Citizen participation is considered a characteristic element of good governance. Whether because of the democratic right that people have to participate in decision-making, or with the objective of achieving a certain end, 1 participation is a process that involves individuals, groups and organizations from different areas and spheres, sometimes with antagonistic interests.
Perhaps for this reason, authors such as Williamson (1991) see participatory decision-making processes as a high opportunity cost, since communicating and discussing everything together represents a very valuable time. From that perspective, hierarchical structures seem to have an advantage over horizontal structures. 2
But then, why would participation be necessary? Williamson's approach applies to companies in the field of market economics, however, when we talk about decisions that affect the public, such as the natural environment or the biodiversity of our forests or seas, there are numerous cases where the exclusion of local actors and other interested social groups has led to degradation, exhaustion and even human rights violations.
Elinor Ostrom (2011), winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics for her long career in the study of commonly used resources, demonstrated that, when users are not allowed to communicate, there is a tendency to overexploit resources. To avoid the tragedy of the Commons, as this phenomenon is called, Ostrom and his colleagues at Indiana University proposed cooperation and governance schemes. 3
In the case of managing fishery resources, the participation of different actors in decision-making plays a very important role, since it is necessary to approach them from an ecosystem approach that involves sharing knowledge and information, as well as generating and deliberating on different management options to finally make decisions. 4
In this regard, the current General Law on Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture establishes fishing and aquaculture councils as public spaces where representatives of the government and interested sectors of society meet to discuss and propose policy instruments with the objective of increasing the competitiveness of the fishing sector.
However, to have spaces for authentic deliberation, fishing councils should be represented by government actors, producers, industrialists, marketers, but also by academics and civil society organizations with indirect interests in fishing activity.
The reality is that the current institutional design of these spaces does not promote effective citizen participation. This is due, among other reasons, to the fact that the regulatory framework favors dominant government participation, and does not promote diversity with the participation of other actors.
According to national and state fishing laws, on average fishing councils must be represented primarily by government actors (61%), and secondly by actors with direct interests (31%), including producers, committee members, and the industrial and commercial sectors. Meanwhile, actors with indirect interests, such as invited experts, academics and CSOs, are considered 8%, 5% and often only as guests.
There is still a long way to go to achieve spaces that guarantee representation in a democratic framework. It is necessary to follow the example of some European countries such as Norway and Denmark, where processes in the management of fishery resources are becoming increasingly open and transparent. In those countries, environmental groups and civil society organizations are even full members. 6
When we have an institutional design that allows all interested sectors to be incorporated into the discussion, perhaps then we can talk about “genuine spaces for citizen participation in fishing” in Mexico.
Quotes:
1. Reed, M.S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417-2431.
2. Williamson Oliver E. (1991). Markets and Hierarchies: their analyses and their antitrust implications. Mexico: Economic Culture Fund.
3. Ostrom Elinor (2011). The governance of the common goods. The Evolution of Institutions of Collective Action. Mexico: Economic Culture Fund.
4. Berghöfer, A., Wittmer, H., & Rauschmayer, F. (2008). Stakeholder participation in ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management: A synthesis from European research projects. Marine Policy, 32, 243-253.
5. Diagnosis of citizen participation in fisheries and aquaculture management in Mexico (2017). Cause Nature.
6. Mikalsen, K., & Jentoft, S. (2008). Participatory practices in fisheries across Europe: Making stakeholders more responsible. Marine Policy (32), 169-177.
Comentarios (0)