Abstract

Wicked problems are typically social justice and social change problems, complex and messy. They mobilize opposed views about the essential nature of the issues, their relative importance and adequate responses. We assert that illegal fishing in small-scale fisheries (SSF) can be considered a wicked problem and our aim is to test this assertion. We relied on a conceptual framework that defines wicked problems as (1) indefinable and non-generalizable, (2) ambiguously bounded, (3) temporally exacting, (4) repercussive, (5) doubly hermeneutic and (6) morally consequential. We applied a qualitative research approach based on field data comprising three illustrative Chilean SSF, whereas secondary data complemented the analysis. The results demonstrate that illegal fishing fits most of the requirements of a wicked policy problem. It is indefinable and non-generalizable, with different representations and uncertainty about its nature, magnitude and effects. Depictions of the nature of the problem varied from a lack of regulations' legitimacy, to a 'combat' to be won. It is ambiguously bounded, caused by interrelated sub-problems (e.g. poverty, access), involving multiple policy sectors, administrative scales and actors. It is also temporally exacting and repercussive as it lacks criteria to prove that a solution has been reached and the implications of alternative solutions (e.g. self-regulation) are unknown. As long as illegal fishing is reframed as a wicked problem, the stakeholders involved can also recognize that there are no perfect solutions and therefore promote a mix of substandard governance approaches.