48
S. Jentoft
In addition, people may have important concerns and therefore have the right to
be recognized in the political process as, for instance, a legitimate stakeholder
who should be involved and heard (Haldemann 2008 ) . The latter is about the
procedural – or democratic – element of justice in decision-making, which is central
to interactive governance from a normative perspective. The implication of “broader
and more authentic participation” is a demand for empowerment through more participatory democracy (Schlosberg 2003 ) . This is emphasized, for instance, in the
new European fi sheries policy and implemented through the regional management
councils, the so-called RACs (Degnbol and Wilson 2008 ). Accordingly, justice has
an institutional and a processual dimension, where the fi rst provides opportunity for
the latter, but the latter does not necessarily follow directly from the former. Sen
( 2009 ) therefore argues that we need to be as concerned with process as we are with
institutional design.
Even though it is possible to ‘split’ the concept of justice, as Miller ( 1999 ) does,
its various parts relate to each other. Schlosberg ( 2003 , 96) contends, “One must
have recognition in order to have real participation; one must have real participation
in order to get real equity; further equity would make more participation possible,
which would bring further recognition, and so on” (cf. also Honneth 2001 ) . It is not
uncommon for small-scale fi shers, regardless of their great number relative to the
industrial sector, to be ignored by governments more focused on production and
export earnings than on the livelihood conditions of fi shing people. Despite being
more numerous, they have less political clout; their views are not heard and their
knowledge is perceived as less relevant to decision-makers than that of the industrial
sector (Jentoft and Eide 2011 ) .
Recognizing the human rights of small-scale fi shing people is a place to start.
From that follows a number of obligations, such as respecting their livelihoods,
tenure and access rights, their rights to be informed about government policies and
have a say in matters that affects them, rights to organize, and all the other things
that are inscribed in the Human Rights declaration.
2
Social justice cannot, however, be easily attributed to some universal standard.
Rather, as Walzer ( 1983 ) points out, justice is sometimes contextual – or “local”
(Elster 1992 ) ; justice principles are often meant for particular societal spheres. The
principles of distributional justice are not the same for every good or burden, for
every social and political community, or for every situation or circumstance. The
justice-principles are not always stable either, even within the same sphere. Moreover,
there is no one single set of appropriate criteria “against which all distributions should
be measured” (Dahl 1989 ; 303). There is also the fact that justice means different
things to different people or groups. All these caveats make justice a challenging
empirical issue and something that governors need to know about and consider for
the sake of governability (cf. Perusse Daigle et al. 1996 ) .
Con fl icts among user-groups make fi sheries systems dif fi cult to govern
largely because people will tend to look out for their own rather than what is in
2 See Bangkok civil society declaration http://sites.google.com/site/smallscale fi sheries/statement
(Accessed November 1, 2010).
S. Jentoft
In addition, people may have important concerns and therefore have the right to
be recognized in the political process as, for instance, a legitimate stakeholder
who should be involved and heard (Haldemann 2008 ) . The latter is about the
procedural – or democratic – element of justice in decision-making, which is central
to interactive governance from a normative perspective. The implication of “broader
and more authentic participation” is a demand for empowerment through more participatory democracy (Schlosberg 2003 ) . This is emphasized, for instance, in the
new European fi sheries policy and implemented through the regional management
councils, the so-called RACs (Degnbol and Wilson 2008 ). Accordingly, justice has
an institutional and a processual dimension, where the fi rst provides opportunity for
the latter, but the latter does not necessarily follow directly from the former. Sen
( 2009 ) therefore argues that we need to be as concerned with process as we are with
institutional design.
Even though it is possible to ‘split’ the concept of justice, as Miller ( 1999 ) does,
its various parts relate to each other. Schlosberg ( 2003 , 96) contends, “One must
have recognition in order to have real participation; one must have real participation
in order to get real equity; further equity would make more participation possible,
which would bring further recognition, and so on” (cf. also Honneth 2001 ) . It is not
uncommon for small-scale fi shers, regardless of their great number relative to the
industrial sector, to be ignored by governments more focused on production and
export earnings than on the livelihood conditions of fi shing people. Despite being
more numerous, they have less political clout; their views are not heard and their
knowledge is perceived as less relevant to decision-makers than that of the industrial
sector (Jentoft and Eide 2011 ) .
Recognizing the human rights of small-scale fi shing people is a place to start.
From that follows a number of obligations, such as respecting their livelihoods,
tenure and access rights, their rights to be informed about government policies and
have a say in matters that affects them, rights to organize, and all the other things
that are inscribed in the Human Rights declaration.
2
Social justice cannot, however, be easily attributed to some universal standard.
Rather, as Walzer ( 1983 ) points out, justice is sometimes contextual – or “local”
(Elster 1992 ) ; justice principles are often meant for particular societal spheres. The
principles of distributional justice are not the same for every good or burden, for
every social and political community, or for every situation or circumstance. The
justice-principles are not always stable either, even within the same sphere. Moreover,
there is no one single set of appropriate criteria “against which all distributions should
be measured” (Dahl 1989 ; 303). There is also the fact that justice means different
things to different people or groups. All these caveats make justice a challenging
empirical issue and something that governors need to know about and consider for
the sake of governability (cf. Perusse Daigle et al. 1996 ) .
Con fl icts among user-groups make fi sheries systems dif fi cult to govern
largely because people will tend to look out for their own rather than what is in
2 See Bangkok civil society declaration http://sites.google.com/site/smallscale fi sheries/statement
(Accessed November 1, 2010).