281
15 The Damage Schedule Approach
even in the face of imminent inconveniences or opportunities to seek easy rewards.
In addition, certain images held by people may direct their action in a manner that
others with different ‘ways of seeing the world’ may not easily comprehend. Hence,
broadly speaking, values, images and principles form an intricate part of this socalled normative perspective. The arising consensus in the fi sheries circle, as well
as elsewhere, is that the normative perspective plays a crucial role in in fl uencing
compliance behavior among fi shers, and therefore theoretical elaboration, as
well as policy intervention, should be shifted towards paying greater attention to
this aspect.
Diversity in Values, Images and Principles
Despite much deliberation on the topic of illegal fi shing and compliance and on
ways to improve the situation, its widespread nature is an ever-persistent threat
(e.g. FAO 2001 ; Flewwelling et al. 2002 ; Crawford et al. 2004 ; Hauck and Kroese
2006 ; Sumaila et al. 2006 ; Agnew et al. 2009 ) . Why is illegal fi shing so dif fi cult to
eradicate or at least manage at a level that is not detrimental to ecological integrity
and social functioning? It becomes an especially acute conundrum if violating
fi shers are typically shown to understand the rationale (and good intentions) of
the restrictive fi sheries regulations, and are generally aware of its long-term
consequences.
We submit that the issue of illegal fi shing can exemplify the component of diversity
inherent in fi sheries governance as argued by, and emphasized in, interactive governance (Kooiman et al. 2005 ) . More speci fi cally, a socio-economic sub-system represented by various individuals and groups involved in a particular fi shery setting
can be characterized as having a diverse set of interests and ways of doing things
that may complicate the issue of illegal fi shing by putting people in a number of
unique circumstances. On a deeper level, this implies that people’s underlying normative and cognitive concepts, such as values, images and principles, are at the root
of the diversity that makes compliance a thorny undertaking. Values tend to be
incommensurable, implying the impossibility of comparison (Kooiman and Jentoft
2005 ) . ‘Hard choices’ in fi sheries arise from this value-ridden characteristic forcing
any decisions to be painful and controversial. In this regard, Kooiman and Jentoft
( 2009 ) argue for the importance of making governance values as coherent and
explicit as possible for the betterment of governability. Images and principles also
frequently compete and contrast with each other, creating an antagonistic reality.
Hence, as values, images and principles guide, shape and inspire people’s decisions
and actions, including fi shing practice and strategy, illegal fi shing may be imbued
with different connotations, meanings and rationales among the various stakeholder
groups. A pertinent example of this is when a person values both ecosystem conservation and secure livelihoods. These two particular values are certainly not mutually
exclusive and can be promoted in accordance with one another. A value con fl ict
could arise, however, when in pursuit of securing livelihoods, a fi sher forgoes
15 The Damage Schedule Approach
even in the face of imminent inconveniences or opportunities to seek easy rewards.
In addition, certain images held by people may direct their action in a manner that
others with different ‘ways of seeing the world’ may not easily comprehend. Hence,
broadly speaking, values, images and principles form an intricate part of this socalled normative perspective. The arising consensus in the fi sheries circle, as well
as elsewhere, is that the normative perspective plays a crucial role in in fl uencing
compliance behavior among fi shers, and therefore theoretical elaboration, as
well as policy intervention, should be shifted towards paying greater attention to
this aspect.
Diversity in Values, Images and Principles
Despite much deliberation on the topic of illegal fi shing and compliance and on
ways to improve the situation, its widespread nature is an ever-persistent threat
(e.g. FAO 2001 ; Flewwelling et al. 2002 ; Crawford et al. 2004 ; Hauck and Kroese
2006 ; Sumaila et al. 2006 ; Agnew et al. 2009 ) . Why is illegal fi shing so dif fi cult to
eradicate or at least manage at a level that is not detrimental to ecological integrity
and social functioning? It becomes an especially acute conundrum if violating
fi shers are typically shown to understand the rationale (and good intentions) of
the restrictive fi sheries regulations, and are generally aware of its long-term
consequences.
We submit that the issue of illegal fi shing can exemplify the component of diversity
inherent in fi sheries governance as argued by, and emphasized in, interactive governance (Kooiman et al. 2005 ) . More speci fi cally, a socio-economic sub-system represented by various individuals and groups involved in a particular fi shery setting
can be characterized as having a diverse set of interests and ways of doing things
that may complicate the issue of illegal fi shing by putting people in a number of
unique circumstances. On a deeper level, this implies that people’s underlying normative and cognitive concepts, such as values, images and principles, are at the root
of the diversity that makes compliance a thorny undertaking. Values tend to be
incommensurable, implying the impossibility of comparison (Kooiman and Jentoft
2005 ) . ‘Hard choices’ in fi sheries arise from this value-ridden characteristic forcing
any decisions to be painful and controversial. In this regard, Kooiman and Jentoft
( 2009 ) argue for the importance of making governance values as coherent and
explicit as possible for the betterment of governability. Images and principles also
frequently compete and contrast with each other, creating an antagonistic reality.
Hence, as values, images and principles guide, shape and inspire people’s decisions
and actions, including fi shing practice and strategy, illegal fi shing may be imbued
with different connotations, meanings and rationales among the various stakeholder
groups. A pertinent example of this is when a person values both ecosystem conservation and secure livelihoods. These two particular values are certainly not mutually
exclusive and can be promoted in accordance with one another. A value con fl ict
could arise, however, when in pursuit of securing livelihoods, a fi sher forgoes