Theorizing participatory governance in contexts of legal pluralism – a conceptual reconnaissance of fishing conflicts and their resolution - Conflicts Over Natural Resources in the Global South - page 166

In addition to the fragmentation of law, we have drawn attention to the shift from
symmetrical to asymmetrical relations, and to the fact that the focus of law and power
has moved away from the coast and the fisheries. Now it is politicians and bureaucrats
in Chennai, New Delhi, Colombo and Pretoria who hold keys to the resolution of
fishing conflicts in South Asia and South Africa. Their actions, however, are perhaps
less informed by the realities of fishing; they also have other concerns that are weighed
against the costs and benefits of addressing fishing conflicts.
Although state law has thus become more influential in the fishing field, we
have emphasised the continued relevance of fisher law for the resolution of con-
flict. Not only is fisher law more fine-grained and tuned to grounded realities than
state law is, it also generally enjoys more legitimacy. Legitimacy is one of the prime
conditions for compliance and enforcement, which in turn are essential to dispute
management. There are thus, in addition to ethical concerns, very practical reasons
for including fishers and fisher law in whatever comprehensive governance framework
comes about.
It is to be remembered, however, that fisher interests and law are no longer
homogenous, but instead highly fragmented and asymmetrical. Less influential fisher
parties, such as populations of small-scale fishers, frequently require external sup-
port in achieving a fair and sustainable outcome. This may come from NGOs, social
activists, government agencies and researchers.
Participatory governance is a process, but also an ideal that is seldom easy to
achieve. This is certainly true where fisheries are characterised by legal pluralism
and asymmetric power relations. Nonetheless, as we have illustrated in this chap-
ter that opportunities for participatory governance have emerged as a result of both
ecological pressures on the resource base as well as the introduction of more inclusive
governance approaches in both South Asia and South Africa. The REINCORPFISH
project hopes to build on these opportunities to contribute to advances in the direction
of co-management.
REFERENCES
African National Congress (ANC). 1994. The Reconstruction and Development Programme
(RDP), a policy framework. Johannesburg: Umanyamo Publications.
Alexander, P. 1982. Sri Lankan fishermen - rural capitalism and peasant society. Australian
University Monographs on South Asia No. 7. Canberra: ANU.
Amarasinghe, O. 2005. Modernisation and change in marine small-scale fisheries of Southern
Sri Lanka. Colombo: Navamaga Printers.
Amarasinghe, O. and M. Bavinck. 2011. Building resilience: fisheries cooperatives in southern
Sri Lanka. In Poverty mosaics: realities and prospects in small-scale fisheries, ed. S. Jentoft
and A. Eidem, 383-406. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bavinck, M. 1984. Small fry. The economy of petty fishermen in northern Sri Lanka. Free
University Press, Amsterdam
Bavinck, M. 2001. Marine resource management. Conflict and regulation in the fisheries of the
Coromandel Coast. New Delhi: Sage
Bavinck, M. 2003. The spatially splintered state: myths and realities in the regulation of marine
fisheries in Tamil Nadu, India. Development and Change 34, no. 4: 633-657.
Bavinck, M. 2005. Understanding fisheries conflicts in the South - a legal pluralist perspective.
Society and Natural Resources 18, no. 9: 805-820.