149
8 Applying the Governability Concept in Fisheries…
fi shers were enthused by the sudden increase of high-value shrimp catches, while
others, like 35 year old Siva who, looking back on the arrival of the trammel net
in his village, expressed worry about the long-term consequences: Would some
fi shers, who procured the net fi rst, bene fi t at the expense of others? And if trammel net fi shing became popular, might fi sh fl ee from inshore areas? What would
then happen to older members of the community, who no longer had the capacity
to undertake long fi shing voyages? As a result of such anxieties, many village
councils gathered and passed rules structuring the introduction of the trammel net
(for example, setting a date before which no one was allowed to use the gear) as
well as its use .
This case is centered at the local level. Such governing efforts, which are initiated in response to events deemed to negatively affect fi shing practices (Bavinck
and Karunaharan 2006 ) , presume a high density of diverse interactions between village fi shers, as well as between fi shers and the marine ecology. Interactions of this
kind commence with the sharing of observations from fi shing practice, and the
recounting of stories about experiences elsewhere. They then move on to the more
formal dealings of the village councils. Enforcement, which is carried out by the
body of village fi shers, brings about its own body of interaction – sometimes verbal
and other times involving physical force.
Implications for Governability
The interactive governance perspective assumes that no style of interaction and
no governing mode is a priori preferable to another. Instead, various governability
situations are said to call for different modes of governing. Hierarchical governance may thus be appropriate in some situations, while other situations call for
self- or co-governance. The opposite condition also holds true: a particular mode
of governing may be quite inappropriate for the situation at hand. For example,
in Case 13, which discusses the implementation of the CITES list, the hierarchical governance mode used is in some ways counterproductive, because it provoked hostility among actors in the system-to-be-governed. Self-governing
modes of interaction like the one presented in Case 15, on the other hand, possess
great capacity for generating legitimacy. Their participants, however, may lack a
broad view and the decisiveness to deal suf fi ciently with the governance issues
that arise.
In practice, we rarely encounter the three governing modes in pure form. Instead,
societal systems display a large variety of ‘mixes’, or hybrid varieties, of governing
interaction (von Benda-Beckmann et al. 2009 , 9–11). These modes are only malleable to an extent. While governing actors can deliberately change some aspects
of their interactions with others, they also have to make use of, and adjust to, the
patterns that have developed in every societal system over time.
8 Applying the Governability Concept in Fisheries…
fi shers were enthused by the sudden increase of high-value shrimp catches, while
others, like 35 year old Siva who, looking back on the arrival of the trammel net
in his village, expressed worry about the long-term consequences: Would some
fi shers, who procured the net fi rst, bene fi t at the expense of others? And if trammel net fi shing became popular, might fi sh fl ee from inshore areas? What would
then happen to older members of the community, who no longer had the capacity
to undertake long fi shing voyages? As a result of such anxieties, many village
councils gathered and passed rules structuring the introduction of the trammel net
(for example, setting a date before which no one was allowed to use the gear) as
well as its use .
This case is centered at the local level. Such governing efforts, which are initiated in response to events deemed to negatively affect fi shing practices (Bavinck
and Karunaharan 2006 ) , presume a high density of diverse interactions between village fi shers, as well as between fi shers and the marine ecology. Interactions of this
kind commence with the sharing of observations from fi shing practice, and the
recounting of stories about experiences elsewhere. They then move on to the more
formal dealings of the village councils. Enforcement, which is carried out by the
body of village fi shers, brings about its own body of interaction – sometimes verbal
and other times involving physical force.
Implications for Governability
The interactive governance perspective assumes that no style of interaction and
no governing mode is a priori preferable to another. Instead, various governability
situations are said to call for different modes of governing. Hierarchical governance may thus be appropriate in some situations, while other situations call for
self- or co-governance. The opposite condition also holds true: a particular mode
of governing may be quite inappropriate for the situation at hand. For example,
in Case 13, which discusses the implementation of the CITES list, the hierarchical governance mode used is in some ways counterproductive, because it provoked hostility among actors in the system-to-be-governed. Self-governing
modes of interaction like the one presented in Case 15, on the other hand, possess
great capacity for generating legitimacy. Their participants, however, may lack a
broad view and the decisiveness to deal suf fi ciently with the governance issues
that arise.
In practice, we rarely encounter the three governing modes in pure form. Instead,
societal systems display a large variety of ‘mixes’, or hybrid varieties, of governing
interaction (von Benda-Beckmann et al. 2009 , 9–11). These modes are only malleable to an extent. While governing actors can deliberately change some aspects
of their interactions with others, they also have to make use of, and adjust to, the
patterns that have developed in every societal system over time.