Enhancing the Governability of Small-Scale Fisheries Through Interactive Governance

Part of the MARE Publication Series book series (MARE, volume 13)

Abstract

This final chapter synthesizes the arguments that chapter authors make with regard to the governance and governability of small-scale fisheries. They point to a general conclusion that in order to enhance governability for the benefit of small-scale fisheries, given the related conditions and characteristics, governance designs and interactions must be sensitive to the needs of small-scale fishing people and responsive to their situations. We do not claim that one governing mode, be it hierarchical, co- or self-governance, is inherently better than others. Rather, the choice of governing modes must take into account the particularities of the system-to-be-governed as well as the governing system. Small-scale fisheries globally will benefit from more constructive interaction, collective action, empowerment, and innovation, but they are simply too diverse for preconceived and generalized governance blue prints. Governability assessments as carried out by chapter authors reveal that despite their structural commonalities, governing modes typically have unique features. Each governing mode must be seen as a governor’s response to the existing and emerging challenges and opportunities of a specific small-scale fishery. The transition of governing modes observed in many cases illustrates how governance actors try to cope with system dynamics. Often, the combination of different modes into one coherent but hybrid approach is warranted. This chapter summarizes how these processes occur in real world situations accounted for by the chapter authors in this book.

Keywords

Small-scale fisheries Interactive governance Enhancing governability Meta-governance Governance of scale Politics and power 

References

  1. Bavinck, M., & Jyotishi, A. (Eds.). (2015). Conflict, negotiations and natural resource management. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R., Jentoft, S., & Kooiman, J. (Eds.). (2013). Governability of fisheries and aquaculture: Theory and applications. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Berkes, F. (2015). Coasts for people: Interdisciplinary approaches to coastal and marine resource management. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Chuenpagdee, R., & Jentoft, S. (2007). Step zero for fisheries co-management: What precedes implementation. Marine Policy, 31(6), 657–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chuenpagdee, R., & Jentoft, S. (2013). Assessing governability: What’s next? In M. Bavinck, R. Chuenpagdee, S. Jentoft, & J. Kooiman (Eds.), Governability of fisheries and aquaculture: Theory and applications (pp. 335–350). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flyvbjerg, B. (2003). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gray, T. S. (Ed.). (2005). Participation in fisheries governance. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Jentoft, S. (2006). Beyond fisheries management: The phronetic dimension. Marine Policy, 30, 671–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jentoft, S. (2007). Limits of governability? Institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance. Marine Policy, 31, 360–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jentoft, S. (2014). Walking the talk: Implementing the International voluntary guidelines for small-scale fisheries. Maritime Studies. Retrieved from http://www.maritimestudiesjournal.com/content/13/1/16
  12. Jentoft, S., & Bavinck, M. (2014). Interactive governance for sustainable fisheries: Dealing with legal pluralism. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 11, 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jentoft, S., & Knol, M. (2014). Marine spatial planning: A view from the North Sea. Maritime Studies (MAST), 12, 13 http://www.maritimestudiesjournal.com/content/12/1/13
  14. Jentoft, S., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2015). The ‘new’ marine governance. Reality or aspiration. In M. Gileck & K. Kern (Eds.), Governing Europe’s marine environment: Europeanization of regional seas or regionalization of EU policies? London: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Jentoft, S., & Eide, A. (Eds.). (2011). Poverty mosaics: Realities and prospects in small-scale fisheries. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, D. S. (2006). Category, narrative, and value in the governance of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy, 30, 747–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., & Pullin, R. (Eds.). (2005). Fish for life. Interactive governance for fisheries. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  19. McGoodwin, J. R. (1991). Crisis in the world’s fisheries: People, problems, and policies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond the qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, XLIV, 652–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian College of Fishery ScienceUIT – The Arctic University of NorwayTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Department of GeographyMemorial UniversitySt. John’sCanada

Personalised recommendations