the dynamics of the social systems and the
intra- and inter-sectoral relationships. The latter is particularly important as the tendency for con fl icts among numerous fi sheries and coastal stakeholders is high. The
governing system needs to become familiar with the analysis of stakeholders, in terms
of their resource dependency and power relationships, to devise suitable interventions.
The increased diversity in the coastal zone begs for a greater level of interaction between
stakeholders and governing institutions, as well as a variation in types of interactions
between government agencies and fi sheries-coastal actors.
Alternative livelihoods for small-scale fi shing communities are among the most
popular interventions, but are dif fi cult to accomplish without an understanding of
the diversity and complexity of fi shers’ socio-economic conditions and the cultural
and traditional importance of fi shing activities to their way of life. As many fi shers
would profess, fi shing is not just a livelihood but a preferred lifestyle (Onyango
2011 ) . Fishers have their reasons to be reluctant about leaving the fi shing occupation or to contemplate doing other things when fi shing is not pro fi table. Some argue,
for example, that fi shing is the family tradition, while others may prefer it for the
freedom it offers. In these instances, non- fi shing activities outside the fi shing season
or during area or seasonal closures should be promoted to enable food and income
supplement. Those owning lands are likely to already be doing this by engaging in,
for example, vegetable growing or small-scale animal farming. Some support should
then be given to help these fi shers maintain their ability to derive income and food
sources from non- fi shing activities. Examples of these efforts are securing market
access or controlling prices for the sale of their crops, offering training in the making of value-added fi sheries and non- fi sheries products, and providing low interest
loans to help them start small businesses.
Demands for the governing system to cope with the diversity, complexity,
dynamics and scale issues affecting ecosystem health are high. For instance,
J.J. Pascual-Fernández and R. Chuenpagdee
is under stress, and that governability of such systems is truly a wicked problem. Using
the framework suggested by Jentoft and Chuenpagdee ( 2009 ) , we begin by looking at
the natural ecosystem under stress for ways to improve its governability. It has, however, been recognized that improving ecosystem health requires long-term planning
and the commitment of human and fi nancial resources. The examination of what can
be done at the social system-to-be-governed is therefore critical. As has previously
been mentioned, social, cultural and economic diversity is great among people whose
livelihoods depend on healthy fi sheries and coastal ecosystems (Pascual Fernández
1991 ; Pascual-Fernández et al. 2005 ) . The level of complexity and dynamism in these
social systems constitute both challenges and opportunities for governance.
Communities that have strong social capital and a traditional network of support tend
to cope well in stressful situations and would therefore likely be able to fi nd adaptive
mechanisms to deal with challenges. Communities with complex and multiple livelihood strategies that draw from a wide range of resources can rotate to using other
resources or can acquire food and income by other means while waiting for resource
recovery. The role of government agencies is then to develop policies that encourage
livelihood diversi fi cation. These could include appropriate incentive schemes and
capacity building and training programs. However, such policy developments have to
be based on a thorough understanding of the dynamics of the social systems and the
intra- and inter-sectoral relationships. The latter is particularly important as the tendency for con fl icts among numerous fi sheries and coastal stakeholders is high. The
governing system needs to become familiar with the analysis of stakeholders, in terms
of their resource dependency and power relationships, to devise suitable interventions.
The increased diversity in the coastal zone begs for a greater level of interaction between
stakeholders and governing institutions, as well as a variation in types of interactions
between government agencies and fi sheries-coastal actors.
Alternative livelihoods for small-scale fi shing communities are among the most
popular interventions, but are dif fi cult to accomplish without an understanding of
the diversity and complexity of fi shers’ socio-economic conditions and the cultural
and traditional importance of fi shing activities to their way of life. As many fi shers
would profess, fi shing is not just a livelihood but a preferred lifestyle (Onyango
2011 ) . Fishers have their reasons to be reluctant about leaving the fi shing occupation or to contemplate doing other things when fi shing is not pro fi table. Some argue,
for example, that fi shing is the family tradition, while others may prefer it for the
freedom it offers. In these instances, non- fi shing activities outside the fi shing season
or during area or seasonal closures should be promoted to enable food and income
supplement. Those owning lands are likely to already be doing this by engaging in,
for example, vegetable growing or small-scale animal farming. Some support should
then be given to help these fi shers maintain their ability to derive income and food
sources from non- fi shing activities. Examples of these efforts are securing market
access or controlling prices for the sale of their crops, offering training in the making of value-added fi sheries and non- fi sheries products, and providing low interest
loans to help them start small businesses.
Demands for the governing system to cope with the diversity, complexity,
dynamics and scale issues affecting ecosystem health are high. For instance,