Fishers Are Doing It For Themselves? Responsibilisation and the framing of fish habitat rehabilitation and stewardship Kieran Benjamin Gregory Bachelor of Business (International Business) with Distinction Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Business (Research) School of Management QUT Business School Queensland University of Technology 2018 i Fishers are doin' it for themselves! Standin' on their own two feet, And ringin' on their own bells! Fishers are doin' it for themselves! Fishers are doing it for themselves? ii Responsibilisation and the framing of fish habitat rehabilitation and stewardship Keywords Policy, policy problems, neoliberalism, neoliberal governance, governance theory, responsibilisation, fisheries management, interpretive policy analysis, resource management, public stewardship Fishers are doing it for themselves? iii Responsibilisation and the framing of fish habitat rehabilitation and stewardship Abstract Contemporary policymakers are required to respond to a range of challenges including diffuse environmental threats, the changes in practices that by necessity accompany the pivot to sustainable resource management, and the general encroachment of neoliberal thought on policymaking. From a policymaking perspective, the challenge lies in determining how best to deploy increasingly limited public resources in the most effective manner in order to respond to the most complex environmental governance issues of our times. The ascendancy of neoliberal thought has influenced both how government policy is crafted and how government resources are deployed to support implementation. This has led to both the problems and solutions of environmental governance being framed in a particular manner, with an ever-growing list of non-state actors—individual citizens, community groups, NGOs, and business interests—enlisted to advance environmental agendas. This positioning of the actions of non-state actors as a panacea to solving environmental policy challenges is a sufficiently significant shift of responsibility from the state to be worthy of academic attention. The aim of this research is to understand the implications of the current framing of fisheries degradation and rehabilitation responsibilities in stewardship policy. By doing so, this research identifies the discursive strategies used to attribute blame for fish habitat degradation, and whether there is a dissonance between to whom blame is attributed and the stakeholder groups which the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI)—the state government agency with policy responsibility for fisheries management—is advocating take responsibility for remedying the problem. The theory of responsibilisation lies at the heart of this thesis, as the practical link connecting ideal-typical schemes of governance to the practices of policymakers on the ground. Responsibilisation refers to the expectation and assumption of the reflexive moral capacities of social actors. Conceptually responsibilisation can be used to explain how neoliberal policy programs are underpinned by a desire to create congruence between economic rationality and moral responsibility. As a technique of governance, it is premised on the construction of moral agency as a necessary precondition for ensuring an entrepreneurial, self-sufficient citizenry. Responsibilisation is a useful theory to explore why policymakers are seeking to mobilise non- state actors to accept responsibility for problems which have been previously seen as the state’s Fishers are doing it for themselves? iv Responsibilisation and the framing of fish habitat rehabilitation and stewardship role to fix. Indeed, why non-state actors are being mobilised to accept responsibility for fixing problems not entirely of their own making is an issue worthy on academic interrogation. Drawing on Dvora Yanow’s approach to interpretive policy analysis this thesis considers how the degradation of fish habitats in NSW is framed in stewardship policy, how the solutions to this degradation are constructed in stewardship policy, and which stakeholders are attributed with responsibility for enacting these solutions. Forty artifacts either explicitly or implicitly authored by the NSW DPI, which were primarily targeted at recreational fishers, were selected for analysis. In doing so this research uncovers a tension in the analysed artifacts between the attribution of blame (or absence thereof) for the degradation of fish habitats and attempts to mobilise recreational fishers to take responsibility for the solution through engaging in voluntary rehabilitation actions. By connecting theories relating to neoliberalism, responsibilisation, voluntarism, and governance to understand the discursive strategies used by governments to mobilise stakeholders to become involved in stewardship activities, in this case, this research advances the current body of knowledge relating to fisheries management. While the traditional regulatory toolbox used to manage recreational fisheries is diverse, this research has identified that policymakers are increasingly relying on what are arguably less coercive mechanisms to achieve environmental objectives. This research considers the ramifications of positioning recreational fishers to take responsibility for rehabilitating degraded fish habitats, an issue for which they are not the primary cause. Whilst the resourcing pressures which policymakers are dealing with need to be recognised, it could be suggested that recreational fishers are being expected to shoulder a disproportionate stewardship burden. Whilst this burden is framed in terms of civic responsibility, it is ultimately a manifestation of responsibilisation. Fishers are doing it for themselves? v Responsibilisation and the framing of fish habitat rehabilitation and stewardship Table of Contents Keywords ................................................................................................................................ iii Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... viii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ viii List of Images ....................................................................................................................... viii List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. ix Statement of Original Authorship .......................................................................................... x Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. xi Chapter One – Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Developing public policy ..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Facilitating fisheries stewardship ....................................................................................... 3 1.3 Addressing the research agenda ......................................................................................... 5 1.4 Thesis outline ....................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter Two – Literature Review .......................................................................................... 8 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 The movement towards public stewardship of natural capital ....................................... 8 2.3 Public participation in government decision-making .................................................... 12 2.4 Stewardship and participatory governance in fisheries ................................................. 15 2.5 Understanding stewardship through neoliberalism, governance, voluntarism, and responsibilisation ............................................................................................................................ 18 2.5.1 Neoliberalism and environmental management .............................................................. 18 2.5.2 Governance ..................................................................................................................... 22 2.5.3 Voluntarism ..................................................................................................................... 24 2.5.4 Responsibilisation ........................................................................................................... 27 2.7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 29 Chapter Three – Research Methodology ............................................................................. 31 3.1 Research aim and questions .............................................................................................. 31 3.2 Philosophical perspective underpinning this research ................................................... 32 3.3 A single case study approach ...........................................................................................