53
4 Social Justice in the Context of Fisheries – A Governability Challenge
really make an impact on the policy of the Norwegian Fishers’ Association and
through this, that of the government. The change towards a market-based
governance mode (vessels are bought and sold with their quota rights attached) in
recent years does not seem to have altered the special partnership between this association and the state. Instead, it has changed the role and identity of this association,
making it less concerned with community development and livelihood challenges,
particularly among its least powerful members like the Sami fi shers, and making
justice issues in fi sheries all the more acute (Mikalsen et al. 2007 ) .
In Norway, the Sami have been among those criticizing this market-based management regime for not taking into account their rights and interests as an indigenous people. Still, as Eythòrsson ( 2003 ) concludes, the interests of the Sami people
have been largely invisible in fi sheries management. “Matters pertaining to the
coastal Sami have been considered not merely irrelevant, but highly inappropriate”
(Eythòrsson 2003 , 159). The rather limited appreciation of the Sami presence in the
fi shery was clearly demonstrated when a new quota system was introduced in 1990
and almost no Sami fi sher was quali fi ed. The protests raised by the Sami Parliament
resulted in the appointment of a Sami representative to the Regulatory Council
(Davis and Jentoft 2001 ) .
In Norway, the idea of giving preferential treatment on the basis of territorial and
ethnic characteristics, which is an issue of “restorative” justice, i.e. a way of making
up for historical injustice, has received mixed reception. The principle that maintains support suggests that fi sh resources are national property and, hence, their
management should rest with the state in cooperation with groups such as the
Fishermen’s Association. Another principle with justice implications is that resource
rights in Norway should be vested with the individual and not municipalities or communities. This is a conception of justice that emphasizes desert rather than dependency or need. It has also had consequences for the kind of management institutions
proposed for addressing Sami interests and concerns. Rather than forming cogovernance arrangements where the Sami can enjoy rights or self-determination
with respect to fi sheries regulations, the government insists on a more limited advisory function with the state at the helm.
First Order
Governance at this order is about the decision-making process, the day-to-day problem solving and opportunity creation, as well as the tools and techniques employed
for these purposes. Principles that apply at this order are frequently referred to in
fi sheries governance. Here we are primarily interested in their justice implications,
and, in the next instance, how they are linked to governability.
Transparency is a particularly important governing process principle. Do decisionmaking processes allow people to see what powerful institutions are up to? Is all
information required or used in deliberating policies and arriving at decisions generally accessible? Transparency is a condition for another governing principle; that of
4 Social Justice in the Context of Fisheries – A Governability Challenge
really make an impact on the policy of the Norwegian Fishers’ Association and
through this, that of the government. The change towards a market-based
governance mode (vessels are bought and sold with their quota rights attached) in
recent years does not seem to have altered the special partnership between this association and the state. Instead, it has changed the role and identity of this association,
making it less concerned with community development and livelihood challenges,
particularly among its least powerful members like the Sami fi shers, and making
justice issues in fi sheries all the more acute (Mikalsen et al. 2007 ) .
In Norway, the Sami have been among those criticizing this market-based management regime for not taking into account their rights and interests as an indigenous people. Still, as Eythòrsson ( 2003 ) concludes, the interests of the Sami people
have been largely invisible in fi sheries management. “Matters pertaining to the
coastal Sami have been considered not merely irrelevant, but highly inappropriate”
(Eythòrsson 2003 , 159). The rather limited appreciation of the Sami presence in the
fi shery was clearly demonstrated when a new quota system was introduced in 1990
and almost no Sami fi sher was quali fi ed. The protests raised by the Sami Parliament
resulted in the appointment of a Sami representative to the Regulatory Council
(Davis and Jentoft 2001 ) .
In Norway, the idea of giving preferential treatment on the basis of territorial and
ethnic characteristics, which is an issue of “restorative” justice, i.e. a way of making
up for historical injustice, has received mixed reception. The principle that maintains support suggests that fi sh resources are national property and, hence, their
management should rest with the state in cooperation with groups such as the
Fishermen’s Association. Another principle with justice implications is that resource
rights in Norway should be vested with the individual and not municipalities or communities. This is a conception of justice that emphasizes desert rather than dependency or need. It has also had consequences for the kind of management institutions
proposed for addressing Sami interests and concerns. Rather than forming cogovernance arrangements where the Sami can enjoy rights or self-determination
with respect to fi sheries regulations, the government insists on a more limited advisory function with the state at the helm.
First Order
Governance at this order is about the decision-making process, the day-to-day problem solving and opportunity creation, as well as the tools and techniques employed
for these purposes. Principles that apply at this order are frequently referred to in
fi sheries governance. Here we are primarily interested in their justice implications,
and, in the next instance, how they are linked to governability.
Transparency is a particularly important governing process principle. Do decisionmaking processes allow people to see what powerful institutions are up to? Is all
information required or used in deliberating policies and arriving at decisions generally accessible? Transparency is a condition for another governing principle; that of