Building Capacity for Sustainable Governance in South Asian Fisheries: Poverty, Wellbeing and Deliberative Policy Networks

许多人认为，世界渔业目前的危机是渔业管理和政策持续失败的结果，未能显著减轻过度捕捞问题(Paly和Christensen等人，1998年，Clark，2007年)。一些人甚至预测所有商业鱼类种群将在未来50年内崩溃(Worm等人，2006年)，然而数百万人直接依赖捕鱼谋生和作为富含蛋白质的食品安全的来源(FAO，2006，Allison和Ellis 2001)。造成这一危机的原因是，许多促进环境可持续性的政策往往与人类发展考虑相冲突。在拥有世界上增长最快的沿海贫困人口的南亚(2001年印度人口普查)，这场冲突有可能是最具破坏性的。现有的渔业政策和管理制度迄今仍无法解决环境与人类发展议程之间的这种冲突。这项建议的目的是推进审议政策网络，使渔业领域的主要利益攸关方能够将其独特的专长和知识结合在一起，以建立直接解决这一冲突的新的治理办法。现有网络的成员认识到对渔业存在相互竞争的主张，并致力于寻找新的方法来确定适应不同价值观、需求和目标的政策选择。因此，该提议是关于非常规意义上的能力建设。它涉及创建一个论坛，使自然和社会科学家能够有效地为基层、民主地为受到威胁的生态系统的可持续政策的制定以及南亚依赖于此的当地社区的福祉作出贡献。我们的方法借鉴了两个新出现的研究领域：发展中国家的福祉(McGregor 2004，Gough和McGregor 2007)和渔业的互动治理(Bavinck等人2005，Kooiman和Bavinck 2005)。拟议的网络首次汇集了这两个领域的专门知识，并在与印度和斯里兰卡伙伴成功合作的历史基础上，将其应用于南亚渔业。将采用的方法由概念和经验研究框架提供信息，该框架将幸福定义为：“一种与他人相处的状态，在这种状态下，人类的需求得到满足，一个人能够采取有意义的行动来追求自己的目标，一个人享有令人满意的生活质量”(McGregor 2007)。福祉框架提供了一种确定和分析人与自然资源之间各种关系的手段：它探讨渔业生计、个人需求和目标，以及渔业社区更广泛的社会、政治和文化组织。它特别强调了这样一个事实，即渔业的变化不会平等地影响每个人(Bavinck和Johnson，2008年，Coulthard，2008年)，一个人福祉的改善可能会导致另一个人的疾病--治理和政策挑战的核心是如何认识和处理福祉的权衡、冲突和艰难的选择。互动治理理论提供了一个思考艰难选择的过程，主要是通过回到对治理可以继续进行的基本价值和原则的讨论。它还适用于从“良好治理”向“足够好”治理转变的想法以及这样做的后续影响。这里的具体建议是在印度和斯里兰卡举办三个研讨会，目前这两个国家的扶贫和渔业养护之间的冲突很明显。这些讲习班汇集了科学家、当地社区代表、政策制定者和政界人士，并将开始建立一个持续的协商民主进程。第三次讲习班将是一个区域论坛，以反思审议情况并制定行动和研究的前瞻性战略。

The current crisis in world fisheries is regarded by many to be the result of the persistent failure of fisheries management and policy to significantly abate the problems of overfishing (Pauly and Christensen et al 1998, Clark 2007). Some have even predicted the collapse of all commercial fish stocks within the next 50 years (Worm et al 2006), and yet millions of people are directly dependent upon fishing for a livelihood and as a source of protein rich food security (FAO 2006, Allison and Ellis 2001). This crisis arises from the fact that many policies which promote environmental sustainability often conflict with human development considerations. In South Asia, which has the world's fastest growing population of coastal poor (Indian Census 2001), this conflict has the potential to be at its most destructive. Existing policy and management regimes in fisheries have, as yet, been unable to resolve such conflicts between the environmental and human development agendas. The purpose of this proposal is to advance deliberative policy networks in which key stakeholders in fisheries are able to bring together their distinctive expertise and knowledge to build new approaches to governance that directly address this clash. Members of existing networks recognize that competing claims to fisheries exist, and are committed to finding new ways of identifying policy options that accommodate diverse values, needs and goals. The proposal therefore is about building capacity in an unconventional sense. It involves creating a forum in which natural and social scientists can contribute effectively to the grass-roots, democratic construction of sustainable policy for threatened eco-systems and the wellbeing of local communities dependent thereon in South Asia. Our approach draws from two newly emerging fields of research: Wellbeing in developing countries (McGregor 2004, Gough and McGregor 2007) and Interactive Governance of fisheries (Bavinck et al 2005, Kooiman and Bavinck 2005). The proposed network brings together, for the first time, expertise from these two arenas and applies it to the context of South Asian fisheries, building on a history of successful collaboration with partners in India and Sri Lanka. The methodology to be adopted is informed by a conceptual and empirical research framework which defines wellbeing as: 'a state of being with others, where human needs are met, where one can act meaningfully to pursue one's goals, and where one enjoys a satisfactory quality of life' (McGregor 2007). The wellbeing framework provides a means to identify and analyse the full range of relationships between people and the natural resource: it explores fisheries livelihoods, individual needs and goals, and the wider social, political and cultural organisation of fishing communities. It particularly highlights the fact that change in fisheries does not affect everyone equally (Bavinck and Johnson 2008, Coulthard 2008) and what results in improvements in one person's wellbeing may result in another's ill-being - the heart of the challenge for governance and policy is how to recognise and deal with wellbeing trade-offs, conflicts and hard choices. Interactive Governance theory offers a process for deliberating hard choices, primarily through reverting to a discussion of basic values and principles on which governance can proceed. It also works with the idea of moving from 'good governance' to 'good enough' governance and the subsequent implications of doing so. The specific proposal here is to hold three workshops in India and Sri Lanka, where conflicts between poverty alleviation and conservation of fisheries are currently evident. The workshops bring together scientists, local community representatives, policy makers and politicians and will begin instituting an ongoing deliberative democratic process. The third workshop will be a regional forum to reflect upon deliberations and formulate a forward strategy of action and research.