345
18 Assessing Governability – What’s Next
management communication takes many forms, from written memos, oral exchange,
public hearings and newspaper announcements to participatory committees, radio,
TV and Internet. Given the diversity of involved stakeholders, each with variable
resources and opportunities for gaining access to information, we expect that the
greater the diversity of interactions, the lesser the governability problem (see Bavinck
and Kooiman, Chap. 8 , this volume). This will only be the case, however, if the messages convey similar information in a clear and understandable language and form.
At the center of these interactions is the issue of power and power relationships.
It is essential to be aware of both the enabling and restricting roles that power plays
(Jentoft 2007 ) . Too much or too little power vested in certain stakeholder groups
may present a governability challenge. A primary research concern is related to the
extent and conditions under which a more balanced distribution of power will facilitate governance processes and lead to more desirable outcomes. One should be open
to the possibility that symmetrical power relations may, in some instances, obstruct
effectiveness of governance, bringing the entire governing process to a halt.
It must be noted that power is an attribute of all three systems. It is therefore of
particular importance that it is examined in the context of governability. Starting
from the system-to-be-governed, the assessment of complexity and diversity, in particular, focuses on the existing power relations among stakeholders and examines
how some are able to make the system-to-be-governed work to their bene fi ts. Some
stakeholders are also capable of in fl uencing the governing system, serving their own
interests, and consequently lessening the overall capacity of the governing system
to address the basic governance concerns in the fi shery. In such a situation, the governability problem becomes entrenched. For instance, in many parts of the world,
addressing environmental issues is hampered by a governing system that has been
captured by interest groups that oppose such action, leading to governance failure.
Discussion and Conclusion
Applying the governability concept to fi sheries and aquaculture problems means
acknowledging that these problems share many of the characteristics of those
described as wicked by Rittel and Webber ( 1973 ) . It recognizes that there may be limits
to how systematic, effective, rational and socially just a governing system can be in
addressing the fundamental concerns of fi sheries and aquaculture governance and the
wicked problems that are associated with them (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ).
Pullin (Chap. 6 , this volume) mentions three essentially non-negotiable limitations to governability: (a) all food is produced in natural or arti fi cial ecosystems;
(b) most of these ecosystems are not entirely under human control; and (c) food
production is always accompanied with a level of risk, such as natural hazards.
In view of these limitations to governability, one must assume that governance outcomes are not always as planned, and that governors are often in situations where
they have to accept solutions that are less than ideal. Kooiman et al. ( 2005 ) therefore
stress that governance involves hard choices. It also means that the governability
18 Assessing Governability – What’s Next
management communication takes many forms, from written memos, oral exchange,
public hearings and newspaper announcements to participatory committees, radio,
TV and Internet. Given the diversity of involved stakeholders, each with variable
resources and opportunities for gaining access to information, we expect that the
greater the diversity of interactions, the lesser the governability problem (see Bavinck
and Kooiman, Chap. 8 , this volume). This will only be the case, however, if the messages convey similar information in a clear and understandable language and form.
At the center of these interactions is the issue of power and power relationships.
It is essential to be aware of both the enabling and restricting roles that power plays
(Jentoft 2007 ) . Too much or too little power vested in certain stakeholder groups
may present a governability challenge. A primary research concern is related to the
extent and conditions under which a more balanced distribution of power will facilitate governance processes and lead to more desirable outcomes. One should be open
to the possibility that symmetrical power relations may, in some instances, obstruct
effectiveness of governance, bringing the entire governing process to a halt.
It must be noted that power is an attribute of all three systems. It is therefore of
particular importance that it is examined in the context of governability. Starting
from the system-to-be-governed, the assessment of complexity and diversity, in particular, focuses on the existing power relations among stakeholders and examines
how some are able to make the system-to-be-governed work to their bene fi ts. Some
stakeholders are also capable of in fl uencing the governing system, serving their own
interests, and consequently lessening the overall capacity of the governing system
to address the basic governance concerns in the fi shery. In such a situation, the governability problem becomes entrenched. For instance, in many parts of the world,
addressing environmental issues is hampered by a governing system that has been
captured by interest groups that oppose such action, leading to governance failure.
Discussion and Conclusion
Applying the governability concept to fi sheries and aquaculture problems means
acknowledging that these problems share many of the characteristics of those
described as wicked by Rittel and Webber ( 1973 ) . It recognizes that there may be limits
to how systematic, effective, rational and socially just a governing system can be in
addressing the fundamental concerns of fi sheries and aquaculture governance and the
wicked problems that are associated with them (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ).
Pullin (Chap. 6 , this volume) mentions three essentially non-negotiable limitations to governability: (a) all food is produced in natural or arti fi cial ecosystems;
(b) most of these ecosystems are not entirely under human control; and (c) food
production is always accompanied with a level of risk, such as natural hazards.
In view of these limitations to governability, one must assume that governance outcomes are not always as planned, and that governors are often in situations where
they have to accept solutions that are less than ideal. Kooiman et al. ( 2005 ) therefore
stress that governance involves hard choices. It also means that the governability