Elsevier

Fisheries Research

Volume 95, Issue 1, 1 January 2009, Pages 1-5
Fisheries Research

Viewpoint
Whatever became of social objectives in fisheries policy?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2008.08.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Throughout most of the developed world, social objectives play a very subdued role in shaping fisheries policy. Despite the persistence of social issues, including access to fishing rights, renewal of the industry’s social capital and the sustainability of fishing communities, the attitude of policy makers is equivocal. Though prepared to acknowledge the relevance of such concerns, they are strangely unwilling to incorporate explicit social objectives into the design of fisheries policy. The paper explores the changing nature of social issues, involving a shift in political attention from the needs of the individual to broader community and societal concerns. And, in the context of the complex multi-level governance frameworks for European and UK fisheries management, it seeks explanations for the reluctance to commit to social objectives.

Introduction

Unlike most Third World countries where social issues – including food security, employment, fair trade and the protection of individual and community fishing rights – are very much to the forefront of fisheries development, in Europe, North America and Australasia the social objectives of fisheries policy have all but disappeared from view. Although disturbing, this turn of events is not altogether surprising. One does not have to look very far for an explanation of the obscuring of the social dimension in fisheries policy.

Even in the developed world formal fisheries policies and comprehensive management systems, as distinct from piecemeal regulation, are little more than 30 or 40 years old. They were born of a growing concern for the depletion of commercially valuable fish stocks through overfishing. Unsurprisingly, the priority objective was to turn the situation around and create the conditions for recovery and sustainability of the resource base. In western Europe, development of fisheries policy also coincided with the ascendancy of neo-liberal thinking at the heart of domestic politics, leading to the displacement of social objectives which were subsumed under the goals of economic growth and wealth creation and a belief that the benefits would inevitably trickle down to enrich the whole community. Where this did not occur, robust social welfare schemes available nationwide would provide a safety net.

In Europe there has also been a shift in the geography of governance. Transfer of authority for fisheries policy making from national governments to European institutions has meant that social objectives have tended to fall between the gaps of what is now a complex multi-level governance framework, as well as between sectoral and regional development responsibilities.

Lastly, the incorporation of sustainable development approaches in fisheries policy has altered and paradoxically weakened the status of social objectives. In particular, moving the time horizons of policy making from dealing with the needs of the present to concern for future generations has tended to divert attention from current social issues. Incompatibilities between economic and social objectives and prioritisation of ‘inter-generational justice’ over ‘intra-generational equity’ have diminished the social dimension of fisheries policy. It is, however, important to remember that sustainable development is a three legged stool embodying environmental, economic and social sustainability: dangers arise when one of these legs is weakened by neglect.

It is certainly not the case that social objectives have disappeared altogether from the rhetoric of fisheries policy. Rather they have been downgraded and made increasingly opaque. Their meaning and application have been changed to suit the political mores of neo-liberal thinking and accommodate the new prerogatives of sustainable development. Sustainability and competitiveness are the new keywords in the vocabulary of fisheries management, displacing earlier concerns for social equity.

In this article we examine how the nature of social issues as applied to fisheries and their management has evolved, demonstrate how in complex, multi-level government systems responsibility for dealing with social concerns can be misplaced, and attempt to explain why governments are reluctant to frame explicit objectives for fisheries policy. Our examples are taken from fisheries policy in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom.

Section snippets

The changing nature of social issues

The social dimension of fisheries policy comprises a broad compendium of issues ranging from individual human rights through concerns for the future of local social structures to much broader societal anxieties concerning the marine environment and sustainability of living resources of the sea. In general, the focus of political attention has shifted from the needs of the individual to the viability of coastal communities and the wishes of society as a whole.

How social issues are handled in EU and UK fisheries policy

The attitude of the European Commission to the social dimension of fisheries policy is ambivalent. It follows a pattern common throughout much of the developed world in acknowledging the significance of social issues but refraining from translating this awareness into explicit objectives let alone operational practices. Rather than serving as an active influence in shaping fisheries policy, social issues are seen rather more as the irritating consequences of policy. At best they are considered

Conclusions

Policy reviews make plain the government’s awareness of social issues affecting fisheries. An intention to give weight to such issues when framing policy is often implicit in statements of overall aims, as in the case of the Commission’s assertion in Article 2.1 of the basic regulation: ‘The Common Fisheries Policy shall ensure exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions’ (CEC, 2002b). So why are governments so reluctant to

References (8)

  • Commission of the European Communities, 2001. Green Paper: The Future of the Common Fisheries Policy, COM. Brussels, p....
  • Commission of the European Communities, 2002a. Communication from the Commission on the Reform of the Common Fisheries...
  • Commission of the European Communities, 2002b. Action Plan to Counter the Social, Economic and Regional Consequences of...
  • Council of the European Communities, 2002. Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the...
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (129)

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text