83
5 Livelihoods in the Context of Fisheries – A Governability Challenge
that it should also be about development that sees beyond sectoral divisions and
recognizes that the pursuit of wellbeing requires a profound understanding of local
realities that social science is best equipped to provide. One plank in the argument
returns us social justice: an understanding of governability that includes the sensitivity of livelihoods and wellbeing approaches is better equipped to meet principles
such as inclusion that constitute social justice. It will also hold a more realistic perspective on social diversity, complexity and dynamics, as well as the cross-scale and
inter-sectoral relationships that make the application of fi sheries governance so
complex in terms of outcomes that respect core principles. The second dimension of
the argument is that a broader conception of fi sheries governance may also be in
society’s best interest, particularly in developing countries. Given the large populations involved in fi sheries and aquaculture and their economic contributions, which
are often signi fi cant at the regional level, a full understanding of fi sheries and aquaculture governance, such as I propose here, is most promising in terms of the likelihood of creating sustainable fi sheries that continue to contribute socially and
economically.
Conclusion
There are two ways to argue for livelihoods having a central place in fi sheries and
aquaculture governability. The fi rst of these is the social justice argument that the
maintenance of employment and livelihoods in fi sheries is important as part of
society’s moral responsibility to strive to ensure decent and meaningful lives for all
its members. The second argument is practical. Given the large populations dependent
on fi sheries globally, their regional economic signi fi cance, and their contribution to
regional and global food security and high value trade in foodstuffs, it is in society’s
interest to ensure their livelihood sustainability.
The argument for the importance of livelihoods in fi sheries and aquaculture governability has been secondary in this chapter, however, with the assumption that the
argument for sustaining livelihoods in fi sheries is largely self-evident. I have been
much more concerned with understanding how livelihoods can be seen as a governability issue in fi sheries. My basic argument in that regard has been that livelihoods
and governability share a foundational complementarity. In epistemological terms,
they are both approaches that fi t with a post-equilibrium view of fi sheries governance. This correspondence is brought out more strongly when they are coupled
with the idea of wellbeing, which shows that livelihoods are diverse, complex and
dynamic attempts to achieve a desirable way of living in particular social, cultural,
economic, political and ecological contexts.
Translation of the insights arising from a wellbeing sensitive approach to livelihoods as a governability problem into practical tools for sustaining livelihoods is a
wicked problem. Livelihoods are multiple and potentially competing; one person’s
pursuit of wellbeing may threaten another’s. Moreover, con fi gurations of livelihoods
are dynamic and embedded within broader factors that transcend sectoral and regional
governance, and, once undertaken, governance interventions stimulate their own
5 Livelihoods in the Context of Fisheries – A Governability Challenge
that it should also be about development that sees beyond sectoral divisions and
recognizes that the pursuit of wellbeing requires a profound understanding of local
realities that social science is best equipped to provide. One plank in the argument
returns us social justice: an understanding of governability that includes the sensitivity of livelihoods and wellbeing approaches is better equipped to meet principles
such as inclusion that constitute social justice. It will also hold a more realistic perspective on social diversity, complexity and dynamics, as well as the cross-scale and
inter-sectoral relationships that make the application of fi sheries governance so
complex in terms of outcomes that respect core principles. The second dimension of
the argument is that a broader conception of fi sheries governance may also be in
society’s best interest, particularly in developing countries. Given the large populations involved in fi sheries and aquaculture and their economic contributions, which
are often signi fi cant at the regional level, a full understanding of fi sheries and aquaculture governance, such as I propose here, is most promising in terms of the likelihood of creating sustainable fi sheries that continue to contribute socially and
economically.
Conclusion
There are two ways to argue for livelihoods having a central place in fi sheries and
aquaculture governability. The fi rst of these is the social justice argument that the
maintenance of employment and livelihoods in fi sheries is important as part of
society’s moral responsibility to strive to ensure decent and meaningful lives for all
its members. The second argument is practical. Given the large populations dependent
on fi sheries globally, their regional economic signi fi cance, and their contribution to
regional and global food security and high value trade in foodstuffs, it is in society’s
interest to ensure their livelihood sustainability.
The argument for the importance of livelihoods in fi sheries and aquaculture governability has been secondary in this chapter, however, with the assumption that the
argument for sustaining livelihoods in fi sheries is largely self-evident. I have been
much more concerned with understanding how livelihoods can be seen as a governability issue in fi sheries. My basic argument in that regard has been that livelihoods
and governability share a foundational complementarity. In epistemological terms,
they are both approaches that fi t with a post-equilibrium view of fi sheries governance. This correspondence is brought out more strongly when they are coupled
with the idea of wellbeing, which shows that livelihoods are diverse, complex and
dynamic attempts to achieve a desirable way of living in particular social, cultural,
economic, political and ecological contexts.
Translation of the insights arising from a wellbeing sensitive approach to livelihoods as a governability problem into practical tools for sustaining livelihoods is a
wicked problem. Livelihoods are multiple and potentially competing; one person’s
pursuit of wellbeing may threaten another’s. Moreover, con fi gurations of livelihoods
are dynamic and embedded within broader factors that transcend sectoral and regional
governance, and, once undertaken, governance interventions stimulate their own