Applying the Governability Concept in Fisheries – Explorations from South Asia

Chapter
Part of the MARE Publication Series book series (MARE, volume 7)

Abstract

This chapter investigates the variations in governability that occur in fisheries systems. It builds upon the notion that diversity, complexity, dynamics, and scale affect the performance of societal systems profoundly, and that these effects emerge at the level of their three components. Variations in the governability of systems-to-be-governed are examined through a chain approach. Theories of legal pluralism, institutional nestedness and adaptability are subsequently applied to assess the governability of governing systems. Finally, governing interactions are considered through the lens of three ideal-typical modes – self-governance, hierarchical governance and co-governance. The many variations of governability are illustrated with cases from the capture fisheries of South India. The central message is that connections between the components of a fisheries system matter and that a better match may result in higher levels of governability.

Keywords

Governability Fish chain Legal pluralism Nestedness Institutional dynamics 

References

  1. Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Doubleday, N. (2007). Adaptive co-management – Collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. Vancouver: UB Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bavinck, M. (1996). Fisher regulations along the Coromandel coast: A case of collective control of common pool resources. Marine Policy, 20(6), 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bavinck, M. (1998). ‘A matter of maintaining the peace.’ State accommodation to subordinate legal systems: the case of fisheries along the Coromandel Coast of Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Legal Pluralism, 40, 151–170.Google Scholar
  4. Bavinck, M. (2001). Marine resource management. Conflict and regulation in the fisheries of the Coromandel Coast. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Bavinck, M. (2003). The spatially splintered state: Myths and realities in the regulation of marine fisheries in Tamil Nadu, India. Development and Change, 34(4), 633–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bavinck, M. (2005). Understanding fisheries conflicts in the South – A legal pluralist perspective. Society and Natural Resources, 18(9), 805–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bavinck, M. (2011a). The megaengineering of ocean fisheries: A century of expansion and rapidly closing frontiers. In S.D. Brunn (Ed.), Engineering earth: The impacts of megaengineering projects (pp. 257–273). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bavinck, M. (2011b). Governance, poverty and social justice in the coastal fisheries of India. In N.R.M. Pouw, & I.S.A. Baud (Eds.), Local governance and poverty in developing nations (pp. 115–136). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bavinck, M., & Karunaharan, K. (2006). Legal pluralism in the marine fisheries of Ramnad District, Tamil Nadu, India. IDPAD Working Paper Nr 2. New Delhi/The Hague: Indo-Dutch Program for Alternatives in Development.Google Scholar
  10. Bavinck, M., & Vivekanandan, V. (2011). Conservation, conflict and the governance of fisher wellbeing – Analysis of the establishment of the Gulf of Mannar National Park and Biosphere Reserve. Environmental Management, 47, 593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bavinck, M., de Klerk, L., van Dijk, D., Rothuizen, J.V., Blok, A.N., Bokhorst, J.R., van Haastrecht, E.K., van de Loo, T.J.C., Quaedvlieg, J.G.J., Scholtens J. (2008). Time-zoning for the safe-guarding of capture fisheries: A closed season in Tamil Nadu, India. Marine Policy, 32, 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beckley T.M. (1998). The nestedness of forest dependence. Society and Natural Resources, 11(2), 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations, and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1692–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bundy, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Jentoft, S., Mahon, R. (2008). If science is not the answer, what is? An alternative governance model for the world’s fisheries. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6. doi:10.1890/060112.
  16. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute. (2005). Marine fisheries census 2005. Cochin: CMFRI.Google Scholar
  17. Cleaver, F. (2002). Reinventing institutions: Bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource management. European Journal of Development Research, 14(2), 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Durkheim, E. (1964). The division of labor in society (trans: Simpson, G.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Elias, N. (1970). Was ist Soziologie? Weinheim: Juventa Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garcia, S.M., Zerbi, A., Aliaume, C., Do Chi, T., Lasserre, G. (2003). The ecosystem approach to fisheries: Issues, terminology, principles, institutional foundations, implementation and outlook. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 443. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  22. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12, 78–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibson, C., Ostrom, E., Ahn, T.K. (1998) Scaling Issues in the social sciences. Working Paper No. 1. Bonn: International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP).Google Scholar
  24. Gibson, C.C., Ostrom, E., Ahn, T.K. (2000). The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: A survey. Ecological Economics, 32, 217–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hill, R.C., & Fujita, K. (2003). The nested city. Urban Studies, 40(2), 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hollingworth, J.R., & Boyer, R. (Eds.). (1998). Contemporary capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Types of multi-level governance. European Integration Online Papers, 5,11. doi:10.2139/ssrn.302786.
  28. Hopewell, J. (2004). ‘When the shore seine is shot, the whole village eats!’ The change in shore seine organization in Valinokkam village and the decline of shore seining in southern Ramnad District, Tamil Nadu, India. Dissertation, Master thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  29. Hornell, J. (1914). The sacred chank of India, a monograph of the Indian conch (Turbinella pyrum). Madras: Government Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jentoft, S. (2004). Institutions in fisheries. Marine Policy, 28, 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jentoft, S. (2007). Limits to governability? Institutional implications for ocean and coastal governance. Marine Policy, 4, 360–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jentoft, S., Bavinck, M., Johnson, D.S., Thomson, K.T. (2009). Fisheries co-management and legal pluralism: How an analytical problem becomes an institutional one. Human Organization, 68(1), 27–38.Google Scholar
  33. Johnson, D. (2006). Category, narrative and value in the governance of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy, 30, 747–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson, D. (2010). Institutional adaptation as a governability problem in fisheries: Patron–client relations in the Junagadh fishery, India. Fish and Fisheries, 11, 264–277.Google Scholar
  35. Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Kooiman, J. (2008). Governability: Exploring a concept. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 10(2), 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kooiman, J. (2010). Governance and governability. In S. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance (pp. 87–104). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Kooiman, J., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2005). Governance and governability. In J. Kooiman, M. Bavinck, S. Jentoft, R. Pullin (Eds.), Fish for life – Interactive governance for fisheries (pp. 325–349). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kooiman, J., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Meta-governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Public Administration, 87(4), 818–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., Pullin, R. (Eds). (2005). Fish for life. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kraan, M. (2009). Creating space for fishermen’s livelihoods – Anlo-Ewe beach seine fishermen’s negotiations for livelihood space within multiple governance structures in Ghana. African Studies Collection, 19. Leiden: African Studies Centre.Google Scholar
  42. Kurien, J. (1978). Entry of big business into fishing, its impact on fish economy. Economic and Political Weekly, 13(36), 1557–1565.Google Scholar
  43. Mahon, R., Bavinck, M., Roy, R.N. (2005). Governance in action. In J. Kooiman, M. Bavinck, S. Jentoft, R. Pullin (Eds), Fish for life (pp. 351–373). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mahon, R., McConney, P., Roy, R.N. (2008). Governing fisheries as complex adaptive systems. Marine Policy, 32, 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marshall, G.R. (2005). Economics for collaborative environmental management: Renegotiating the Commons. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  46. Marshall, G.R. (2008). Nesting, subsidiarity, and community-based environmental governance beyond the local level. International Journal of the Commons, 2(1), 75–97.Google Scholar
  47. Merry, S.E. (1988). Legal pluralism. Law & Society Review, 22(5), 869–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. North, D.C. (1991). Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Ostrom E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Page, S.E. (2006). Path dependence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1, 87–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pramod, G. (2010). Illegal, unreported and unregulated marine fish catches in the Indian exclusive economic zone. Field report, policy and ecosystem restoration in fisheries. Vancouver: Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  54. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  55. Swinnen, J.F.M., & Maertens, M. (2007). Globalization, privatization, and vertical coordination in food value chains in developing and transition countries. Agricultural Economics, 37(s1), 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taylor, W.W., Schechter, M.G. et al. (Eds.). (2007). Globalization: Effects on fisheries resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Van der Pijl, W. (2010). The implications of international food standards and regulations for stakeholders in the export oriented shrimp trade value-chain: A case study in Chennai, India. Unpublished Master Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  58. van Haastrecht, E., & Schaap, M. (2003). A critical look at fisheries management practices: The 45-day ban in Tuticorin District, Tamil Nadu, India. Unpublished Master Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  59. Vanderlinden, J. (1971). Le pluralisme juridique, essai de synthese. In J. Gilissen (Ed.), Le pluralisme juridique (pp. 19–36). Brussels: l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  60. von Benda-Beckmann, F. (2002). Who’s afraid of legal pluralism? Journal of Legal Pluralism, 47, 37–82.Google Scholar
  61. von Benda-Beckmann, F., von Benda-Beckmann, K., Eckert, J. (2009). Rules of law and laws of ruling: Law and governance between past and future. In F. von Benda-Beckmann, K. von Benda-Beckmann, J. Eckert (Eds.), Rules of law and law of ruling – On the governance of law (pp. 1–30). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  62. Wiber, M., & Kearney, J.F. (1996). Stinting the commons: Property, policy or power struggle? Comparing quota in the Canadian dairy and fisheries sectors. In J. Spiertz, & M.G. Wiber (Eds.), The role of law in natural resource management (pp. 145–165). The Hague: VUGA Uitgeverij B.V.Google Scholar
  63. Wilden, A. (1987). The rules of the game. London: Routledge and Kagan.Google Scholar
  64. Wylie, J. (1989). The law of the streets, the law of the courts, and the law of the sea in a Dominican fishing village. In J. Cordell (Ed.), A sea of small boats (pp. 152–176). Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival Inc.Google Scholar
  65. Young, O.R. (2002). Institutional interplay: The environmental consequences of cross-scale interactions. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonich, E.U. Weber (Eds.), The drama of the commons (pp. 263–291). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human Geography, Planning and International Development StudiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Centre for Maritime ResearchUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations