50
S. Jentoft
function without each other. The same can be said of justice principles, even if their
relatedness is not always made explicit and re fl ected upon in real governing situations. The degree to which they actually are consistent is a research issue relevant to
governability.
Meta Order
The fate of small-scale fi sheries is a global concern. Will they survive under the
pressures of globalization, industrialization, urbanization, climate change, and
resource degradation? Are local fi shing communities doomed? Is poverty inevitable? These were the questions at the forefront of an FAO meeting on small-scale
fi shing in Bangkok, Thailand in October 2008. There was a strong sentiment among
participants that fi shing rights for small-scale fi shers are also human rights. In a
comprehensive statement, representatives of the assembled civil society organizations declared “that the human rights of fi shing communities are indivisible and that
the development of responsible and sustainable small-scale and indigenous fi sheries
is possible only if their political, civil, social, economic and cultural rights are
addressed in an integrated manner” (See Samudra, No. 51, 2008b ) .
Fishing rights, inspired by Garrett Hardin’s idea of the tragedy of the commons,
are typically perceived as a necessary management tool aimed at limiting the freedom
of resource users and curtailing their resource extraction. The human rights perspective of fi shing is a very different one: It states that people have some inviolable
rights to begin with, and that these rights are intact regardless of what governments
do or are willing to accept. As stated in the more than 60 year old UN Declaration
of Human Rights, such rights are fundamental and universal. The decision of the
UN Human Rights Commission regarding Iceland’s fi shing quota system testi fi es,
however, that there is still some way to go until it is generally recognized that fi shing
rights can also be human rights (see Samudra, No. 49, 2008a ) .
In 2007, the General Assembly of the UN adopted a Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples. Even if the language pertaining to marine resource and sea
space rights was considerably watered down from what was stated in the draft, it still
has paragraphs that concern fi shing rights. In the drafted text, paragraph 26 read as
follows: “Indigenous peoples have the right to own, develop, control and use the
lands and territories, including the total environment of the lands, air, waters, coastal
seas, sea-ice, fl ora, fauna and other resources which they have traditionally owned
otherwise occupied or used.” In the wording that was fi nally approved, the direct
reference to the ocean was removed. The same paragraph 26 now reads: “Indigenous
peoples have the right to own, use, develop, and control the lands, territories and
resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional
occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.”
In stark contrast to land and terrestrial resources, the altered language regarding
the ocean and marine resources as open access and the reference to sea space as
S. Jentoft
function without each other. The same can be said of justice principles, even if their
relatedness is not always made explicit and re fl ected upon in real governing situations. The degree to which they actually are consistent is a research issue relevant to
governability.
Meta Order
The fate of small-scale fi sheries is a global concern. Will they survive under the
pressures of globalization, industrialization, urbanization, climate change, and
resource degradation? Are local fi shing communities doomed? Is poverty inevitable? These were the questions at the forefront of an FAO meeting on small-scale
fi shing in Bangkok, Thailand in October 2008. There was a strong sentiment among
participants that fi shing rights for small-scale fi shers are also human rights. In a
comprehensive statement, representatives of the assembled civil society organizations declared “that the human rights of fi shing communities are indivisible and that
the development of responsible and sustainable small-scale and indigenous fi sheries
is possible only if their political, civil, social, economic and cultural rights are
addressed in an integrated manner” (See Samudra, No. 51, 2008b ) .
Fishing rights, inspired by Garrett Hardin’s idea of the tragedy of the commons,
are typically perceived as a necessary management tool aimed at limiting the freedom
of resource users and curtailing their resource extraction. The human rights perspective of fi shing is a very different one: It states that people have some inviolable
rights to begin with, and that these rights are intact regardless of what governments
do or are willing to accept. As stated in the more than 60 year old UN Declaration
of Human Rights, such rights are fundamental and universal. The decision of the
UN Human Rights Commission regarding Iceland’s fi shing quota system testi fi es,
however, that there is still some way to go until it is generally recognized that fi shing
rights can also be human rights (see Samudra, No. 49, 2008a ) .
In 2007, the General Assembly of the UN adopted a Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples. Even if the language pertaining to marine resource and sea
space rights was considerably watered down from what was stated in the draft, it still
has paragraphs that concern fi shing rights. In the drafted text, paragraph 26 read as
follows: “Indigenous peoples have the right to own, develop, control and use the
lands and territories, including the total environment of the lands, air, waters, coastal
seas, sea-ice, fl ora, fauna and other resources which they have traditionally owned
otherwise occupied or used.” In the wording that was fi nally approved, the direct
reference to the ocean was removed. The same paragraph 26 now reads: “Indigenous
peoples have the right to own, use, develop, and control the lands, territories and
resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional
occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.”
In stark contrast to land and terrestrial resources, the altered language regarding
the ocean and marine resources as open access and the reference to sea space as