FISHERIES, FOOD SECURITY AND TRADE: GOVERNANCE A KEY TO SUCCESS

by

Jean-François Abgrall
Researcher
Cambridge, USA

“The governance challenge for food security is not so much to deliver more public goods at the global level, but instead to persuade existing sovereign governments to deliver the minimal public goods needed at the national level.” Governance and Food Security in an Age of Globalization. (Paarlberg, 2002)

1. INTRODUCTION

The numbers are known all too well. Over 800 million people are undernourished. Food security is one of the major challenges of our time. At the World Food Summit of 1996 (FAO, 1996) in Rome, Heads of States and Governments pledged to do their utmost to eradicate hunger. Since then, progress has been slow but the commitment has been renewed and even reinforced. The challenge is larger than ever.

Fisheries need to be an important part of the response. Aquaculture comes to mind immediately, but marine capture fisheries should be a key component also. Properly managing capture fisheries is often a daunting task for many governments in developing coastal States. Some may consider that any additional concern can only compound the difficulty - yet food security ought to be integrated in the plans of the public authorities. It is often a question of the right balance between small-scale and industrial fisheries, or between domestic consumption and exports. Finding those balances is important - maintaining them is essential.

Fisheries sectors vary greatly from one country to another and often, from one region to another, but there are still a number of common considerations that deserve attention. One of them is the peculiar nature of fish trade. As many other commodities, fish can be traded fresh or processed, but unlike most, it can also be traded as fishing rights, and fish trade is tied intimately to the way the resource is managed. Therefore in the fisheries more than anywhere else, reaching for food security calls for policies that establish a continuum from the resource to the world market.

We have chosen to concentrate on some of the questions encountered by the governments when they deal with the management of the resource in the context of food security and trade. The food security objective implies another way of looking at most national and international policies, and at their interrelations. It means adequate institutions working together to insure the proper implementation of those policies. It means articulation between national priorities and international rules. It means efficient governance. Most of all, it requires political will.

In this paper we do not examine the whole fisheries, we concentrate on the harvesting part of it, but we try to present it in a variety of aspects to illustrate the web of relationships that is affected by the choice of food policy as a national objective. Before addressing the problem of governance, it is pertinent to first briefly recall a few evidences about food security and second, some characteristics of the capture marine fisheries.

2. FOOD SECURITY: GLOBAL PROBLEM AND NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

The right to food is being recognized increasingly as a fundamental right. In particular since the General comment No. 12 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN, 1999) gave it its “lettres de noblesse”, it, or at least its other facet food security, has definitely become everybody’s problem. This is true in moral and political terms, but it is also true in economic terms and no major international project on development can ignore it.

According to FAO, 840 million people are undernourished. Most - 799 million - live in developing countries but 30 million are in countries in transition and 11 million in developed countries. No part of the world is spared.

Food security is not only about direct access to proteins or physical accessibility, but also about access to adequate food through economic means or economic accessibility. In terms familiar to economists, it means institutions everywhere and all the time with an affordable supply of food, adequate to meet the demand. It is only when those conditions are not met that more special measures need to be implemented.

Affordable supply of fish requires good management of the fisheries. Demand requires revenues hence jobs, in the fisheries both are dependent on good management. For supply and demand to meet, it takes the proper institutional set-ups. In those three ways too, food security is everybody’s problem.

Food security is not exclusively a developing states problem. When a major stock collapses in a developed country, it can create serious social and economic disasters at least for a period of time. Then, only national and regional pride prevents both the authorities and the victims from relating to the situation in terms of food security. In addition, globally the depletion of a stock is also a loss for the community in general.

In Atlantic Canada in 1980, 422 000 metric tonnes of cod were being landed, in 2001 the landings of cod were down to 43 000 metric tonnes. For the world as a whole it may not have shown, but in Canada and particularly in Atlantic Canada, it did.

Finally, the combination of those regional setbacks and of careless practices, have lead to an overexploitation of the resources that is being felt globally, and world marine captures seem to be tapering off around 90 million tonnes. In that sense too, food security is everybody’s problem. Yet as any example would suggest, the primary responsibility lays with the authority in charge of managing the fisheries, particularly since UNCLOS (UN, 1982). In fact, UNCLOS gave that responsibility to the coastal States very specifically (UNCLOS, Art.61). That does not exonerate the fishers themselves - foreign or national, nor does it make international rules irrelevant, especially WTO rules, but the main actor remains the national authority.

Given this, the first requirement to assure food security is a clear political will on the part of those authorities. In this paper we make the assumption that most governments have indeed that political will.

3. MANAGING THE FISHERIES

Food security is but one of the concerns of the fisheries managers, although important and encompassing but fortunately, not always a new one. It is essential to understand in what context this concern is actually taken in consideration by the authorities. This will contribute to identify the new constraints imposed by the objective of food security. But it will also point at the areas where food security is complementary to other goals.

Fisheries can best be seen as a complex system, which itself can be divided in interrelated components, and those components are themselves complex systems. A. Charles proposes three such components: the natural system, the human system and the fishery management system (Charles, 2001). Typically fisheries policies will include elements in each of those categories. Concern for the natural system will take the form of protection of the resource. In many countries this will imply measures to protect the fish habitat, e.g. Canada^[1], and often to include such measures in a broader framework of coastal management, e.g. Senegal. At the same time, the coastal ecosystems are often recognized as important food source for the neighbouring population, e.g. South Africa.

Many national policies will also promote participation of the population in fisheries management, e.g. Korea, or have special provisions for certain groups in the population e.g. New Zealand. Many will also be concerned with the role of women in fisheries, e.g. Tanzania. Most countries will have different attention for artisanal or small-scale fisheries and for industrial ones. As regularly, countries will also see the fisheries as a source of foreign currency as well as an important contributor in the supply of food for domestic consumption.

As mentioned, the fisheries sector is a complex system, so much so that it does not lend itself to any simple, unique performance criterion. This is reflected in recent recommendations of international organizations that enjoin authorities to manage fisheries “responsibly” (FAO, 1995; OECD, 2000). Responsibility is also what food security is about. This should augur well for its integration in fisheries management.

Furthermore, because of the diversity of social and economic objectives already included in most national fisheries policies, introducing food security should not present any specific difficulty of a technical nature. Therefore, in first analysis it would seem that food security could be a normal and almost natural objective of most national fisheries policies, where there is that political will.

4. BALANCING FISHING FOR FOOD AND FISHING FOR CURRENCY

Food security and right to food do not convey the same degree of obligation. Yet the reflections on the latter offer some advice that can apply to food security. The States’ obligations of; respect, protect, fulfil - attached to the right to food, are also three wise suggestions to reach food security. In fisheries, this suggests that sustainability of the resource should be the first and paramount objective. Here, respecting and protecting the environment and food security, almost blend into a common goal. The former is the immediate condition of the latter. It is a general reality that sustainability of the resources is a precondition to food security, but there may be no other place in the economy where it is as immediately true as in fisheries. That makes FAO’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995) an essential element in the struggle for food security.

Fisheries can either provide proteins directly to some of the populations involved in the activities, or it can provide cash in various ways. It can be cash to the fishermen, who sell their catches on a market, but it can also be foreign currency either through export of fish or through access agreements. All are legitimate goals and the balance depends on the national needs. Therefore, in addition to manage their resources responsibly, the governments must also decide on the proper balance between proteins and cash. That choice will often translate into a balance between small-scale/artisanal fisheries and industrial ones.

There are no universal definitions of small-scale and of industrial fisheries, yet most countries can divide their fisheries in two sectors that correspond roughly to the two categories. Usually, it is even more so in developing countries where each of those options can almost be seen as two different worlds. Economically, socially and culturally, they often are. They require different approaches in the management of the resource and of the fishing activities. They present different challenges in terms of public policies and most of the time in political terms. They both require special attention and one could argue that they are both essential to the fabric of most countries. In addition, the three concurrent approaches respect, protect, fulfil take particular forms in each of them.

There is no perfect correlation between one - small-scale/proteins or the other - industrial/cash or currency. Small-scale fisheries are an important source of cash to the coastal communities, but often it is also a main source of proteins. In Sub-Saharan Africa as in many parts of the world: “The bulk of fish offered for sale is produced by artisanal fishermen living in small coastal or rural communities, often with limited access to urban markets.” (FAO, 1996b). Conversely, industrial fisheries are an important source of proteins for the national populations, but often they are also an important provider of foreign currency. Hence, this balance, between small-scale and industrial fisheries, is a central element of the food security policy in the fisheries. Both will be essential to fulfil national priorities because each will contribute differently to the objective, but any balance will be subject to external and internal forces that will continuously threaten the equilibrium. The challenge for the authorities will be to protect that equilibrium, but at the same time to let it evolve as needs change. As will be seen later, protection will also have implication at the international level.

5. SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES AND FOOD SECURITY

One should be extremely careful when dealing at that level of generality and not forget that some small-scale fisheries are directed exclusively towards foreign currency. However, in many parts of the world - particularly in Asia-Pacific and in Africa, small-scale fisheries are largely equated with subsistence fisheries.

Although generalizations should be avoided, many people find that in the past, small-scale fisheries may not have had all the protection and attention they should have received. However, things have been changing and a new awareness for the importance of small-scale fisheries has re-emerged. The Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia and the Pacific 2000 noted that: “Prior to the 1980’s Pacific island national fisheries were dedicated to developing extractive commercial fishing for foreign exchange. [Yet] subsistence fisheries are of great importance to national food” (UN, 2000). In Africa, IDAF, Integrated Development of Artisanal Fisheries in West Africa, has plaid a pivotal role in maintaining and developing that concern for small-scale fisheries.

It is not only in developing countries that the important role of small-scale fisheries is being recognized. From Canada to New Zealand, Europe and the United States, small-scale fisheries are progressively seeing their rights to subsistence fishing, recognized by the authorities. More and more countries are putting in place specific programmes to enhance the development of such activities; now the emphasis on food security puts them in the limelight.

Although small-scale fisheries vary around the world, they tend to share the same main characteristics and to present comparable challenges to the governments. In addition, most successful management programmes already share or should share much of the same features, many of which are important for food security. It is appropriate to recall some of those important aspects.

Fisheries management

Most small-scale fisheries do not lend themselves to management through output control. Then, it is necessary to resort to other methods to make sure the resource is not over-exploited. Although those other methods rest often on input control, they depend very much on the nature of the fishery from an ecological point of view as well as from a cultural point of view. They may be based on the granting of licenses to the fishers and/or to the vessels, on restricting the number or the use of some gears, on the closing of some seasons, etc. Or they may take the form of TURF - territorial use rights in fisheries, or SURF - stock-use rights in fisheries (FAO, 1999).

To the purists, those are sometimes seen as imperfect methods of control since there are always some variables that cannot be completely constrained. Yet, whatever the method they all have one thing in common, they all lend themselves to fishers participation in the management and precisely because they are “imperfect”, they work better with such an involvement of the principal actors.

The role of the authorities is to give institutional stability to those practices when they exist and perform sufficiently well - respect and protect - or to elaborate new ones with the fishers when the old ones are faulty. This is not only good management but by empowering the fishers themselves, it gives them a direct stake in the fight for food security.

The role of the local communities

Better yet, it may be possible to engage the community in collective and responsible management. At a time where even in developed economies social capital (Putnam, 2000) appears to be an essential ingredient to economic success, it is a way to protect or build such capital in coastal communities. The institutional set-ups must of course take in to consideration the cultural characteristics of the community, thus protecting also cultural rights. In the United States, extensive experience with the Indian communities (Cornell, 1995) has proven that good local government is the key to their economic and social well-being.

Given the right structure, that local authority will likely be in a better situation than any central authority to decide of the mix between the catch that will be devoted to direct supply of proteins, and the catch that will be sold to acquire cash. In addition, those institutions can be empowered with other responsibilities. As is often the case, several communities may be active on the same territory; therefore potential conflicts must be turned into opportunities for dialog and cooperation.

Furthermore, in many countries, there will be an added benefit for those fishing communities. It is often the case that those communities are of different ethnic origin as the main population, and empowering them in the management of the fisheries will be an important civic and political step.

Protecting the coastal environment

Protecting the ecosystem is crucial to maintain sustainable fisheries. Coastal environments are among the more delicate and they are often used for multiple activities. Their proper management is essential for all involved. The “Sustainable Coastal livelihoods Study” in South Africa makes the point clearly, as it deems essential to

“promote win-win solutions for poverty and the environment: Poverty alleviation does not necessarily mean that natural resources and environmental quality have to be compromised. Appropriate institutional arrangements and effective partnerships involving poor people, government and the private sector are required to meet basic needs and improve long-term livelihood prospects.” (Glavovic et al., 2002)

One should not simply assume that traditional conservation mechanisms are sufficient, but building on experience and traditional knowledge is a way of tapping another kind of expertise.

Gender equity

It is more and more recognized that women play an important role toward assuring food security in the communities. They are often the true “manager” of the family units. In many communities they are also quite involved in the fisheries activities^[2] with this particularity that they often concentrate on fishing for food, while men fish more for cash. Although most developing countries now make special mentions of the role and the needs of women in their plans for the fisheries sector, their contributions are still often underestimated. Therefore, it should also be a priority to involve women in the institutions responsible for the management for the fisheries.

Again, the empowerment of women will take different forms depending on the communities and it is not possible to suggest any particular arrangement in abstracto. Yet, on the road to provide food security, gender equity should be considered as a necessary condition and as a principle that should be at the centre of the strategies for small-scale fisheries.

Protecting small-scale fisheries

However, small-scale fisheries are often vulnerable in particular to the development of industrial fisheries. The objective of the actors in the latter is to make profit, and they are more driven by the market forces. Quite naturally, they always want access to more resources making it necessary to protect the small-scale fisheries from their legitimate ambitions.

This can be done in various ways. It is possible to prohibit the use of certain type of gear in some designated areas, thus effectively preventing industrial vessels from harvesting in those areas. Conversely, it is possible to restrict access to some categories of fishers. Alternatively, some species or some special quotas allocations may be fished exclusively by small-scale fisheries. However, because of the dynamic between industrial and small-scale fisheries, most of the time it will take some type of carve out or derogation to protect the latter.

The State may come under heavy pressure from powerful interests to relax that protection from time to time. It is its responsibility to stay the course and to manage the gap between the sectors as the general welfare of its population requires.

The role of the central authority

Often, encouraging small-scale fisheries will be an important priority for the governments in their search for food security. However, it will require an approach different from those the central authorities were often accustomed to. As before, they will set the national goals and priorities, but in their realisation it will have to facilitate, encourage and guide, rather than to impose or to do it yourself. It will still have to educate but in addition it will have to listen, to be flexible and even to tolerate mistakes sometimes (FAO, 2001b). Respect and protect are the keys, fulfil comes as a last resort. Ideally it is the situation of the populations not some administrative convenience that dictates if it is respect and protect, rather than fulfil, that are in order.

However, complex systems like the fisheries are not static. Sometimes they may take unforeseen directions. There are cases, as in Senegal (UNEP, 2001) for instance, where the small-scale fisheries abandoned its traditional activities to turn to higher value species to supply the export market instead of continuing to supply the domestic market. There is usually no reason why small-scale fishers should be immune to market incentives. In some cases, the central authority may then have to play a role of arbitrator and to accompany the small-scale fisheries in their evolution or to remind them of the national priorities.

Finally, in all those circumstances the management of small-scale fisheries will require a high degree of decentralization. It will also mean recognizing the expertise of local leaders, hence accepting a language that is not necessarily that of the administration. Moreover, it will mean dealing with and listening to, women leaders in the communities, which in some cases is probably akin to a cultural revolution. That, and the articulation of macro policies with local needs and conditions, may be a big challenge to some public administrations.

6. INDUSTRIAL FISHERIES AND FOOD SECURITY

Industrial fisheries are also an important component in the search for food security. They can provide employment, foreign currency through exports, and in many cases they contribute to provide proteins to the national consumers or to their neighbours, as is the case in Western Africa.

Fisheries management

As with small-scale fisheries, the first concern should be the proper management of the resource. While the problems are different with industrial fisheries, most developing coastal states do not have the means to fulfil adequately all the functions that such management entails. Estimating the stocks, allocating the rights to fish, and enforcing the rules are complex and costly exercises. The search for food security makes those functions even more essential, and should invite the coastal States to adopt an even more precautionary approach.

The depletion of the resource may have several detrimental effects. Aside from the drastic consequence of its potential extinction - biological or technical, it may raise the cost of fishing, Hence the price of fish makes it difficult for the local populations to afford. (UNEP, 2002)

Among the methods of allocating fishing rights and of controlling the pressure exercised on the resource, individual transferable quotas or ITQ are more and more popular in industrial fisheries. Although they have their drawbacks, especially for countries that are not well equipped to enforce them, they also present a number of benefits that make them attractive and it would not be surprising if their implementation would continue to spread. However, this could ultimately raise some international issues that do not seem to have received much attention yet. We will come to that point later.

Export markets

Fishing for export markets has its benefits especially for countries that do not have many sources of foreign currency, but it also presents a number of dangers even in the best of circumstances. For example, when it is quite remunerative to export, it may become more attractive to sell abroad than on the domestic market depriving the local populations of important sources of proteins. In theory, it could be the right solution if those additional revenues were ultimately used to acquire more and cheaper food, but this does not seem to be a frequent occurrence.

Another problem is that it puts developing countries at the mercy of the world fish markets, of their fluctuations and of the policies of the consumer nations. However, trade liberalization may make it more difficult for some developing countries to remain on their usual markets where they benefited from commercial exceptions.

Unlike agriculture, fisheries from developing countries do not suffer as much from unfairly subsidized overproduction from developed ones. In most cases, subsidization of the fisheries has lead to resource depletion as in North America or Europe. The competition would rather come from the ensuing over-capacity and the resulting low costs of operation of some distant water fleets. That leads us to look at bilateral agreements.

Bilateral agreements

Many developing coastal states do not have the capacity to exploit totally their own resources in their Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ. Hence they turn to bilateral agreements with countries or fishing organizations that have the required capacity. FAO has noted a huge increase of agreements in the past decade. For many countries, this is their main incursion into the world fish market.

However, those agreements have raised some alarm in different circles particularly for their impact on the conservation of the resource and on the local fisheries (O’Riordan, 2002; UN, 2002a). This has lead World Wildlife Fund to propose “A Handbook for Negotiating Fishing Access Agreements” (Martin et al., 2001). Although the expressed objective of WWF is not to advocate and insure food security, the consequences of adopting a more prudent approach to bilateral agreements, will be to enhance food security.

In the context of a policy to provide food security, all the recommendations of that Handbook are necessary conditions. To quote but two of its key principles, it suggests that: “Distant water fleet should not be allowed to fish for offshore components of stocks on which inshore artisanal fishers depends. Emphasis should be given to deepwater species for which local markets do not exist or which require special processing techniques or gear that are not locally available.” (Martin et al., 2001, p. 6)

Those recommendations cover two of the main elements to protect the small scale fisheries, namely protecting their resources and protecting their outlets.

WWF’s Handbook makes another interesting albeit more strategic suggestion, concerning the nature of the bilateral agreements this time. This recommendation could have far reaching consequences, both on trade and on food security if or when it is implemented: “In the medium term we strongly urge both DWFNs [Distant Water Fishing Nations] and coastal States to consider the phasing out of State-to-State payments, and in the long term, to eliminate them altogether. Enterprise-to-State payments would replace State-to-State payments, thus placing the cost of access on the distant water fleet.” (Martin et al., 2001, p. 13)

To facilitate the implementation of that practice, WWF proposes a model agreement between coastal States and industry. For many reasons, this has a lot of appeal. Some of the potential consequences are most interesting since the fisheries could literally enter a new era if that practice came to be generalized.

The dynamic could develop along the following scenario:

A coastal State could apply all the recommendations of WWF for this type of agreement but one - that is - it would set up a mechanism by which it would grant access to the highest bidder.

From an economic point of view, this would be a rational approach and its possibilities are many. Developing States would presumably get a higher fee for their resources. It would also eliminate a major reason for subsidizing the distant water fleets, thus contributing to re-establish some fairness in the world of fisheries. Most of all, the State would make sure that it receives enough revenue to get a reasonable net rate of return, once the cost of research and enforcement are covered. If there was no such opportunity, it would be an indication that the fishery should not be the object of bilateral agreements, nor may be of any fishing at all. There are a number of variations along those lines but most importantly it seems, is the next question.

When coastal States get into agreements with foreign enterprises, how far can we be before the question of Most Favourable Nation - MFN - principle is raised or even before National Treatment is requested (Downes 1998)? The fisheries are not there yet, but given the rapid and profound developments of the last decade in the sector, it might be unreasonable to completely ignore that possibility. Coupling with true ITQ, the fisheries could know profound changes in the medium term.

If this were to happen, it would become even more crucial to think of the best ways to protect the small-scale fisheries and eventually, to see if it is even more necessary to devise exclusion clauses for the application of those principles, to that part of the fisheries. The experience in agriculture should teach several lessons. One is that when negotiations for trade liberalization reach a certain momentum, it is already too late to establish sophisticated, non-conformist positions. The second is that it is not a good strategy for developing countries to count on the generosity of the developed ones to attain solutions favourable to them, despite the granting of special status.

Given those observations and without being alarmist, it may be time to start thinking of special ways to protect small-scale fisheries, and also to identify the needs of industrial fisheries in the context of food security.

7. FOOD SECURITY AND TRADE LIBERALIZATION IN THE FISHERIES

A fair deal of attention has been given to trade liberalization and food security in agriculture, although one may argue that the results are not forthcoming yet. Up to now, trade negotiators have not devoted as much time to fisheries as to other sectors. Maybe by way of consequences the relationship, between food security and trade liberalization in the fisheries, has received somewhat less attention.

The Doha declaration mentions fisheries but it concerns only - one may say - subsidies and the environment (WTO, 2001, art. 28/ art. 33). On the other hand, one may also consider that it is already an important step. It may also be opportune to remember that it took all the way to the Uruguay Round to seriously tackle agriculture, which is over forty years after the creation of GATT. There are lessons in that negotiation that should not be lost to the fisheries sector, one of which is its conclusion with the Blair House Agreement between the United States and the European Union, then the European Community. To many that conclusion symbolises the entire Agreement. Whatever the good intentions of the major players toward the developing world, it may be argued that its special needs were not at the centre of that text.

However, the fisheries sector may not be that far from getting greater attention from WTO. As can be expected, the reflections on subsidies in the fisheries keep tripping on fisheries management. It should also be remembered that during the Uruguay Round, one of the stumbling blocks in fisheries was the insistence of some countries - particularly Japan and the European Union, to deal with access to the resources. This time around, their position does not seem to be much different. Given those signs, it may not be exaggerated to assume that it is only a matter of time before the negotiation takes a larger turn.

If anything, trade negotiations in fisheries could be even more complex than in agriculture. Too often, the specificities of the sector are overlooked and its similarities with agriculture, while sometimes real, are easily overplayed. Among the similarities are certainly the overall need to emphasize food security and the protection of local production. Special concerns for the environment and biodiversity are also in centre stage. In addition, in both sectors, some issues may be common to developing countries and developed countries.

Among the specificities, the renewable nature of the resource and the question of property rights, are the most obvious. Together those two characteristics will combine to give a dimension unique to fisheries, to questions of subsidization or of trade impediments in general. Many of those peculiarities will also surface when dealing with the question of access to the resource and of the protection of the small-scale fisheries.

Yet, protecting the interests of the developing countries with regard to their fisheries is part of the larger challenge that those countries face in trade negotiations in general. A host of questions will have to be addressed that are essential for the fisheries, and that may burden further the capacities of the developing countries. Sanitary and phyto-sanitary regulations are an example. The more stringent the regulations, the more they may require advanced technology - thus imposing constraints on developing States. Other demanding areas of the negotiations may be in the sector of services, in Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), in Rules of Origin, or in Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), all categories that have a special resonance in fisheries. But, of all the questions, protecting the small-scale fisheries may present the biggest challenge. Given the important consequences of the decisions taken in those areas, it is crucial to insist on the necessity to develop positions and alliances that will make sure that national strategy to insure food security are not later undermined by international negotiations.

This cannot be the place to make suggestions as to a strategy for, nor in place of, the developing countries. We may note however, that concerning food security; a number of instruments are being examined in the context of agriculture, such as Special and Differential treatment for developing countries, or the elaboration of a Development Box of which fisheries could presumably be part. Other alternatives although more controversial, could also be considered, for instance along the lines of a multifunctional fisheries sector. Despite all the uneasiness this approach inspires today, presumably, attempts could be made to revisit it to clarify its purpose and to use it as a natural way of making an important link between fisheries and management of the coastal zones.

In any case, it seems that special considerations and exceptions will have to be introduced in trade rules, if food security is to be truly adopted as a major objective of the international community. Recommendations in that sense have been made in several interventions by among others, Mary Robinson, while she was United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN, 2002b).

Food security raises a very important point of principle. It is commonly agreed that the first responsibility to tackle food security belongs to individual states. Yet, it is imperative that the international community itself embrace the decision to respect, protect and fulfil. It implies that the international rules be flexible enough to allow the states to make the required decisions to enhance food security. The central question is obvious: How can a state be held accountable if the international context does not provide room to choose, or - and it amounts to the same thing, if the only policy alternative is to submit to the international context? It is worth noting that it is in keeping with a more general and growing current among economists who are studying the impact of globalisation on various societies. For instance, Dani Rodrick argues that for globalisation and trade liberalization to be truly successful, countries must be given the opportunity to build their own institutional support for their market economy based on their values and norms. This, he writes, has “conflicting implications for multilateral institutions. (...) They must encourage greater convergence of policies and standards (...) They must make room for selective disengagement from multilateral disciplines, under well-specified contingencies, for countries that need breathing room to satisfy domestic requirement that are in conflict with liberalizing trade. In other words, there need to be multilateral rules on how one can depart from multilateral rules.” (Rodrick, 1997, p. 82)

Analyses such as Rodrick’s, will be needed to provide wide and strong foundations to better anchor the concept of “reasonable exceptions” in upcoming trade negotiations. It will also provide a much-needed common language for all those who in different domains are looking to add other crucial dimensions to the negotiations. It will provide a basis for making linkages between sectors. Such linkages will be instrumental as the contribution of the fisheries sector to food security, especially in developing countries, will be better guaranteed if its defence can be integrated in a larger theoretical, as well as policy framework.

It remains, that the first priority for the developing countries is to elaborate their own position. Then it will be important to build coalitions and to follow closely the developments in Geneva. Building coalitions will not be an easy exercise. The conditions of the fisheries vary considerably from countries to countries, and if agriculture is an example, it shows how difficult it is to regroup countries around elaborate common positions. Those countries that favour simple sweeping liberalization have much less difficulties gathering around clear objectives. For that reason, the position articulated to help the fisheries sector contribute to food security must be set in terms encompassing as many situations as possible, but that adds another degree of difficulty to the exercise.

Indeed, there is already a coalition of eight countries that calls itself the Friends of Fish, and which regroups some developed as well as some developing countries. It proposes to eliminate, or at least significantly reduce, subsidies in the fisheries sector. That proposition has received support from other countries but others consider that it is not the priority. It is likely that if the pace of the negotiations in the fisheries were to pick up, other coalitions would also be formed.

Trade negotiations could have a major impact on the way fisheries contribute to food security. Unfortunately it is also an area that requires a great deal of resources and expertise. Many developing countries do not have the capacity to be active on so many fronts. Some do not have permanent representation in Geneva. Most will require help to be successful in those negotiations.

8. GOVERNANCE: THE KEY TO SUCCESS

If food security is to be attained, it will require that most developing countries devote much attention to their fisheries. Yet, even if in some of those countries the fisheries sector is relatively larger than in most developed countries, it remains that in terms of size and priorities, for most agriculture is more important. However, for some island States for instance and for many regions of other states, fisheries are essential to meet the nutritional needs of their populations. Therefore it is essential to set up institutions and mechanisms that allow the fisheries sector to play its role and to protect those structures at the international level.

The first responsibility for food security rests with the States themselves. This is particularly true in fisheries where that responsibility coincide with that entrusted to coastal States by UNCLOS. As the previous developments have implicitly suggested, enhancing food security will mobilize a large amount of human resources and of expertise.

For the harvesting sector of the fisheries only, one could sketch some of the levels of a national programme in those terms:

• Integrating both strategies - small-scale and industrial fisheries - in national policies.

• Accompanying or encouraging the creation or the development of empowered fishing communities making sure gender equity is respected.

• Managing the industrial fishery and eventually opening its operation to foreign fleets.

• Protecting the small-scale fisheries

• Monitoring international negotiations and acting to make sure they do not undermine national policies.

Such are at a glimpse, a few of the functions that must be addressed. Although very simply put, those few points should draw attention to a very important aspect of any policy geared toward food security, i.e. that it will require substantial investment in human resources. Food security cannot be left to laissez-faire approaches as the Invisible Hand needs human eyes, human ears and sometimes, human advice. Each step of a national programme for ensuring food security will require its special type of expertise of well-trained and dedicated civil officials. What is true for the harvesting sector of the fisheries, will also apply to many aspects of every other national dimension of the march toward food security, adding to the competition for already scarce human resources.

Where it is possible, as in the areas of international negotiations, developing states should pool their resources whenever it is suitable. They should also make use of the resources international organizations make available.

It remains that most of the time the developing states will have to conceive their own solutions and those solutions must be integrated in a continuum from the artisan fishers to national policies, all the way to trade rules at WTO. However, to encourage and to assist in the building of local fishing communities, to manage their industrial fishery sector, to participate in international negotiations, developing states must be able to count on international institutions, public and private, while they buttress their own competent and efficient public service where it is not yet up to the task.

Capacity building should be the priority where it is not adequate. Unfortunately, despite recent progress (Paarlberg, 2002), many developing states do not have all the resources to fulfil those multiple tasks. To train those resources and partly to fill the void in the mean time, developing states will have to count on help from the international community.

That help can take different forms. As mentioned earlier, concern for food security is not the exclusivity of developing States. The more the developed States face that challenge in their own communities, the more the developing States can benefit from the policies implemented. Best practices can be adapted to developing fisheries, but more importantly sophisticated trade rules may be elaborated and advocated jointly to promote food security.

In the mean time, assistance should continue to be provided as needed at all levels of the process. Although some areas seem more designated for outside help, particularly the more technical ones like stock assessment, control and enforcement, but also some aspects of trade negotiations - all should be available if food security is to become a reality.

9. CONCLUSION

For any state, reaching food security is a multidimensional task requiring that all the actors involved share the same concern. This is possible only if it is obvious to all that there is a strong political commitment on the part of the central authorities, and that commitment must find its expression in a national policy of which the fisheries are part.

As a part of that policy the fisheries sector will present its own specific challenges, but it will benefit from many initiatives elaborated for other sectors mainly agriculture, but also for environmental protection or some for social and health projects. The close integration from resource management to world trade will impose special constraints and will need specific attention. Reaching food security will require efforts in every part sector.

However, political will and national policies will remain ineffective if they cannot rely on committed and expert officials. Food security is also about empowerment, and empowerment should start with the people in charge of policy implementation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Charles, A., T. 2001. Sustainable Fishery Systems. Oxford, United Kingdom. Blackwell Science. 370 pp.

Cornell, S. & Kalt, J. 1995. Where’s the Glue? Institutional Bases of American Indian Economic Development. Working paper. John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/prg/kalt/glue.htm

Downes, D. & Van Dyke, B., 1998. Fisheries Conservation and Trade Rules: Ensuring that Trade Law Promotes Sustainable Fisheries. Washington, D.C. Center for International Environmente Law, Greenpeace.

FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome

FAO. 1996a. Rome Declaration on World Food Security. World Food Summit. 13-17 November 1996. Rome

FAO. 1996b. Fisheries and Aquaculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: Situation and Outlook in 1996. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 922 FIPP/C922. Rome.

FAO. 1999. Common Property Rights: An Alternative to ITQs by F.T. Christy in Use of Property Rights in Fisheries Management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 404/1. Rome.

FAO. 2001a. Bibliography on Gender and Fisheries. (1990-2001), by Marie-Hélène Kyprianou. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 969. Rome.

FAO. 2001b. Understanding the Cultures of Fishing Communities: A Key to fisheries Management and Food Security by James R. McGoodwin. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 401.

Glavovic, B. et al., 2002. Sustainable Coastal Livelihoods Study. Volume 1: Synthesis of key Findings and Recommended Interventions. Prepared for the Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism. South Africa.

http://sacoast.uwc.ac.za/docsandreports/scl percent20final percent20doc percent2015-1-02.doc

Martin, Will et al.. 2001. A Handbook Negotiating Fishing Access Agreements. Washington, D.C. World Wildlife Fund.

OECD.2000. Transition to Responsible Fisheries. Paris. 272 pp.

O’Riordan, B., 2002. A Trojan Horse. A new deal between the EU and Chili shows how future fisheries access agreement may now shape up. Samudra. July 2002. pp. 36-39

http://ecsf.net/jsp/samudra/english/isuue_32/art8.pdf

Paarlberg, R.L., 2002. Governance and Food Security in an Age of Globalization. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, D.C. 58 pp.

Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. 541 pp.

Rodrick, D., 1997. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Institute For International Economics. Washington. D.C. 128 pp.

UN. 1982. Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty. New York.

UN. 1999. General Comment 12. The right to adequate food. Economic and Social Council. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Geneva.

UN. 2000. Coastal Fisheries Resources. Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia and Pacific 2000. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok, Thailand.

UN. 2002a. Africa seeks to Safeguard its Fisheries. By Mutume Gumisai in Africa Recovery. Vol. 6. #1. New York.

UN. 2002b. The Right to Food: Achievements and Challenges. Report by Mary Robinson, United Nations High Commissioner to Human Rights. World Food Summit: Five Years Later. Rome.

UNEP. 2001. Fisheries and the Environment. Fisheries Subsidies and Marine Resources Management: Lessons learned from the Studies in Argentina and Senegal. United Nations Publications. Geneva

http://www.unep.ch/etu/publications/Fish_and_envi.htm

UNEP. 2002. (Draft) Environmental Impact of Trade Liberalization and Trade-Linked Measures in the Fisheries Sector. Prepared by National Oceanic and Fisheries Research Centre. Nouadhibou. Mauritania.

Wolter, Frank. 2001. The WTO and the Right to Food. Contribution to the International Seminar “The Right to Food: A Challenge for Peace and Development in the 21^st Century” Istituto Internazionale Jacques Maritain. Rome.

WTO. 2001. Ministerial Declaration, Ministerial Conference, Fourth Session, Doha, Quatar, 9-14 February 2001. (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/W/1). Geneva.