- Political ecology theory emphasizes that environmental problems are never merely ecological. They are simultaneously political, involving struggles over access, rights, and meanings. In the case of destructive fishing, a bias emerges in the way dominant discourses allocate responsibility.
- Fishers become objects of development projects rather than subjects with agency and local knowledge. Political ecology scholars argue that such framings risk obscuring structural drivers of environmental degradation, such as global seafood markets, capital-intensive fleets, or state concessions to industrial extractive industries.
- In fisheries governance, this means that the label “destructive” often reflects the interests of more powerful actors who seek to regulate or control local communities rather than confront systemic problems.
PELAKITA.ID – The degradation of coastal and marine ecosystems has long been linked to so-called destructive fishing practices (DFPs)—such as blast fishing, cyanide fishing, bottom trawling, or the use of fine-mesh nets.
These practices are typically narrated as clear manifestations of ecological irrationality: fishers, driven by short-term gain, are assumed to undermine the very resource base on which their livelihoods depend.
However, when viewed through the lens of political ecology, the discourse around destructive fishing is not merely about ecological cause and effect.
It is deeply embedded in questions of power, knowledge, and representation. What counts as “destructive,” who defines it, and whose interests such definitions serve are themselves politically charged issues.
The Mainstream Narrative of Destructive Fishing
Conventional environmental management often adopts a technical and moral framing of DFPs. International organizations, governments, and NGOs commonly portray small-scale fishers as the principal culprits, whether in Southeast Asia, Africa, or Latin America.
Policy documents routinely equate DFPs with poverty, lack of education, and cultural backwardness. Solutions, therefore, are imagined in terms of stricter regulation, enforcement, and the provision of alternative livelihoods.
While these interventions may appear sensible, they also reproduce a narrative of blame that is disproportionately directed toward marginalized communities.
As Bryant and Bailey (1997) argue in their work on political ecology, such framings risk obscuring structural drivers of environmental degradation, such as global seafood markets, capital-intensive fleets, or state concessions to industrial extractive industries.
Political Ecology and the Bias of Representation
Political ecology emphasizes that environmental problems are never merely ecological. They are simultaneously political, involving struggles over access, rights, and meanings. In the case of destructive fishing, a bias emerges in the way dominant discourses allocate responsibility.
Nancy Peluso’s (1992) pioneering work shows how states often deploy the language of “destruction” to delegitimize local practices while legitimizing external interventions.
A similar dynamic applies to fisheries: a small fisher using dynamite to catch reef fish is immediately condemned, while large industrial trawlers that damage benthic ecosystems may be regulated but rarely stigmatized in the same moral terms. This asymmetry reflects differences in power and visibility.
The poor, operating in open view along coastal villages, are easy targets for surveillance and criminalization. By contrast, industrial actors often operate under state licenses and contribute to export revenues, making their ecological impacts less likely to be framed as “destructive.”
Rob Neumann (2005) reminds us that categories like “destructive” or “sustainable” are not neutral descriptors but socially constructed and politically contested.
In fisheries governance, this means that the label “destructive” often reflects the interests of more powerful actors who seek to regulate or control local communities rather than confront systemic problems.
Power, Knowledge, and Environmental Governance
The discourse of destructive fishing also illustrates how knowledge production is intertwined with governance. Scientific surveys, NGO reports, and media campaigns often highlight the visible damage of bombed reefs or poisoned fish, creating powerful images of ecological crisis.
While these images are not false, they function within a broader apparatus that legitimizes particular interventions: patrol boats, stricter policing, or conservation zoning.
As Fabinyi (2007) shows in his ethnography of the Philippines, destructive fishing must be understood in the context of social identity, economic insecurity, and cultural meanings. Fishers are not simply irrational actors; their decisions are embedded in local histories and structures of inequality.
Similarly, Béné (2003) argues that the association between poverty and destructive fishing is misleading unless one recognizes how poverty itself is produced by exclusion from resources, insecure tenure, and dependence on volatile markets.
Such insights challenge the assumption that destructive fishing can be solved simply through behavioral change or alternative livelihoods. As
Eder (2005) notes, interventions that criminalize fishers may further marginalize them while leaving untouched the larger structural forces—such as demand from luxury seafood markets, government subsidies to industrial fleets, or corruption in licensing regimes—that drive unsustainable exploitation.
Toward a Nuanced Understanding
Recognizing the bias in political ecology does not mean denying the ecological damage caused by destructive fishing. Blast fishing does destroy reefs, cyanide fishing does kill coral polyps, and trawling does harm benthic habitats.
The point, rather, is to contextualize these practices within the larger political economy of fisheries. Who defines what is destructive? Who benefits from such definitions? And who bears the costs of enforcement?
A political ecology perspective urges scholars and policymakers to move beyond simplistic binaries of “rational/irrational” or “traditional/destructive.”
It suggests that environmental degradation is less about cultural deficiencies and more about historically structured inequalities in access to resources, markets, and decision-making. This means that meaningful solutions cannot be limited to policing fishers; they must address broader governance failures, market pressures, and development pathways.
Conclusion
The discourse of destructive fishing practices offers a window into the biases that political ecology seeks to uncover. It shows how certain actors—often small-scale fishers—are disproportionately blamed for ecological decline, while larger structural forces remain underexamined.
By interrogating who defines destructiveness, whose voices are heard, and whose interests are served, political ecology provides a critical corrective to technocratic narratives.
Ultimately, sustainable fisheries governance requires more than technical fixes. It demands an honest reckoning with power, inequality, and the politics of representation. In this sense, destructive fishing is not just an ecological category; it is also a political one, shaped by competing visions of justice, livelihood, and the sea.
___
References
-
Bryant, R. L., & Bailey, S. (1997). Third World Political Ecology. Routledge.
→ A classic introduction to political ecology, emphasizing how environmental narratives often serve political and economic interests. -
Peluso, N. L. (1992). Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in Java. University of California Press.
→ Foundational in showing how discourses of “destruction” are used to delegitimize local practices while legitimizing state or corporate control. -
Neumann, R. P. (2005). Making Political Ecology. Hodder Arnold.
→ Explores how categories like “destructive” or “sustainable” are socially constructed and politically contested. -
Fabinyi, M. (2007). “Illegal fishing and masculinity in the Philippines: a look at the Calamianes Islands in Palawan.” Philippine Studies, 55(4), 509–529.
→ Discusses how destructive fishing is embedded in social, economic, and cultural contexts rather than being mere “irrational” behavior. -
Eder, J. F. (2005). “Coastal resource management and social differences in Philippine fishing communities.” Human Ecology, 33(2), 147–169.
→ Examines how policies targeting “illegal” or “destructive” fishing disproportionately affect marginalized fishers. -
Béné, C. (2003). “When fishery rhymes with poverty: a first step beyond the old paradigm on poverty in small-scale fisheries.” World Development, 31(6), 949–975.
→ Links poverty, vulnerability, and the rationality behind practices often labeled as destructive. -
Pomeroy, R. S., & Andrew, N. (2011). Small-scale fisheries management: frameworks and approaches for the developing world. CABI.
→ Provides a wider fisheries governance context, showing how small fishers are often blamed without addressing structural drivers. -
Spijkers, J., & Boonstra, W. J. (2017). “Environmental change and social conflict: the northeast Atlantic mackerel dispute.” Regional Environmental Change, 17(6), 1835–1851.
→ Illustrates how power and politics shape fisheries conflicts, resonating with political ecology concerns.