The emphasis on cooperation, which underlies all the basic concepts of the philosophy of ocean governance which have been reviewed in these pages, in turn, rests on the assumption that human beings, and living beings in general, are fundamentally cooperative and that the driving force of evolution is indeed cooperation, as was observed by Kropotkin and the school of ecologists that followed him. Of course conflict exists, and will always exist, but in a broader perspective, it is episodic and short-term. In the long term, it is cooperation that prevails, or else we still would be a loosely dispersed mass of single-celled protozoa. There would be no metazoa, no organization, there would be no families, no tribes, no cities, no nations, all of which are based on cooperation.
Cooperation, not conflict, also determines the fundamental relationship between humans and the rest of nature. The philosophy of ocean governance considers cultural evolution as a continuation and acceleration of natural evolution. It considers human beings as a part of nature, not its overlords. It sees continuity between all parts of nature and finds the roots of intelligence, of art, of technology, of religion and ethics, in the animal kingdom. As we treat nature, we treat ourselves, and vice versa. If we destroy nature we destroy ourselves.
The model of ocean governance that I see emerging is in harmony with this philosophy. It rests on the belief that human beings are fundamentally cooperative, a "social species," and that, in spite of all the horrors we have seen especially in the twentieth century, which has been the bloodiest in all recorded history, humans can be motivated to identify self-interest with the common good.
This model of ocean governance begins with the local coastal community This is where people are actually involved in marine activities; this is where they are directly exposed to the ravages of nature and the deadly impact of pollution. It is at this level that we see new forms of cooperation and organization emerging. These new forms are adumbrated in the Brundtland Report2 and spelled out in Agenda 21, adopted by the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. This model is called "community-based co-management, and is being realized in many countries, especially developing countries. "Community-based co-management." means both "horizontal integration," i.e., the participation of ocean users (fishing organizations, harbour masters, tourist organizations, consumers, NGOs, scientists, etc,) in local decision-making, as well as vertical integration, i.e., fora for joint decision-making between local, provincial and national organs. It goes hand in hand with the decentralizing trend in contemporary management theory, which would give the local managers of multinationals a much freer hand to participate in local planning and decision- making and keep them closer to local interests and participation. A lot of problems baffling us at the macro level can in fact be solved much more efficiently at the local community level.
Community-based co-management should now be extended also to coastal megacities which also must be integrated in "integrated coastal management.
2World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
