In implementing the Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) in fisheries, the roles of different players need to be judiciously factored in to ensure a level playing field

Jentoft, Svein

Aquatic Commons

JANUARY 2017
9
This article is by Svein Jentoft 
(svein.jentoft@uit.no), from UiT, 
Arctic University of Norway, Norway
The Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries in the Context 
of Food Security and Poverty 
(SSF Guidelines), shepherded 
primarily by the Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations 
(FAO), is the first document of a 
similar nature that talks about human 
rights in the context of small-scale 
fisheries, more generally. The Code 
of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries 
does not do it, for instance. The Tenure 
Guidelines talk a lot about human 
rights but mention small-scale fisheries 
only briefly.
The Human Rights-Based Approach 
(HRBA) is, therefore, a unique 
perspective on fisheries governance 
and management, with implications 
that are interesting and important. 
Some would perhaps argue that it 
goes without saying. People in 
fisheries do, of course, enjoy the 
same universal human rights as 
anyone else. It is, nevertheless, 
sometimes important to state the 
obvious, as a reminder, like when 
Hillary Clinton in her famous speech 
at the World Women’s Conference in 
1995 declared that “women’s rights 
are human rights.” 
It is, however, a novel idea, but not 
an obvious thing, that fishing-rights 
regimes should undergo a human-
rights litmus test. There are people 
out there who think that fisheries are 
too mundane for such lofty ideals 
and principles. They are more 
comfortable talking about a “rights-
based approach” than a “human-rights-
based approach”. We know that the 
two concepts are different and 
potentially in conflict, despite the fact 
that they sound alike.
The concept of the “rights-based 
approach” does not appear in the 
SSF Guidelines. For those who reject 
the idea that it is relevant to talk 
about human rights in the context of 
fisheries, with the endorsement of 
the SSF Guidelines, the train has left 
the station. We do not need to discuss 
whether they are relevant or not; now 
the issue is how to implement them. 
The SSF Guidelines speak to 
states and civil society, and  involve a 
broad set of players—or stakeholders 
—who will vary according to which 
paragraph in the SSF Guidelines we 
are talking about. The word 
‘stakeholder’ suggests that there are 
groups within or outside small-scale 
fisheries who may have things to win 
or lose because of the SSF Guidelines. 
There is no reason to expect that 
they will sit still and passively witness 
their implementation. The word 
“players” indicates that they will act 
strategically, and that they will try to 
outsmart or outmaneuver each other. 
This would perhaps not be so bad if 
the playing field was level. The SSF 
Guidelines would hardly have seen 
the light of day if that was not the case. 
Interdependence
As observed in the SSF Guidelines 
preface: “Small-scale fishing 
communities also commonly suffer 
from unequal power relations. In 
many places, conflicts with large-
scale fishing operations are an 
issue, and there is increasingly high 
interdependence or competition 
Wicked Problems
In implementing the Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) in fi sheries, the roles of 
different players need to be judiciously factored in to ensure a level playing fi eld
HRBA
Analysis
The SSF Guidelines speak to states and civil society, 
and involve a broad set of players—or stakeholders...
10
SAMUDRA REPORT NO. 75
A N A LY S I S
Igssf.icsf.net
SSF Guidelines
maritimestudiesjournal.springeropen.com/
articles/10.1186/s40152-014-0016-3
Walking the Talk: Implementing 
the International Voluntary 
Guidelines for Securing 
Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries
For more
between small-scale fisheries and 
other sectors. These other sectors 
can often have stronger political or 
economic influence, and they include: 
tourism, aquaculture, agriculture, 
energy, mining, industry and 
infrastructure developments.”
These sectors have players because 
they are stakeholders, but they are 
not equally equipped and capable of 
securing their interests, and they do 
not always agree on things. Would 
they, for instance, yield to the concept 
of “preferential treatment”, which 
is mentioned, for example, in 
paragraph 5.4? 
“States should take appropriate 
measures to identify, record and 
respect legitimate tenure right 
holders and their rights. Local norms 
and practices, as well as customary 
or otherwise preferential access to 
fishery resources and land by small-
scale fishing communities, including 
indigenous peoples and ethnic 
minorities, should be recognized, 
respected and protected in ways that 
are consistent with international 
human rights law.”
One should not be surprised 
when this, and many other paragraphs 
in the SSF Guidelines, will meet 
resistance when implemented in 
concrete playing fields. Even if the 
HRBA comes with an aura of 
righteousness and self-evidence, 
its practical application may still be 
contested. Stakeholders tend to be 
opportunistic if it serves their interests, 
and they would know how to spin 
things to show goodwill.
The question is what to do. The 
first thing, I believe, is to recognize 
that the SSF Guidelines are entering 
the playing field that, in many 
instances, look like a minefield, and 
I do not only mean this metaphorically, 
as the SSF Guidelines also mention 
“armed conflict.” They will have to 
engage with stakeholders who may 
not become sympathetic when they 
get to know about them. I think it 
would, therefore, be essential to bring 
stakeholders on board; they should 
be invited in. It is better to have 
them inside the tent than outside, for 
reasons that are well known. 
Co-optation is not necessarily a bad 
thing, especially when your cause is 
legitimate. The implementation of 
the SSF Guidelines would require 
a building of platforms where 
stakeholders can argue about the 
HRBA and its concrete implementation. 
But one would need to be careful 
about how small-scale fisheries are 
secured and represented within such 
arrangements, because they come 
from an underdog position. 
There is a clear risk of small-scale 
fishworkers and their communities 
becoming disempowered, rather than 
empowered, if one does not actively 
try to hinder it. 
Government and civil society 
organizations have both a role to play 
in building such platforms and to 
exercise control so that they remain 
level. They should not need FAO to 
do it for them, but they may still need 
a push. Such platforms could be 
anything from organizations to 
website forums. 
The SSF Guidelines in section 11 
recognize the role of the academic 
community as provider of research-
based knowledge. The academic 
community also has an important 
contribution to make as watchdog. 
Since knowledge is power, it can help 
to level the playing field. 
Social scientists often complain 
that no one listens to them. With the 
SSF Guidelines, I argue, they could 
hardly ask for more. Now they need 
to get involved. Now is their chance 
to make a real difference.                       


HRBA: wicked problems

http://aquaticcommons.org/21181/1/018%20Wicked%20Problems.pdf

HRBA: wicked problems

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Aquatic Commons