80
D. Johnson
models that have dominated fi sheries policy (Allison and Ellis 2001 ) . The latter have
increasingly been conceptually, ethically and empirically challenged by the continued erosion of global capture fi sheries and catastrophic events like the 1992
Newfoundland cod moratorium. In this recent ‘post-equilibrium’ based fi sheries
social science, there is an acknowledgement that the diversity, complexity, dynamics
and multi-scale nature of governability – in short its wickedness – require responses
that accept uncertainty and seek to apply adaptive principles of learning-by-doing
(Armitage et al. 2007 ; Schwach et al. 2007 ) .
In terms of compatibility between the Governing System and the Systemto-be-Governed, then, the connection between livelihoods, wellbeing, and governability shows a set of shared principles that should guide governance. Post-equilibrium
fi sheries governance recognizes that formal governors are not omniscient. This
insight necessitates the inclusion of a diversity of stakeholders in data collecting and
decision-making processes that consider the importance of livelihoods. Re fl exivity
is a synonym for adaptive management at the institutional and co-governance levels
in that it asks governors to monitor their interventions and to be willing to ask themselves foundational questions about principles and purposes. Inclusion and re fl exivity
acknowledge the fi rst dimension of wicked problems that suggests that different
participants have different perspectives, and that ongoing efforts need to be made to
ensure those perspectives are heard. Consistent with the fourth dimension of wicked
problems, livelihoods approaches and the governability perspective share the
assumption that strengthening livelihoods necessitates consideration of the particularity of each case. In seeking to balance support for livelihoods with other societal
priorities (wicked problem 3), the Governing System needs to bring fresh eyes
to each challenge. At the same time, the Governing System needs to remain
always aware that particular problems evolve and that it is therefore perpetually
necessary to foster its own adaptive capacity and adaptive capacity in the Systemto-be-Governed (wicked problem 2). With regard to livelihoods, precaution asks
governors to bear in mind the history of interventions in fi sheries that have had
major impacts on employment and livelihoods and seek to minimize the risk that
future interventions imperil the basic principle of social justice (wicked problem 5).
This must of course be done while also seeking to address sustainability concerns, a
factor that brings us back to the complexity of wicked problems and hard choices in
fi sheries governance.
The discussion of the principles to which the Governing System needs to make
reference to accommodate livelihoods and wellbeing concerns is also directly relevant
for Governing Interactions. The ability of the Governing System to be attentive to the
livelihoods needs and aspirations of fi shers and aquaculturalists requires the development and maintenance of effective channels of communication between the Governing
System and the System-to-be-Governed. The maintenance of these channels is subject
to principles of social justice, inclusion and re fl exivity. All stakeholders should have
access to them and institutional mechanisms should exist to compensate for the differences in capacities that exist among different groups to make their voices heard.
The portrait I have painted thus far in this section is highly idealized and far from
the messy, contested, and complex political economy of fi sheries and aquaculture
D. Johnson
models that have dominated fi sheries policy (Allison and Ellis 2001 ) . The latter have
increasingly been conceptually, ethically and empirically challenged by the continued erosion of global capture fi sheries and catastrophic events like the 1992
Newfoundland cod moratorium. In this recent ‘post-equilibrium’ based fi sheries
social science, there is an acknowledgement that the diversity, complexity, dynamics
and multi-scale nature of governability – in short its wickedness – require responses
that accept uncertainty and seek to apply adaptive principles of learning-by-doing
(Armitage et al. 2007 ; Schwach et al. 2007 ) .
In terms of compatibility between the Governing System and the Systemto-be-Governed, then, the connection between livelihoods, wellbeing, and governability shows a set of shared principles that should guide governance. Post-equilibrium
fi sheries governance recognizes that formal governors are not omniscient. This
insight necessitates the inclusion of a diversity of stakeholders in data collecting and
decision-making processes that consider the importance of livelihoods. Re fl exivity
is a synonym for adaptive management at the institutional and co-governance levels
in that it asks governors to monitor their interventions and to be willing to ask themselves foundational questions about principles and purposes. Inclusion and re fl exivity
acknowledge the fi rst dimension of wicked problems that suggests that different
participants have different perspectives, and that ongoing efforts need to be made to
ensure those perspectives are heard. Consistent with the fourth dimension of wicked
problems, livelihoods approaches and the governability perspective share the
assumption that strengthening livelihoods necessitates consideration of the particularity of each case. In seeking to balance support for livelihoods with other societal
priorities (wicked problem 3), the Governing System needs to bring fresh eyes
to each challenge. At the same time, the Governing System needs to remain
always aware that particular problems evolve and that it is therefore perpetually
necessary to foster its own adaptive capacity and adaptive capacity in the Systemto-be-Governed (wicked problem 2). With regard to livelihoods, precaution asks
governors to bear in mind the history of interventions in fi sheries that have had
major impacts on employment and livelihoods and seek to minimize the risk that
future interventions imperil the basic principle of social justice (wicked problem 5).
This must of course be done while also seeking to address sustainability concerns, a
factor that brings us back to the complexity of wicked problems and hard choices in
fi sheries governance.
The discussion of the principles to which the Governing System needs to make
reference to accommodate livelihoods and wellbeing concerns is also directly relevant
for Governing Interactions. The ability of the Governing System to be attentive to the
livelihoods needs and aspirations of fi shers and aquaculturalists requires the development and maintenance of effective channels of communication between the Governing
System and the System-to-be-Governed. The maintenance of these channels is subject
to principles of social justice, inclusion and re fl exivity. All stakeholders should have
access to them and institutional mechanisms should exist to compensate for the differences in capacities that exist among different groups to make their voices heard.
The portrait I have painted thus far in this section is highly idealized and far from
the messy, contested, and complex political economy of fi sheries and aquaculture