24. For consideration of Theme Two on the morning of Day Two, participants were divided into three parallel working groups, each of which were assigned the same two major tasks - namely:
25. In order to facilitate group discussion, the Secretariat provided Table 2 as a scope-scale matrix of assessment methods. Cells for which little or nothing could be entered indicate weaknesses or gaps and therefore a lack of appropriateness of the assessment method considered.
26. In reporting back to plenary, working groups pointed out that the matrix provided was difficult to employ because it was only two dimensional and could not accommodate the multi-dimensional requirements for SSF assessments. As a result, of the three groups, one did not complete any matrix, one provided separate matrices for biological assessments and socio-economic assessments (Appendix G) and one suggested that the matrix format be revised.
Table 2. Scope-scale matrix of assessment methods
| Scope | Narrow | Intermediate | Broad |
| - Sector specific | - Fisheries & related livelihood | - Multisector | |
| Scale | - Stock based | - Multispecies | - Ecosystem |
| Micro | |||
| - Community | |||
| Meso | |||
| - Local administrative unit | |||
| - Province | |||
| Macro | |||
| - Country | |||
| - Region |
27. While the working groups made progress in identifying an array of possible assessment methods, the second task of screening methods for appropriateness was not completed. However, it was remarked that most of the methods identified were very data intensive and costly, and therefore of limited utility for SSF assessment in developing countries.
28. Plenary discussion reflected on the value of the matrix approach as a means of pursuing Workshop objectives for identifying weaknesses or gaps in methods that needed to be pursued through research. It was felt that the approach had not explicitly provided a clear view of gaps, but had taken the group some way towards understanding the difficulties to be faced.
29. Discussion groups pointed out that some participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools used for the collection of social data and information have also begun to be used in the biological fields. It was felt that this development should be further explored. Applicability of methods to SSF and Integration.
30. Based on the results of the morning session, participants were requested to discuss in their afternoon working groups the applicability of different “families” of methods to SSF and their technical strengths or weaknesses as well as their potential for integration. Discussion results were tabulated by each group and are consolidated in Table 3.
Table 3. Technical features of assessment methods
| Methods | Purposes | Dimensions | Strengths | Weaknesses | Potential for integration |
| |||||
| Catch and effort analysis | Status and trend of resources | E | Historical perspective | Data intensive | Yes, for economic analysis |
| Length frequency data analysis | Status and trend of stock | E |
|
| Can be used as input for broader bio-economic analysis |
| Participatory ID of resource indicators | Status and trend of resources | Yes, already in ParFish | |||
| Standardized resource surveys |
| E |
| Expensive | Yes with economic assessment |
| Yield per recruit analysis/ analytical methods |
| E |
| Assumptions | Yes with economics software available |
| Eco-system modelling (e.g. ECOPATH; & ECOSIM) | Understand current status of & interactions within ecosystem | E |
|
| Can accommodate ecosystem aspects |
| Participatory habitat/resource mapping | ID critical habitats and fishing grounds | All | Cost effective | Subject to bias | Yes with resource surveys and institutional analysis |
| Cost & earning survey (fishing unit) |
| H |
| Time consuming | Yes - could capture traditional knowledge, fishing activities, species, etc. |
| Work history method |
| All |
|
| Yes with resource surveys and institutional analysis |
| Stakeholder & gender analysis |
| H & I |
|
| Yes - could capture other dimensions |
| Institutional mapping |
| I & H | Can initiate process for change |
| Yes with economic surveys (note business/ management experience; forestry) |
| Socio-economic survey analysis | Improve understanding of livelihood dimensions | H & I |
| Time consuming | |
| Livelihood analysis | Improve understanding of livelihood dimensions | H & I |
| Highly qualitative and difficult for comparative analysis | |
| Socio-cultural survey | Improve understanding of community relationships and identities | H & I | |||
| Policy analysis | Understand policy context (agenda setting, implementation, impacts) | I |
| Difficult to capture informal policy | Yes - can be expanded to other sectors |
| Market analysis | - |
31. The nesting of analytical and data collection methods together into “families” presented problems. For example, livelihoods analysis was seen by some as a single method, and by others as a complex of several methods.
32. The fact that many methods could be applied at different levels of complexity presented another difficulty. The degree to which a participatory approach was used in applying a particular method, for instance, might influence the extent to which it could be integrated with others.
33. The question of what actually was meant by the term “integration” also proved troublesome. The term can be interpreted as “integration of methods” e.g. blending a biological and an economic method together into one single bio-economic method, using one integrated software. It could also be interpreted as “integration of outputs” e.g. using the two methods mentioned above concurrently but separately, considering jointly their outputs. Some argued that the purpose of integration was simply to improve efficiency of assessment. The general agreement was that the assessment framework has to be “comprehensive”.
34. Further discussion on approaches to integration considered whether it should be used to compress the range of methods and particular indices into a few or even a single dimension. The danger of too much compression was flagged, as it may lead to overdependence on one or a few “integrated” indices to reflect very complex systems. The alternative was to view integration as leading to suites of complementary indicators that together provide a comprehensive picture of the status of the system in question.
35. The Day Two sessions ended with general agreement that there were significant issues associated with integrated assessment of SSF, and that these required in depth attention through the project proposed in the draft Workshop Concept Note.
