79
5 Livelihoods in the Context of Fisheries – A Governability Challenge
dependencies or adaptive failures. This is an extremely important caution for
fi sheries governors to bear in mind: answers to problems in fi sheries and aquaculture
at one moment in time may later hamper governability. More generally, though,
dynamics is about the second dimension of wicked problems that solutions to
livelihoods shortcomings are only ever provisional in an unending effort to respond,
reactively or proactively, to an always changing social-ecological environment.
In order to convey the interactive governance approach to livelihoods governability, I have sequentially presented diversity, complexity and dynamics. As
should have become apparent in the examples above, that separation is arti fi cial.
This is evident fi rst in that I did not attempt to separate out the fourth aspect of
governability, scale, which makes appearances in the complexity and dynamics
sections. Upon closer inspection, it is also apparent that I could not avoid some
crossover of the other concepts. Thus, for example, diversity appears as a potentially desirable governability characteristic to cope with dynamics, while the complexity of fi shers’ knowledge (and perhaps their social complexity in knowledge
sharing) means that they dynamically adapt to attempts by state authorities to limit
their fi shing effort. Needless to say, the intersection of diversity, complexity,
dynamics and scale makes it important for governability to be seen as an approximation that should be subject to ongoing revision. In this sense, governability
assessment is compatible with adaptive management approaches to fi sheries
governance.
Livelihoods Governability: Other Dimensions
The wicked problem of the governability of livelihoods in fi sheries and aquaculture extends beyond the System-to-be-Governed. If sustaining and strengthening
the livelihoods and wellbeing of fi shing populations are held to be important, then
it is also important that the Governing System has the capacity to understand the
constructions of livelihoods and wellbeing in the System-to-be-Governed while
fostering the ability to learn through Governing Interactions. Interactive governance argues that governance is grounded in normative principles at the meta, or
third order, level (Kooiman et al. 2005 , 241–244). In what follows, I make an
argument for a fi rst list of principles to underpin a wellbeing sensitive approach to
the governance of livelihoods in fi sheries. The principles are inclusion, re fl exivity,
attention to particularity, fostering adaptive capacity, precaution and social justice. Of these, social justice can be considered overarching. Both interactive governance and livelihoods approaches are oriented towards preserving employment
and livelihoods for the largest number in a sustainable manner. This leads both
approaches away from policies such as subsidies for fl eet modernization or rationalization through individual transferable quotas that often bene fi t a few at the
expense of many.
The remaining principles can be grouped together as part of a larger epistemological challenge from fi sheries social science to the equilibrium-based bio-economic
5 Livelihoods in the Context of Fisheries – A Governability Challenge
dependencies or adaptive failures. This is an extremely important caution for
fi sheries governors to bear in mind: answers to problems in fi sheries and aquaculture
at one moment in time may later hamper governability. More generally, though,
dynamics is about the second dimension of wicked problems that solutions to
livelihoods shortcomings are only ever provisional in an unending effort to respond,
reactively or proactively, to an always changing social-ecological environment.
In order to convey the interactive governance approach to livelihoods governability, I have sequentially presented diversity, complexity and dynamics. As
should have become apparent in the examples above, that separation is arti fi cial.
This is evident fi rst in that I did not attempt to separate out the fourth aspect of
governability, scale, which makes appearances in the complexity and dynamics
sections. Upon closer inspection, it is also apparent that I could not avoid some
crossover of the other concepts. Thus, for example, diversity appears as a potentially desirable governability characteristic to cope with dynamics, while the complexity of fi shers’ knowledge (and perhaps their social complexity in knowledge
sharing) means that they dynamically adapt to attempts by state authorities to limit
their fi shing effort. Needless to say, the intersection of diversity, complexity,
dynamics and scale makes it important for governability to be seen as an approximation that should be subject to ongoing revision. In this sense, governability
assessment is compatible with adaptive management approaches to fi sheries
governance.
Livelihoods Governability: Other Dimensions
The wicked problem of the governability of livelihoods in fi sheries and aquaculture extends beyond the System-to-be-Governed. If sustaining and strengthening
the livelihoods and wellbeing of fi shing populations are held to be important, then
it is also important that the Governing System has the capacity to understand the
constructions of livelihoods and wellbeing in the System-to-be-Governed while
fostering the ability to learn through Governing Interactions. Interactive governance argues that governance is grounded in normative principles at the meta, or
third order, level (Kooiman et al. 2005 , 241–244). In what follows, I make an
argument for a fi rst list of principles to underpin a wellbeing sensitive approach to
the governance of livelihoods in fi sheries. The principles are inclusion, re fl exivity,
attention to particularity, fostering adaptive capacity, precaution and social justice. Of these, social justice can be considered overarching. Both interactive governance and livelihoods approaches are oriented towards preserving employment
and livelihoods for the largest number in a sustainable manner. This leads both
approaches away from policies such as subsidies for fl eet modernization or rationalization through individual transferable quotas that often bene fi t a few at the
expense of many.
The remaining principles can be grouped together as part of a larger epistemological challenge from fi sheries social science to the equilibrium-based bio-economic