CLOSING SESSION

42. During the final session of the Workshop participants framed consensus on a set of summary and concluding statements, as well as on next steps to take.

Summary and conclusions

43. The Workshop agreed that small-scale fisheries contribute significantly to poverty alleviation and improvement of food security, and play an important role in sustainable use of aquatic resources. However, the Workshop expressed concern over the lack of methods to demonstrate this contribution.

44. The importance was stressed of clearly identifying who assessments are for (clients/beneficiaries) and what purpose they serve in the context of a larger development agenda for SSF.

45. The Workshop noted that it was useful to make a distinction between two major types of assessments - diagnostic and ongoing. Ongoing assessments are part of an iterative process that monitors progress in implementing action and feeds into an adaptive learning process, whereas diagnostic assessments are used more to provide a “snap shot” of a situation. More work has been done on diagnostic assessments of socio-economic dimensions as compared to environmental/resource dimensions. Diagnostic assessment should lead to ongoing assessment.

46. It is important to exert due efforts to explore the availability of existing data/information and also the possibility of coordinating with other ongoing initiatives before investing scarce resources on assessment. Such information can be fed into planned assessments, whether diagnostic or ongoing.

47. It is not possible to assess SSF in isolation from their broader context, including large scale fisheries and sectors outside of fisheries. Externalities must be considered and assessments must be based on more holistic and integrated analysis.

48. Principles that should underpin selection of diagnostic and ongoing assessment methods were formulated by the Workshop to guide analysis and development of methods for interdisciplinary assessment in future.

49. Participants noted that there are many frameworks for dealing with the large number of attributes of a small-scale fishery under assessment. One general approach is to group these frameworks in terms of major domains: i) Environmental/resources; ii) Human/developmental; and iii) Institutional/governance. This approach was used during the Workshop to categorize known methods as a means to identify their respective weaknesses as well as their potential for expanded application.

50. The Workshop agreed that there was a need for an integrated framework to facilitate comprehensive understanding of the issues, based on the most cost effective and efficient assessments.

51. A preliminary analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of known assessment methods showed that there were considerable limitations with respect to SSF applications in some, and especially for biological methods. There is a need to examine what is available from other sectors (e.g. agro-forestry and water resource management).

52. The Workshop suggested that some methods could be expanded to provide more efficient data collection for more comprehensive assessment of SSF, although it was noted that there were many constraints that would need to be addressed to make this a reality. It was also noted that data collected for one purpose could often be used to address other assessment needs.

53. The Workshop concluded that major constraints on the development of integrated assessments include the lack of:

• standard terminology to describe and categorize available methods;
• evaluation and adaptation of existing frameworks; and
• integration methods, in terms of both data collection and analyses.

54. The Workshop reviewed the proposed project to develop appropriate SSF assessment methods and build individual and institutional capacity within developing countries.

55. In general, the scope of the project proposed in the draft Concept Note needs to be more clearly restricted to the issue of SSF assessment, but at the same time should be placed in a broader development agenda context.

56. A number of specific suggestions for changes in the Concept Note for the project were provided. Participants noted the needs for the proposed project to:

• experiment with various approaches to achieve a particular objective;
• be more explicit in terms of geographical scales to be covered;
• provide more critical analysis and synthesis of information as a baseline for action, including previous assessments and lessons learnt;
• draw experience and expertise from outside of the fishery sector, e.g. forestry and agriculture;
• directly involve small-scale fishing communities in the process of developing assessment packages, especially in identifying major issues;
• identify more specifically the target beneficiaries for capacity building;
• re-examine the logic of the inventory component and consider, for example: i) the use a very simple framework so that all components of small-scale fisheries can be dealt with in a balanced way; and ii) development of frameworks based on major issues that need to be assessed, such as the relative contributions of SSF within the fisheries sector and beyond, and problems of resource depletion arising from degradation of habitats and overcapacity of small-scale fishing fleets.

Next steps

57. Participants agreed on the following list of steps that should be taken as follow up to the Workshop.

• Participants should provide the Secretariat with:

  • feedback on current activities related to SSF assessment (in writing);

  • information on related website and electronic information;

  • key contacts in their region and institutions;

  • written feedback/ideas to back up their verbal comments on the Concept Note; and

  • indications of interest for their involvement in future activities.

• The Secretariat should provide participants with the Workshop report as soon as possible;
• The FAO/WorldFish Center development team for the proposed project should revise the draft Concept Note and circulate it to participants for comments.