37
3 Concerns and Problems in Fisheries and Aquaculture – Exploring Governability
unique. This is why governability assessments must pay attention to contextual
variables. This is also one of the arguments for the ‘subsidiarity’ principle in fi sheries
governance, which states that problems should be addressed (and responsibilities to
solve them vested) at the lowest possible organizational level (Jentoft and Eide
2011 ). However, it does not suggest that the decentralization of authority from high
to low levels is always necessary or wise. In fact, there are issues which the local
community is not the appropriate entity to deal with. The construction of infrastructure for post-harvest activities and overall legislative frameworks, which requires
active involvement and fi nancial backing of governments, serves as a case in point.
On the whole, fi sheries and aquaculture problems have a number of properties
that governors would recognize as being wicked (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ).
One of them is that “[t]he formulation of a wicked problem is the problem!” (Rittel
and Webber 1973 , 61). In other word, a problem may be felt but people may disagree in how to interpret it. For instance, explanations for low fi shery yield are not
always clear and consensus about the nature of the problem is hard to fi nd. There is
often a “blame game” of who causes it and who is responsible for solving it. In most
cases, there is no single natural or social variable that explains outcomes. Even with
the best of science, it is still dif fi cult to provide clear answers with regard to problem
de fi nitions and solutions. The objective of sustaining a particular resource base, for
instance, leaves us with a number of questions. At which level should the resource
be sustained? How large should this stock biomass be? If a recovery plan is needed,
how fast should it proceed? How big should a protected area be? Should the state of
the ecosystem be the only concern, or are there other concerns that are also important, and if yes, how should they be prioritized? Which concerns should be given the
greatest attention and resources? These are questions where science falls short.
Science may help raise critical questions, but on its own it may not provide answers
that lead to decisions. Other concerns may play a role, different rules may apply,
and con fl ict may be a major driver. On political issues, stakeholders tend to have
different views and priorities, many of which are not based on knowledge as much
as they are on values, beliefs and interests. Here, the problem de fi nitions and the
solutions that one may support may not only re fl ect a political stance, but such a
stance will also determine which questions are asked and which concerns are given
priority (Turnbull 2006 ) .
Operationalizing Governability Assessment
The governability concept recognizes that there are limits to how systematic and
effective a governing system can be in addressing challenges and concerns that
occur within the system-to-be-governed. With limits of governability, one must
assume that governance does not always go according to plan, and that governors
often have to accept solutions that are less than ideal. However, the limits of governability are not necessarily structural. They can sometimes be related to how the
systems function. As the case may be, there is a potential for either marginal or radical
governability enhancement, through governance interventions aiming at changing the
3 Concerns and Problems in Fisheries and Aquaculture – Exploring Governability
unique. This is why governability assessments must pay attention to contextual
variables. This is also one of the arguments for the ‘subsidiarity’ principle in fi sheries
governance, which states that problems should be addressed (and responsibilities to
solve them vested) at the lowest possible organizational level (Jentoft and Eide
2011 ). However, it does not suggest that the decentralization of authority from high
to low levels is always necessary or wise. In fact, there are issues which the local
community is not the appropriate entity to deal with. The construction of infrastructure for post-harvest activities and overall legislative frameworks, which requires
active involvement and fi nancial backing of governments, serves as a case in point.
On the whole, fi sheries and aquaculture problems have a number of properties
that governors would recognize as being wicked (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ).
One of them is that “[t]he formulation of a wicked problem is the problem!” (Rittel
and Webber 1973 , 61). In other word, a problem may be felt but people may disagree in how to interpret it. For instance, explanations for low fi shery yield are not
always clear and consensus about the nature of the problem is hard to fi nd. There is
often a “blame game” of who causes it and who is responsible for solving it. In most
cases, there is no single natural or social variable that explains outcomes. Even with
the best of science, it is still dif fi cult to provide clear answers with regard to problem
de fi nitions and solutions. The objective of sustaining a particular resource base, for
instance, leaves us with a number of questions. At which level should the resource
be sustained? How large should this stock biomass be? If a recovery plan is needed,
how fast should it proceed? How big should a protected area be? Should the state of
the ecosystem be the only concern, or are there other concerns that are also important, and if yes, how should they be prioritized? Which concerns should be given the
greatest attention and resources? These are questions where science falls short.
Science may help raise critical questions, but on its own it may not provide answers
that lead to decisions. Other concerns may play a role, different rules may apply,
and con fl ict may be a major driver. On political issues, stakeholders tend to have
different views and priorities, many of which are not based on knowledge as much
as they are on values, beliefs and interests. Here, the problem de fi nitions and the
solutions that one may support may not only re fl ect a political stance, but such a
stance will also determine which questions are asked and which concerns are given
priority (Turnbull 2006 ) .
Operationalizing Governability Assessment
The governability concept recognizes that there are limits to how systematic and
effective a governing system can be in addressing challenges and concerns that
occur within the system-to-be-governed. With limits of governability, one must
assume that governance does not always go according to plan, and that governors
often have to accept solutions that are less than ideal. However, the limits of governability are not necessarily structural. They can sometimes be related to how the
systems function. As the case may be, there is a potential for either marginal or radical
governability enhancement, through governance interventions aiming at changing the