344
R. Chuenpagdee and S. Jentoft
stakeholders from which it draws, and the interactivity of collective learning.
Co-governance, however, comes with its own challenges. Such is the case when
con fl icts among stakeholders and power asymmetry in their relations dominate
the decision-making agenda. With regards to the governing system, Siry ( 2006 )
concludes that the greater the diversity, the greater the need for a decentralized
governance mode in order to perceive and deal with details and subtleties. He argues
that the huge range of biodiversity, the variation in coastal zones, human populations
and regional economies are the main reasons why coastal zone management needs
to be decentralized and community-based. Decentralization and self-governance
however, entails its own governability problems. These pertain in particular to
administrative order and ef fi ciency, rights, equality, and how to deal with mobile
users who belong to several systems-to-be-governed.
The last aspect in this step of the assessment is about governing orders and their
performance. Interactive governance theory differentiates between three orders of
governing activities. The fi rst order pertains to routine decision-making to address
problems, as well as to the creation of opportunities for better solutions. The second
order is about the design of institutions that frame and facilitate actions at the fi rst
order is about. The third order is referred to as the meta-order, and is related to the
overall values, norms, and principles that guide institutions and actions. The hypothesis
is that the better they perform, relative to each other, the higher the governability.
For instance, the principle of justice deliberated among stakeholders must be translated into institutions and the way they operate. If not, the resulting inconsistency
and ineffectiveness will likely lead to the abandonment of the governing system.
The precautionary principle is also appropriate given the irreversibility and costliness
of governance failure.
Step 4: Governing Interactions Analysis
The fourth and fi nal step of governability assessment concerns governing interactions; the institutions and processes through which the system-to-be-governed
and the governing system relate to one another (Table 18.1 ). Several factors concerning interactions have impacts on the governability of the fi sheries and aquaculture
systems. It is not only the types of interactions or their presence or absence that matter, but also the quality of these interactions and the institutional conditions framing
them. Interactive and consultative processes such as those described by Almerigi
et al. (Chap. 17 , this volume) are therefore useful to facilitate positive governance
outcomes.
Governing interactions are about the interconnectedness between the system-tobe-governed and the governing system, and the ways in which these systems reach out
to each other. Here we examine both the structure and processes of interactions. The
analysis begins with the identi fi cation of different types of interactions and the various
media through which the system-to-be-governed and the governing system communicate with each other. For instance, Buanes et al. ( 2005 ) show that in coastal zone
R. Chuenpagdee and S. Jentoft
stakeholders from which it draws, and the interactivity of collective learning.
Co-governance, however, comes with its own challenges. Such is the case when
con fl icts among stakeholders and power asymmetry in their relations dominate
the decision-making agenda. With regards to the governing system, Siry ( 2006 )
concludes that the greater the diversity, the greater the need for a decentralized
governance mode in order to perceive and deal with details and subtleties. He argues
that the huge range of biodiversity, the variation in coastal zones, human populations
and regional economies are the main reasons why coastal zone management needs
to be decentralized and community-based. Decentralization and self-governance
however, entails its own governability problems. These pertain in particular to
administrative order and ef fi ciency, rights, equality, and how to deal with mobile
users who belong to several systems-to-be-governed.
The last aspect in this step of the assessment is about governing orders and their
performance. Interactive governance theory differentiates between three orders of
governing activities. The fi rst order pertains to routine decision-making to address
problems, as well as to the creation of opportunities for better solutions. The second
order is about the design of institutions that frame and facilitate actions at the fi rst
order is about. The third order is referred to as the meta-order, and is related to the
overall values, norms, and principles that guide institutions and actions. The hypothesis
is that the better they perform, relative to each other, the higher the governability.
For instance, the principle of justice deliberated among stakeholders must be translated into institutions and the way they operate. If not, the resulting inconsistency
and ineffectiveness will likely lead to the abandonment of the governing system.
The precautionary principle is also appropriate given the irreversibility and costliness
of governance failure.
Step 4: Governing Interactions Analysis
The fourth and fi nal step of governability assessment concerns governing interactions; the institutions and processes through which the system-to-be-governed
and the governing system relate to one another (Table 18.1 ). Several factors concerning interactions have impacts on the governability of the fi sheries and aquaculture
systems. It is not only the types of interactions or their presence or absence that matter, but also the quality of these interactions and the institutional conditions framing
them. Interactive and consultative processes such as those described by Almerigi
et al. (Chap. 17 , this volume) are therefore useful to facilitate positive governance
outcomes.
Governing interactions are about the interconnectedness between the system-tobe-governed and the governing system, and the ways in which these systems reach out
to each other. Here we examine both the structure and processes of interactions. The
analysis begins with the identi fi cation of different types of interactions and the various
media through which the system-to-be-governed and the governing system communicate with each other. For instance, Buanes et al. ( 2005 ) show that in coastal zone