Introduction

In this chapter the focus is on fisheries governance at the national level. Here the state is a key actor and will, accordingly, be an important focus in what follows. Although there is much discussion about the proper role of the state as a societal institution, even the strongest advocates of a ‘minimal’ state would not deny that the state must be the one responsible for a number of essential functions in every society. Therefore the question is not so much ‘if’ but ‘how’ the state should perform its role, in fisheries as well as in other sectors.

We begin this chapter with a discussion of the role of the state in modern society in general and fisheries in particular, and how it interacts with markets and civil society. Using three case studies from France, Thailand and the Philippines, we illustrate that in governing fisheries, trends are towards dealing with the diversity, complexity, and dynamics in new and more appropriate ways than those of the past. Currently in many countries, the state seeks to relieve some of its responsibilities by devolving authority to lower levels of governance by building public/private partnerships involving the market and civil society. This is also a key emphasis in governance theory, which starts with the assumption that given today's diversity, complexity, and dynamics, the state cannot govern alone but needs the active support of the market and civil society. The creation of functioning working relationships between these three institutions is an important governance issue in itself, as it is ridden with problems and dilemmas as well as challenging opportunities and hard choices.

The next section draws on state governance experiences from three countries in the South: Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Senegal. These cases show that state involvement in fisheries is not always a happy story. In many places around the world, the situations have been quite the contrary. State fisheries governance has been riddled with failures, caused by mismanagement, negligence, or sheer incompetence. But we should not for a moment believe that these are characteristics only of state governance in the South. In fact, if we compare the North and the South with regard to successes and failures, it is not clear that the North would serve as a better example. The state has been part of the problem, and yet it has to be part of the solution.