35
3 Concerns and Problems in Fisheries and Aquaculture – Exploring Governability
others. This is why fi sheries and aquaculture governance must transcend academic
disciplines and discourse, which tend to emphasize a particular concern while ignoring others. For instance, conservation biology may be more interested in the health
of the marine ecosystem, but not of the people depending on it for their livelihoods.
The latter belongs to social science discourse. Consequently, marine protected areas
are promoted primarily by biologists as an ecosystem conservation tool, while their
social impacts are often ignored (Christie et al. 2003 ) .
Addressing these multifaceted concerns in fi sheries and aquaculture is a major
challenge and creates problems for governance. These problems are partly related
to how they are de fi ned and what solutions are possible. The conceptualization of
these problems is socially constructed, meaning that social processes that “set” a
problem must come before it can be solved (Schön 1983 ) . Fisheries stakeholders are
numerous and they have competing and, more often than not, con fl icting interests,
values and worldviews. Thus, in practice it is close to impossible to achieve full
consensus about what the problems are and where the solutions lie. Even when they
share similar interests, different stakeholders tend to frame the problem differently.
Moreover, scientists’ perspectives of the ‘ fi sherman’s problem’ (McEvoy 1990 ) and
what it takes to solve it varies among disciplines. So too, the solutions they prescribe may be different (Brady and Waldo 2009 ) . Where fi sheries biologists see fi sh,
social scientists see people. Where governments see sectors, economists see markets, and sociologists see communities and social groups. This is also re fl ected in
the concerns that each group would consider most important, thus differentiating
what they want the governing system to concentrate on.
Many of the problems in fi sheries and aquaculture tend to reappear and are not
solved once and for all ( Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ) . Instead, they need to be
attended to on a continuous basis. For example, protecting ecosystem health, sustaining adequate resource availability, and securing food and livelihood activities
for communities and consumers require long and committed governance efforts (see
Chap. 7 by Pascual-Fernandez and Chuenpagdee, Chap. 5 by Johnson, and Chap. 6
by Pullin, this volume). This implies that the governing system must perform its
tasks and evaluate the outcomes on a regular basis. The dif fi culty observed worldwide with the implementation of fi sheries and aquaculture regulations suggests
that effective governance is an on-going struggle that requires adaptation and
innovation. In particular, it calls for creative interactions along the lines suggested
by the interactive governance perspective.
Yet, interactive governance is no panacea. It does not guarantee success. Rather, it
requires rigorous assessment of what makes a system more or less governable in order
to help improve governance in certain contexts and to provide general insights and
lessons that may be broadly applicable. Since fi sheries and aquaculture governance is
largely about hard choices (Kooiman et al. 2005 ), one challenge and concern may be
addressed in ways that may help or hinder the resolution of other problems. For
instance, as governors deal with resource conservation issues, they may complicate
another problem, like that of alleviating poverty (Chap. 9 by Onyango and Jentoft,
this volume). As shown around the world, it is dif fi cult to both conserve and utilize
resources at the same time and in a socially just manner (see Chap. 4 by Jentoft, this
3 Concerns and Problems in Fisheries and Aquaculture – Exploring Governability
others. This is why fi sheries and aquaculture governance must transcend academic
disciplines and discourse, which tend to emphasize a particular concern while ignoring others. For instance, conservation biology may be more interested in the health
of the marine ecosystem, but not of the people depending on it for their livelihoods.
The latter belongs to social science discourse. Consequently, marine protected areas
are promoted primarily by biologists as an ecosystem conservation tool, while their
social impacts are often ignored (Christie et al. 2003 ) .
Addressing these multifaceted concerns in fi sheries and aquaculture is a major
challenge and creates problems for governance. These problems are partly related
to how they are de fi ned and what solutions are possible. The conceptualization of
these problems is socially constructed, meaning that social processes that “set” a
problem must come before it can be solved (Schön 1983 ) . Fisheries stakeholders are
numerous and they have competing and, more often than not, con fl icting interests,
values and worldviews. Thus, in practice it is close to impossible to achieve full
consensus about what the problems are and where the solutions lie. Even when they
share similar interests, different stakeholders tend to frame the problem differently.
Moreover, scientists’ perspectives of the ‘ fi sherman’s problem’ (McEvoy 1990 ) and
what it takes to solve it varies among disciplines. So too, the solutions they prescribe may be different (Brady and Waldo 2009 ) . Where fi sheries biologists see fi sh,
social scientists see people. Where governments see sectors, economists see markets, and sociologists see communities and social groups. This is also re fl ected in
the concerns that each group would consider most important, thus differentiating
what they want the governing system to concentrate on.
Many of the problems in fi sheries and aquaculture tend to reappear and are not
solved once and for all ( Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ) . Instead, they need to be
attended to on a continuous basis. For example, protecting ecosystem health, sustaining adequate resource availability, and securing food and livelihood activities
for communities and consumers require long and committed governance efforts (see
Chap. 7 by Pascual-Fernandez and Chuenpagdee, Chap. 5 by Johnson, and Chap. 6
by Pullin, this volume). This implies that the governing system must perform its
tasks and evaluate the outcomes on a regular basis. The dif fi culty observed worldwide with the implementation of fi sheries and aquaculture regulations suggests
that effective governance is an on-going struggle that requires adaptation and
innovation. In particular, it calls for creative interactions along the lines suggested
by the interactive governance perspective.
Yet, interactive governance is no panacea. It does not guarantee success. Rather, it
requires rigorous assessment of what makes a system more or less governable in order
to help improve governance in certain contexts and to provide general insights and
lessons that may be broadly applicable. Since fi sheries and aquaculture governance is
largely about hard choices (Kooiman et al. 2005 ), one challenge and concern may be
addressed in ways that may help or hinder the resolution of other problems. For
instance, as governors deal with resource conservation issues, they may complicate
another problem, like that of alleviating poverty (Chap. 9 by Onyango and Jentoft,
this volume). As shown around the world, it is dif fi cult to both conserve and utilize
resources at the same time and in a socially just manner (see Chap. 4 by Jentoft, this