The vision of REFITOUR was to create a mutually benefitial cooperation between three sectors of a modern, industrialised society: Denmark (using additional experience gained from Ireland) and partly from Germany and The Netherlands.

The tourism sector and the educational sector are both service sectors - or tertiary sectors: people that work to service other people. These sectors are readily open minded towards new possibilities, and they enjoy an integrated position in the overall social interdependence.

The fishery sector, on the other hand, belongs to the primary sector of people working to produce or collect food for the market and the consumers. Their experience of the surrounding society is one of demands, from the authorities, from the customers, and from their families. They feel that we neglect our basic dependence upon them, and they find it relatively hard to see our innovations as innocent visions to be tested by them, voluntarily.

In a highly industrialised society, in 1997, the former development of still higher specialisation has begun changing its direction: people now need to develop broad, diverse competences - they need to be able to work in more than one sector. Also the sectors have gradually realised their dependence on one another, they have seen that they can be more efficient in a close cooperation.

In this complex development, of a vast number of sectors gradually merging, the 'scenario-thinking' has emerged. This is the thinking behind a project like REFITOUR, in both the project proposal and later, where the coordinators explicitly describe the results of their vision as scenes. This is what is demanded by authorities and granting bodies if they are to understand the proposer's idea. The REFITOUR scenario, converting rigged out fishing vessels and fishermen into a tourism facility, was based on prolonged reflections by the proposer, founded upon visionary discussions with representatives from all parties involved. But the scenario, being as well founded as possible, still had a long process in front of it: namely, the development from idea to reality. And in this process a vast number of people needed to learn about the scenario, to agree with its visions and to enroll themselves as active participants in testing the vision. This proved very hard to do with the fishery sector in the scheduled time: half a year.

One explanation for the fishermens' scepticism is that their way of life, and their dependence on the sea, are basically different from the more service minded lives and independent perceptions of the sea environment of the tourism and educational sectors. Ideally, project coordinators and planners are able to perceive this complex of stakes, and to try to create new cooperation. The REFITOUR scenarios still need creative minds to come true.

The REFITOUR project emphasises the need to leave room for pilot projects to spread their scenario, and for the receiving parties to learn about them and accept them (perhaps in an adjusted outline). The REFITOUR experience indicates that pilot projects need appropriate scenarios to get funding, and they need time to build up the necessary back up for the best possible implementation of these scenarios.

I was employed as project coordinator for REFITOUR in the beginning of 1997. The reasons for my employment were that I have 13 years of experience in fishing, experience as a project coordinator on small and large projects since 1989. Immediately after my assignment I directed the project's focus directly towards the fishery sector, as I believed that PESCA funding are basically meant to benefit the fishery sector - if not directly, then at least indirectly. Therefore, we chose to ask the fishermen. "Are you interested at all in sailing with tourists?" And it proved that they were not at all interested - but why? There are propably numerous reasons, but the two primary, which I will try to outline in the following paragraphs, must be the special way of life and their present situation.

For most fishermen the changes within the sector have passed by with amazing rapidity. From living relatively unnoticed by the surrounding society, the fishermen have moved into full publicity during the past 25 years - a movement that they have not agreed to or wished for.

A fisherman traditionally lives to sail, out of the harbour, away from their homes. During his entire life he has the weather as his very first thought - every day. In this matter, the fisherman differs from any project coordinator. We generally do not spend much after thought on nature - instead we primarily reflect upon social relations. Despite any obligations among landsmen, being family events or other social gatherings, the fisherman will always carry the fishing possibilities with him. If he chooses the family event - because of bad weather - and the weather turns out nice, then he will be affected by his - wrong, in his own opinion - decision. He cannot help thinking about the other fishermen, who are now catching all the fish that he should have caught. This is so for him, not because he wants it that way, but because it necessarily is that way for a fisherman/a hunter.

Of course there are major differences between the traditional hunter that hunted for his family and the modern fisherman - but there are no differences between the two souls. Should one want to describe the fishermen as romantic, then they should consider whether this is not primarily because of their own life situation, e.g. the fishermen like to talk about freedom - not his own freedom - but the surrounding society's lack of it.

According to the fishermens' impressions, the surrounding society can be characterised by a hierarchy, where education and linguistic finesse is considered the highest value. Professional and lifetime experiences, built around craftsmanship and an understanding of nature, does not have the status it deserves - in the fishermen’s opinion. Education and linguistic finesse might be useful in most societies, but between the fishermen the hierarchy is under continous change. The fishermen’s results on the sea are considered by him to be determined by a natural competition and a major degree of luck. Therefore, fishermen generally respect each other, independent of their status.

New fishing grounds and new fishing methods will need to be found, plus a number of factors - with luck as the most important - if fishermen are to experience continued success. If these can be achieved, a fisherman will continue to have high status, but it will be based on natural - external from himself - factors, not on education, on complex talking or on being rich. But these are exactly the factors that are the precondition for distinguishing oneself in the general society, and therefore this society becomes a threat to the fisherman's way of life.

The threat become visible when the fishery is controlled and managed. The fishermen find it natural that the fishery is to be managed - not because it posed threats to anyone or anything - but simply because it wasn't controlled beforehand. The fishermen interpret this as another kind of barrier: the manager’s search for areas to control. The fishermen want to conserve their last bastion of values that are unique in the present society. Maybe this is the fishermen’s contribution to the surrounding society - contributing things that we are not (yet) aware that we have lost. Therefore, quite naturally, seen from our perspective, the fishermen are the perfect liberalists. But it must be necessary for any project outline to be aware of the question of whether the fishermen have a choice at all.

With the adjusted objectives in 1997, the primary task of REFITOUR was the establish a dialogue between the fishermen and the people outlining projects for e.g. the European Commission. But even this adjustment turning the project toward the fishery turned out surprisingly. As the project was introduced as an offer for the fishermen, their response was "are we now also asked to sail with tourists?" And the following debate proved that the fishermen found it hard to see REFITOUR as an offer. The fishermen interpreted REFITOUR as a compensation for a mistaken fishery policy. When the quota system forces people out of the fishery, then the fishermen saw REFITOUR as the managers’ attempts to find compensations for them: sailing with tourists.

Therefore, we used the debate with the fishermen to try to identify what the fishermen actually wanted: primarily they want to fish, and if there are less fish, then they would like to participate in raising the value of the fish so that they can continue living from their fishing. They also wanted to participate in raising the general awareness of the fishery in the surrounding society - but without being required to join that society. Further, we had to include the fact that during Summer 1997 the fishermen in Kattegat could make a living out of fishing for plaice. Therefore, we needed to find compensation for the fishermen participating, so that they would not lose money when they weren't fishing, and so that they would not lose face to their colleagues in the harbour. The colleagues were sceptical towards the fishermen that participated, and they would definitely suffer from the humiliation of colleagues saying that they had been fooled by clever project makers - without even being paid. These were reflections and discussions that led to In Honour of the Fish, a supplement to REFITOUR that was implemented with one vessel during the summer.

Local and fishery dependent societies have, because of the structural changes within the fishery, a need for new initiatives. These initiatives can only come true with assistance and support, and for this project innovators are necesarry. But despite the innovatorsÕ best intentions they must be prepared to be met with scepticism and mistrust. The innovators need to seriously consider whether they are trying to save a sinking ship, or whether they actually have an idea for a future that the fishermen will be able to live happily with. Because the fishermen will have to live with their ideas in the future.

REFITOUR and In Honour of the Fish have initiated a dialogue between fishermen and project innovators on Djursland. We have established a fruitful and supportive relation to the Irish partners. Now it is our task to maintain the dialogue between fishermen and the surrounding society, because this is the most important factor for the future fishery in Europe. We hope that our results can facilitate other dialogues in local, fishery related areas arond Europe.