Governance of Aquatic Agricultural Systems: Analyzing Representation, Power, and Accountability

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Aquatic agricultural systems in developing countries face increasing competition from multiple stakeholders over rights to access and use natural resources, land, water, wetlands, and fisheries, essential to rural livelihoods. A key implication is the need to strengthen governance to enable equitable decision making amidst competition that spans sectors and scales, building capacities for resilience, and for transformations in institutions that perpetuate poverty. In this paper we provide a simple framework to analyze the governance context for aquatic agricultural system development focused on three dimensions: stakeholder representation, distribution of power, and mechanisms of accountability. Case studies from Cambodia, Bangladesh, Malawi/Mozambique, and Solomon Islands illustrate the application of these concepts to fisheries and aquaculture livelihoods in the broader context of intersectoral and cross-scale governance interactions. Comparing these cases, we demonstrate how assessing governance dimensions yields practical insights into opportunities for transforming the institutions that constrain resilience in local livelihoods.

Integrating fisheries and agricultural programs for food security

“…Recognizing that fisheries and farms together often support the livelihoods of food-insecure households, communities and nations suggests that linking these activities is warranted. The work of the CARE-WWF Partnership on community managed no-take fishing zones simultaneously with conservation agriculture trainings in Mozambique is an example of this type of integration [20], as was the program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems managed by the WorldFish Center [17], and the 'More Meat, Eggs, Milk and Fish for the Poor' program managed by the International Livestock Research Institute [38]. Explicit evaluation of integrated strategies is wanting; however, there is suggestive evidence of its effectiveness with respect to rice-fish systems [39] and with respect to the integrated nature of the Millennium Development Villages [37].…”

“…On the agricultural side, while it has long been argued that a single program focus, like increasing grain yield, may be counterproductive to overall food security if it takes away from a more systemic approach such as an institutional reform [16], rarely are connections with marine livelihoods made, even when agricultural projects are dealing with coastal and river delta or floodplain agriculture [17]. The failure of food security strategies to comprehensively understand varied traditions and livelihood approaches is flawed at best and counterproductive at worst.…”

Walking the talk: implementing the international voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries

“…The legal status of small-scale fisheries would need to be clarified in particular cases, and in some countries, as mentioned, new legislation may be required to accommodate the change that the SSFGuidelines aim for. Legal processes and other governance reforms for improving the rights of small-scale fishing people are taking place in some countries, such as South Africa (Sowman et al 2014) and Cambodia (Ratner et al 2013). These provide insights into the conditions for successful implementation of the SSF-Guidelines in other settings as well.…”

Water Governance in Cambodia: From Centralized Water Governance to Farmer Water User Community

“…Furthermore, Dore et al [17] introduce a framework for analyzing tranboundary water governance complexes in the Mekong Region, and argue that water governance is a social process of dialogue, negotiation and decision-making, in which there are many different actors dealing with a variety of issues influenced by their individual and shared context-actors engage in multiple arenas, depending on opportunity, necessity and choice; drivers are what influence and motivate actors; actors employ drivers to establish and legitimize their positions, inform debate and influence negotiations; decisions emerge from the arenas, and the impacts of decisions result in fairness and sustainability of water allocation [17,18]. In addition, Ratner et al (2013) [19] look at the governance of the aquatic agricultural system (AAS) from three governance's dimensions: (i) Stakeholder representation-which actors are represented in decision-making and how? (ii) Distribution of authority-how is formal and informal authority distributed with regard to decisions over resource access, management, enforcement, dispute resolution, and benefit sharing and (iii) Mechanisms of accountability-how are power-holders held accountable for their decisions, and to whom?…”