Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T09:17:27.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Who defines the need for fishery reform? Participants, discourses and networks in the reform of the Greenland fishery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

Rikke Becker Jacobsen
Affiliation:
Innovative Fisheries Management C/O Greenland Climate Research Centre, Kivioq 2, 3900 Nuuk, Greenland ([email protected])
Jesper Raakjær
Affiliation:
Innovative Fisheries Management, Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Skibbrogade 5, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark

Abstract

This article investigates recent reforms of the Greenland coastal fisheries in order to contribute to the general lessons on reform and policy networks in the context of a changing Arctic stakeholdership. It analyses participation in fisheries governance decision-making by examining the emergence of discourses and policy networks that come to define the very need for reform. A policy network is identified across state ministries, powerful officials, banks and large scale industry that defined the need for fisheries reform within a ‘grand reform’ discourse. But inertia characterised the actual decision-making process as reform according to this ‘grand reform’ discourse was blocked by a combination of small-scale fishers’ informal networks and the power of the parliamentary majority. After a parliamentary shift in power the new government implemented the ‘grand reform’ gradually whilst new patterns of participation and exclusion emerged. In this process, the identities of the participating participants were reinterpreted to fit the new patterns of influence and participation. The article argues that fishery reform does not necessarily start with the collective recognition of a problem in marine resource use and a power-neutral process of institutional learning. Instead, it argues that fishery reform is likely to be the ‘reform of somebody’ and that this ‘somebody’ is itself a changing identity.

Type
Northern fisheries
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, T. and Tonsgaard, O.. 2003. Vælgermagt i Grønland [Voting power in Greenland]. In Winther, G. (editor.) Demokrati og magt i Grønland. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag: 133161.Google Scholar
Arctic Human Development Report. 2004. Arctic Human Development Report. Akureyri: Stefansson Arctic InstituteGoogle Scholar
Delaney, A., Hendriksen, K., and Jacobsen, R.B.. 2011. Greenland halibut in Upernavik: a preliminary study of the importance of the stock for the fishing populace. Aalborg: Aalborg University: Innovative Fisheries Management. (IFM working paper 214). URL:http://www.natur.gl/fileadmin/user_files/Dokumenter/Rapporter/FINAL_Upernavik_GreenlandHalibut_SIA_final_.pdf (accessed 2 February 2013)Google Scholar
Degnbol, P., Gislason, H., Hanna, S., Jentoft, S., Nielsen, J.R., Sverdrup–Jensen, S. and Wilson, D.C.. 2006. Painting the floor with a hammer: technical fixes in fisheries management. Marine Policy 30 (5): 534543.Google Scholar
Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P.. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1); 125Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1976. Viljen til viden. Seksualitetens historie 1 [The will to knowledge. The history of sexuality 1]. Frederiksberg: Det Lille ForlagGoogle Scholar
Friis, P. and Rasmussen, R.O.. 1989. The development of Greenland's main industry – the fishing industry. Roskilde: Roskilde University Centre, publications from the Institute of geography, socio–economic analysis and computer science. (Research report no. 67 North Atlantic regional studies).Google Scholar
Gezelius, S.S., Raakjær, J. and Hegland, T. J. 2010. Reform drivers and reform obstacles in natural resource management: the northeast Atlantic fisheries from 1945 to the present. Human Ecology 38: 471483.Google Scholar
Greenland. 2000. Grønlands Hjemmestyre. En vision for fremtiden. Oplæg til strukturpolitisk handlingsplan [Greenland Home–Rule. A vision for the future. Introduction to structural political action plan]. Nuuk: Greenland Home–rule. URL: http://dk.vintage.nanoq.gl/Emner/Landsstyre/Departementer/Departement_for_finans_indenrigs/Oekonomi_og_personalestyrelsen/~/media/6B5019DBEB40433DB02913DE03D7FCC4.ashx (accessed 30 January 2013)Google Scholar
Greenland. 2004. Landsstyreområdet for Fiskeri og Fangst. Redegørelse til landstinget om landsstyrets strukturpolitik for fiskeriet [Ministry of Fishing and Hunting. Report to Parliament on the government's structural policy for the fishery] EM2004/51. DFF j.nr 64.91.01. Nuuk: Greenland Home–rule. URL: http://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Publications/Fangst%20og%20fiskeri/DK/Udgivelser_FA_fiskeripolitik_redegoerelse_for_strukturpolitik_DK.pdf (accessed 30 January 2014)Google Scholar
Greenland. 2005. Rapport fra ’Det uvilidge udvalg’, nedsat af Grønlands selvstyre. Omsættelige kvoter og andre metoder til regulering af rejefiskeriet [Report from ‘the impartial committee’, established by Greenland Home–rule.Transferrable quotas and other methods for regulation of the prawn fishery]. Nuuk, Greenland Home–rule. URL: http://naalakkersuisut.gl/da/Publikationer/2005/10 (accessed 30 January 2014)Google Scholar
Greenland. 2009. Grønlands Hjemmestyre. Fiskerikommissionen. Fiskerikommissionens Betænkning [Greenland Home–Rule. The Fishery Commission. The Fishery Commission's report] Nuuk: Greenland Home–rule.URL: http://naalakkersuisut.gl/da/Publikationer/2009?filterID=5fc7d3cb-b732-4ba3-9bdd-49d355c7b917. (accessed 30 January 2014)Google Scholar
Greenland. 2012. Muligheder for klimatilpasning i fiskeri– og fangererhvervet – status og handlemuligheder. Departement for Boliger, Infrastruktur og Trafik (Klima– og Energikontoret) og Departement for Fiskeri, Fangst og Landbrug. August 2012 [Possibilities for climate change adaptation in the fishery and hunting sector. Ministry of Housing, Infrastructure and traffic and Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture. August 2012] EM 2012/91. IAAN sagsnr. 2012-07 1226. Nuuk: Greenland Self–government. URL: http://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Publications/Departement%20for%20Boliger%20Natur%20og%20Miljoe/Klima%20og%20Energi/Klimatilpasningsredegoerelse%20DK.pdf (accessed 30 January 2014)Google Scholar
Jacobsen, R.B. 2013a. Small scale fisheries in Greenlandic planning: the becoming of a governance problem. Maritime Studies 12 (2). doi: 10.1186/2212-9790-12-2.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, R.B. 2013b. Power and participation in Greenlandic fisheries. The becoming of problems, selves and others in the everyday politics of meaning. Unpublished PhD.dissertation. Aalborg: Aalborg University, Department of Development and Planning.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, R.B. and Raakjær, J.. 2012. A case of Greenlandic fisheries co–politics. Power and participation in total allowable catch policy–making. Human Ecology 40 (2): 175184.Google Scholar
Jentoft, S. 2006. Beyond fisheries management: the phronetic dimension. Marine Policy, 30 (6): 671680.Google Scholar
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C.. 1985. Hegemony and socialist strategy. Towards a radical democratic politics. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Marquardt, O. 1999. The importance of fish in the Greenlanders’ everyday economy: the Moravian congregations of south Greenland. In: Marquardt, O., Holm, P. and Starkey, D.J. (editors). From sealing to fishing. Social and economic change in Greenland 1850–1940. Esbjerg: Fiskeri– og Søfartsmuseet: (Studia Atlantica): 418–40.Google Scholar
Marquardt, O., Holm, P. and Starkey, D.J. (editors). 1999. From sealing to fishing. Social and economic change in Greenland 1850–1940. Esbjerg: Fiskeri– og Søfartsmuseet (Studia Atlantica 4).Google Scholar
Mikaelsen, K. H. and Jentoft, S.. 2003. Limits to participation? On the history, structure and reform of Norwegian fisheries management. Marine Policy 27: 397407.Google Scholar
Nedergaard, P. 2007. Blocking minorities: networks and meaning in the opposition against the proposal for a directive on temporary work in the Council of Ministers of the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 45 (3): 695717.Google Scholar
Raakjær, J. 2009. A fisheries management system in crisis. The EU common fisheries policy. Aalborg: Aalborg University press.Google Scholar
Raakjær, J., Degnbol, P., Hegland, T.J and Symes, D.. 2012. Conclusion. Regionalisation: what will the future bring? Maritime Studies 11 (11). Doi:10.1186/22129790-11-11.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, R.O. and Hamilton, L.C.. 2001. The development of fisheries in Greenland. With focus on Paamiut/Frederikshåb and Sisimiut/Holsteinborg. Roskilde: Roskilde University, Institute of Geography and Development Studies (NORS – North Atlantic Regional Studies – Research papers 53).Google Scholar
Rasmussen, R.O. 1998. Managing resources in the Arctic: problems in the development of fisheries. Roskilde: Roskilde University, Department of Geography and Development studies (Working paper 135).Google Scholar
Skydsbjerg, H. 1999. Grønland – 20 år med hjemmestyre. [Greenland – 20 years with home–rule] Nuuk: Forlaget Atuagkat.Google Scholar
Sørensen, A.K. 1996. Fishing by Greenlanders. In: Holm, P., D.J. Starkey and J.T. Thór. The North Atlantic fisheries, 1100–1976. National Perspectives on a common resource. Esbjerg: Fiskeri– og Søfartsmuseet (Studia Atlantica 1): 89–103,Google Scholar
Suárez de Vivero, J.L., Mateos, J.C.R. and Florido del Corral, D.. 2007. The paradox of public participation in fisheries governance. The rising number of actors and the devolution process. Marine Policy 32: 319325.Google Scholar