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

许多人认为，当前世界渔业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的问题（保利和克里斯滕森等人1998年，克拉克2007年）。有些人甚至预测，在未来50年内，所有商业鱼类资源都会崩溃（Worm等人，2006年），然而，数百万人直接依赖捕鱼为生，并将其作为富含蛋白质的粮食安全来源（FAO， 2006年，Allison和Ellis， 2001年）。造成这场危机的原因是，许多促进环境可持续性的政策往往与人的发展考虑相冲突。在拥有世界上增长最快的沿海贫困人口的南亚（印度2001年人口普查），这种冲突有可能达到最具破坏性的程度。渔业的现行政策和管理制度至今仍无法解决环境和人类发展议程之间的这种冲突。本提案的目的是推进审议性政策网络，使渔业的主要利益攸关方能够汇集其独特的专业知识和知识，建立直接解决这一冲突的新治理方法。现有网络的成员认识到存在对渔业的相互竞争的权利要求，并致力于寻找新的方法来确定适应不同价值、需要和目标的政策选择。因此，该提议是关于以一种非常规的方式建设能力。它涉及建立一个论坛，使自然和社会科学家能够有效地在基层民主地为南亚受威胁的生态系统和赖以生存的当地社区的福祉制定可持续政策。我们的方法借鉴了两个新兴的研究领域：发展中国家的福祉（McGregor 2004, Gough and McGregor 2007）和渔业的互动治理（Bavinck et al 2005, Kooiman and 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。要采用的方法是由概念和实证研究框架提供的信息，该框架将幸福定义为：“与他人相处的状态，人类需求得到满足，一个人可以采取有意义的行动来追求自己的目标，并享受令人满意的生活质量”（McGregor 2007）。福祉框架为确定和分析人与自然资源之间的全方位关系提供了一种手段：它探讨了渔业生计、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，即渔业的变化并不是平等地影响每个人（Bavinck and Johnson 2008, Coulthard 2008），一个人的福祉的改善可能会导致另一个人的福祉的改善——治理和政策挑战的核心是如何认识和处理福祉权衡、冲突和艰难的选择。互动治理理论提供了一个审议艰难选择的过程，主要是通过回归到对基本价值和原则的讨论来进行治理。它还与从“良好治理”转向“足够好”治理的思想以及这样做的后续含义相结合。这方面的具体建议是在印度和斯里兰卡举办三个讲习班，这两个国家的减轻贫穷和养护渔业之间的冲突目前很明显。这些讲习班汇集了科学家、当地社区代表、决策者和政治家，并将开始建立一个持续的审议民主进程。第三次讲习班将是一个区域论坛，以回顾审议情况并制订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.