Performing possibilities for community in small-scale fisheries
- PDF / 177,010 Bytes
- 3 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 33 Downloads / 154 Views
COMMENTARY
Performing possibilities for community in small-scale fisheries Lisa M. Campbell 1 Received: 3 November 2020 / Accepted: 6 November 2020 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
In a 2019 review of the natural and social sciences peerreviewed literature on small-scale fisheries (SSF), Smith and Basurto (2019) argue that contemporary interest in SSF—their contribution to global employment, food and nutritional security, etc.—invites scrutiny of SSF definitions. If SSF are a distinct category of activity, to be assessed and ultimately managed as such, on what basis are distinctions made? Although Smith and Basurto (2019, 4) identify a range of SSF attributes, “including the size and type of boat, engine horse power, equipment type, time commitment, catch rates and disposal, environmental knowledge, significance of fishing as a livelihood, and marginality, among others,” their review of the SSF literature over six decades finds definitions focus on attributes of “fishing gear” (58% of publications) and boat type (51% of publications, 60% of which specify boat length). In a review of national policies for SSF in 140 countries, Chuenpagdee et al. (2006) also find boat length dominates definitions (in 65% of policies). Governments and fisheries scientists, it seems, are compelled by a technological distinction. This distinction stands in stark contrast to that made by Jentoft (2020) in this issue. Although recognizing the struggle to define such a globally diverse sector, Jentoft asserts that SSF can be distinguished by the shared attribute of their links to community. Although he does not address directly the inadequacies of the technology-focused definitions, critique is implied: “small-scale fishers depend on their communities as much as they depend on the fish, their boats and gear” (Jentoft 2020, article abstract). In imagining the future for SSF and related research, Jentoft re-directs our gaze away from what is happening on or below the water, to what is happening in the community. He also inverts the presumed importance of SSF to coastal communities, asking instead about the
* Lisa M. Campbell [email protected] 1
Duke University Marine Laboratory, Nicholas School of Environment, Duke University, 135 Duke Marine Lab Road, Beaufort, NC 28516, USA
importance of coastal communities to SSF. There is much of interest in the essay, but I focus on the term community, and specifically Jentoft’s assertion that “the social sciences of fisheries examine the community as a unit of analysis” (Jentoft 2020, article abstract). The assertion struck me in two ways, described below. The first relates to Jentoft’s (2020) unabashed centering of community for the social sciences of fisheries. My response to this centering relates to my own efforts to understand community in the mid-1990s, while conducting my PhD research on wildlife conservation policy and practice. At the time, many conservation organizations were enthusiastic about the potential for community-based conservation and I was researchin
Data Loading...
