DFM WG3 Guiding document

Guide to Scoping of the DFM Working Group 3: Policy, Governance, and Development (based on WG 3 discussion notes on 17 December, 2020)

1. “Policy” in a broader societal context refers to “public policy” and is generally defined as a purposefully created system of principles to guide decisions and achieve intended outcomes in addressing prevailing and/or emerging issues and problems. Policies are thus formulated on the “public’s” behalf, usually by the government or through the interaction of government and non-governmental actors (see Birkland, 2011 for further details).
2. In modern democratic states, participatory policy process has been emphasized and implemented in recent decades (Colombo et al. 2011), along with pluralistic and interactive governance (see Jan Kooiman et al., 2008), policy decision-making by-and-large is still made at the higher levels of government structure. For comprehensive policy analysis, it is therefore necessary to map the policy and decision-making processes at all levels, with a particular focus on the executive and legislative structures and processes. This would apply to small-scale fishery and dried fish sectors.
3. It is recognized that:
   1. Existing policies (country-specific, state/province specific) on fisheries, small-scale fisheries and dried fish sectors in the DFM Project countries have not yet been systematically synthesized and mapped.
   2. The policy landscape in terms of policy community with identified actors, beneficiaries, adversely affected people/losers in small-scale fishery and dried fish sectors is relatively unknown. Mapping the policy landscape, along with the actors and key stakeholders, is therefore urgently needed.
   3. In many Southeast and South Asian countries, despite considerable roles played by the dried fish sector historically in the food supply chain, very limited and often no specific public policy on dried fish has been developed. However, numerous policies on small scale fisheries as well as on other food and agriculture-related sectors have had addressed issues of dried fish sectors. What are these pertinent policies and how are they affecting the dried fish sector and its related issues/problems are not well known. Identifying and mapping these policies for their articulation with prospective dried fish sector policies are needed.
   4. There are considerable gaps in participatory policy initiation, formulation and implementation in the fisheries sectors at large. The DFM-WG3 could develop conceptual frameworks/models for such a participatory policy processes in the DFM study countries, with adequate space for country-specific adjustments/ adaptations.
   5. While the scope for policy change by DFM project is limited, it would be feasible to pilot some specific dried fish policy influence sub-projects in selected countries. The activities noted above can guide development of these sub-projects on policy influence interventions. Notably, development of partnerships with policy actors and stakeholders will be a prerequisite for the co-development of these policy-influence sub-projects.
4. The concept of “Governance” has conventionally been applied primarily to governments and “what they do”. As Jentoft and Chuenpagdee (2009) elaborated, in the present-day context of more complex structure and process, governance is “the share, collective effort of government, private business, civic organizations, communities, political parties, universities, the media and the general public” to address societal problems and issues. Thus, the concept of governance considerable overlaps with “policy processes”, however, it differs in two respects: i) policies provide broad guidelines to decision-making whereas governance execute governing actions through institutional means; and ii) “governance is less top-down that it is bottom-up, and in many instances also horizontal, as when business enterprises within the same industry attempt to coordinate their actions” (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2009: 554).
5. It is recognized that:
   1. Conceptual knowledge of governance and governance in practice should be considered as distinct and separate areas of DFM Project activity.
   2. Governance is still a “black box” to some people, and DFM-WG3 should pursue co-learning and co-generating through webinars and workshops on clarifying governance in the contexts of fisheries and dried fish.
   3. Expert knowledge, appropriate methods and approaches, innovative tools and techniques can be synthesized by the work of DFM team members.
   4. Mapping governance landscape in terms of actors and implementing departments/agencies to understand governance of fisheries, especially dried fish sector, is needed. Both desk review and empirical investigation can be applied to prepare such maps/inventories.
   5. The above steps can lead to the co-creation of knowledge of how the governance system in fishery in general and dried fish in particular are working in different country, region and/or sub-region.
   6. Similar to the policy component of the DFM Project, it would be feasible to pilot some specific dried fish governance sub-projects in selected countries. The activities noted above can guide development of these sub-projects on governance interventions. Notably, development of partnerships with social actors and stakeholders will be a prerequisite for the co-development of these governance sub-projects.
6. The concept of “Development” is multidimensional, interdisciplinary and a highly contested one. However, in the context of DFM Project, it should be considered as a means to an end rather than an end itself – that is, as an overall improvement in peoples’ well-being, along with lasting change. It thus relates to improved capacity of economic, political and social systems to offer conditions for that well-being on a sustainable, long terms basis (see Israel, 2018).
7. It is recognized that the works of DFM-WG3, in cooperation with WG1 and WG2, would have accumulated knowledge, lessons learned and practice guidelines on dried fishery sector with profound “Development” implications.  WG3 will need to identify specific “product generation” targets for this purpose.
8. DFM-WG3 should consider exploring into the interconnectedness and interdependencies among policy, governance, and development areas – in terms of academic research and knowledge co-creation, and practice.
9. DFM-WG3 should consider synthesizing cross-country similarities and variations in a) fishery (small-scale fisheries and dried fish focus) policies; b) governance of fishery (small-scale fishery and dried fish focus), and c) development approaches that have implications for fishery, especially for dried fish sector.

References cited

Birkland, Thomas A. (2011). An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models in Public Policy Making. Third Edition. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Colombo, C., Kunstelj, M., Molinari, F., and Todorovski, L. (2011). “Participatory policy process design: lessons learned from three European regions”, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 1-5.

Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R., Mahon, R., Pullin, R. (2008). “Interactive governance and governability: An introduction”, The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1.

Jentoft, Svein, and Chuenpagdee, R. (2009). “Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicket problem”,  Marine Policy, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 553-560.