36
S. Jentoft and R. Chuenpagdee
volume). Even when a decision could be made either to conserve or to utilize, the
question of who bene fi ts and who loses from such decision remains. It goes without saying that winners and losers would tend to frame the problem differently and
have very different ideas of whether the problem is actually solved. Thus, equity
and justice, as far as bene fi t and burden sharing is concerned, are among the criteria
on which to make judgements with regard to determining whether a problem has been
addressed. However, what constitutes equity and justice is equally dif fi cult to determine and agree on. The sharing of burdens and bene fi ts in ways that stakeholders
would accept as fair and just is not only an ethical and moral issue, it also has practical
implications. This is largely because it will determine what stakeholders are willing
to abide by and accept. At the end of the day, they determine the degree to which a
governance system will work or not (Jentoft and McCay 1995 ) .
One of the main features of fi sheries and aquaculture is embeddedness (Hanna
and Jentoft 1996 ) . Their problems are situated in particular ecological, social and
political contexts and are often symptoms of larger issues or problems within other
problems. In other words, they may operate at various scales. Thus the level at
which the problem should be addressed or dealt with fi rst – at the producing or
receiving end – is a key question. For example, from the ecosystem perspective, the
‘ fi shing down the food web’ phenomenon (Pauly et al. 1998 ) indicates the accumulating effects of continued fi shing pressure and the shift of target species from large
pelagic fi sh on top of the food chain to invertebrates. Rebuilding fi sheries would
require measures that not only address problems at the lower food chain, but also at
the top. However, fi shing also links to the alteration of natural ecosystems, and, in
cases where destructive bottom-tending gears such as trawls and dredges are
employed, the degradation of sea fl oor habitats (Chuenpagdee et al. 2003 ) . This
implies that the restoration and protection of habitats would need to be considered
as part of the ecosystem management. From the social and policy perspective,
modernization in fi sheries has resulted in distributional issues between small- and
large-scale fi sheries (Butcher 2004 ) , which have consequences on broader concerns
like poverty, food security, social justice, gender bias and human rights. The effects
of the decline in fi sheries catches are more palpable on small-scale fi shing sector
and their communities than on the industrialized sector. Small-scale fi shers are
highly dependent on the resources and have limited fi nancial assets and capacity
that would enable them to explore other livelihood options. The remoteness of their
location, the lack of capital, and the weak bargaining power in the market and in
the policy realm ensure that small-scale fi shers are highly vulnerable to changes
that occur in the fi sh production chain (Chuenpagdee 2011 ) . Addressing the
problems within small-scale fi sheries sector would thus require measures and interventions implemented at all scales.
Fisheries and aquaculture problems may have features that are known, but they
occur in different situations and contexts. Hence, potential solutions cannot be the
same across the board. For instance, a fi sheries crisis, such as a resource in peril,
observed in one country may well resemble a similar crisis in another country.
However, when looking at the details, there are always some features of the crisis in
each country that make them ecologically, socially, culturally and politically
S. Jentoft and R. Chuenpagdee
volume). Even when a decision could be made either to conserve or to utilize, the
question of who bene fi ts and who loses from such decision remains. It goes without saying that winners and losers would tend to frame the problem differently and
have very different ideas of whether the problem is actually solved. Thus, equity
and justice, as far as bene fi t and burden sharing is concerned, are among the criteria
on which to make judgements with regard to determining whether a problem has been
addressed. However, what constitutes equity and justice is equally dif fi cult to determine and agree on. The sharing of burdens and bene fi ts in ways that stakeholders
would accept as fair and just is not only an ethical and moral issue, it also has practical
implications. This is largely because it will determine what stakeholders are willing
to abide by and accept. At the end of the day, they determine the degree to which a
governance system will work or not (Jentoft and McCay 1995 ) .
One of the main features of fi sheries and aquaculture is embeddedness (Hanna
and Jentoft 1996 ) . Their problems are situated in particular ecological, social and
political contexts and are often symptoms of larger issues or problems within other
problems. In other words, they may operate at various scales. Thus the level at
which the problem should be addressed or dealt with fi rst – at the producing or
receiving end – is a key question. For example, from the ecosystem perspective, the
‘ fi shing down the food web’ phenomenon (Pauly et al. 1998 ) indicates the accumulating effects of continued fi shing pressure and the shift of target species from large
pelagic fi sh on top of the food chain to invertebrates. Rebuilding fi sheries would
require measures that not only address problems at the lower food chain, but also at
the top. However, fi shing also links to the alteration of natural ecosystems, and, in
cases where destructive bottom-tending gears such as trawls and dredges are
employed, the degradation of sea fl oor habitats (Chuenpagdee et al. 2003 ) . This
implies that the restoration and protection of habitats would need to be considered
as part of the ecosystem management. From the social and policy perspective,
modernization in fi sheries has resulted in distributional issues between small- and
large-scale fi sheries (Butcher 2004 ) , which have consequences on broader concerns
like poverty, food security, social justice, gender bias and human rights. The effects
of the decline in fi sheries catches are more palpable on small-scale fi shing sector
and their communities than on the industrialized sector. Small-scale fi shers are
highly dependent on the resources and have limited fi nancial assets and capacity
that would enable them to explore other livelihood options. The remoteness of their
location, the lack of capital, and the weak bargaining power in the market and in
the policy realm ensure that small-scale fi shers are highly vulnerable to changes
that occur in the fi sh production chain (Chuenpagdee 2011 ) . Addressing the
problems within small-scale fi sheries sector would thus require measures and interventions implemented at all scales.
Fisheries and aquaculture problems may have features that are known, but they
occur in different situations and contexts. Hence, potential solutions cannot be the
same across the board. For instance, a fi sheries crisis, such as a resource in peril,
observed in one country may well resemble a similar crisis in another country.
However, when looking at the details, there are always some features of the crisis in
each country that make them ecologically, socially, culturally and politically