Abstract
Corporatism -with its privileged access, restricted participation and centralized structures - has a long history in Norwegian fisheries governance. Co-management – understood as a decentralized, bottom-up and more inclusive form of fisheries governance - has not been considered a relevant alternative.. Why does corporatism still prevail in a context where stakeholder status in fisheries governance globally – both in principle and practice - has been awarded environmental organizations, municipal authorities and even consumer advocacy groups? Why then have alternatives to the corporatist system of centralized consultation and state governance never been seriously considered in Norway, in spite of the growing emphasis on fish as a public resource and fisheries management as human intervention in geographically confined and complex ecosystems? We suggest that this may have to do with the fundamental assumptions behind Norwegian fisheries governance that since fish is a national resource, it must be centrally managed. We argue that this is an assumption that may be contested.
Highlights
The history of Norwegian fisheries governance – its institutions, procedures and participants – is basically one of private-public partnership where policy is the outcome of consultations and negotiations, both formal and informal, between industry representatives and government officials
What we have labeled the “second principle” - that fisheries management is a task for central government, is clearly more controversial, and not specified in any act of Parliament pertaining to the fishery
Whereas the first principle of Norwegian fisheries governance enjoys legal backing, the second one does not. The latter, we argue, must be seen in the context of the ongoing political struggle for power and influence in Norwegian fisheries governance
Summary
The history of Norwegian fisheries governance – its institutions, procedures and participants – is basically one of private-public partnership where policy is the outcome of consultations and negotiations, both formal and informal, between industry representatives and government officials. Initiatives for the establishment and (local) management of marine protected areas and proposals by a government task force for regionally delimited fisheries zones, for example, challenge the idea – reiterated like a mantra by the defenders of the old order – that fish, as a ‘first principle” is a national resource and should as a logically derived, ‘second’ principle, be managed by central government.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
