Inland and marine small-scale fisheries provide over one-third of the world's food fish supplies. They give employment and livelihood to millions of fishermen, their families and associated workers. In contrast to company-owned and other large-scale industrialised fisheries, they use more indigenous resources and demand less expenditure in energy, equipment, infrastructure and foreign currency. They often show a better cost/benefit ratio than the large-scale fisheries, more effectively contribute to national self reliance and the national economy and, in most cases, produce more social benefits.
Within the next twenty years, world demand for food fish will double to around 110 million tons. Over half of this will have to be produced in the developing countries. Most of these countries have now established exclusive economic zones (EEZ) which enables them to exercise national jurisdiction over all their near-shore and offshore fisheries resources and their exploitation.
These resources, in many cases, can be exploited by different sectors of the national fisheries, including the small-scale traditional sector typical of rural areas. Often rural small-scale fisheries may be able to provide the same amount of fish as other sectors, at less capital investment, less working capital and more employment per unit of catch. In such cases, therefore, support to and development of the small-scale fisheries could lead to a utilization of the national fishery resources which gives the best national and social benefits, including such aspects as a decrease in the rate of undesirable urbanization.
Due to lack of investment in infrastructural facilities as well as limitations of craft, gear, materials and tehcniques, and, in some countries, also because of overfishing of inshore and inland resources, individual physical productivity of small-scale fishermen in the developing countries is generally low. For similar reasons, the level of waste and spoilage of fish and fish products is often high. In some areas, perhaps a third of the fish caught never reaches markets. The fishing folk often live in remote areas and lack access to supplies and services for their daily needs and markets for their products. They do not get the technical advice and assistance they would need to improve their efficiency. Often they lack adequate housing, clean water supplies and other basic social services. In many countries they earn a precarious livelihood and, in spite of the fact that they contribute significantly to the national food supplies, they fall into the category of desperately poor and disadvantaged people.
The problems affecting small-scale fisheries have become increasingly a subject of critical discussions and deliberations among national and international development agencies. This, in spite continue in spite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that over the past thirty or forty years that share of national and international aid which had been directed at this sector has not produced much lasting success. The sheer magnitude of the task and the usual shortages of government manpower and financial resources are generally blamed for the limited progress. Upon closer examination, however, important mistakes and shortcomings in the planning and conduct of projects have become evident. Apparent problems can be summarized as follows:
(a) Competition for resources. In many areas small-scale fishermen compete with each other for limited and declining resources, or are forced to compete with larger, commercial or industrial scale operators. In these situations, small-scale fisheries development projects aimed at increasing catches can succeed only if small-scale fishermen, presently competing among themselves, are given, access through improved technology, to fishing grounds and stocks previously out of their reach or, in cases of conflict with industrialized fisheries, only if access to the resource is regulated for the benefit of the small-scale fishermen. Otherwise, increasing catch rates would merely accelerate the depletion of the resources and bring about deterioration of most fishermen's income and livelihood. Regulation or management of fisheries, however, is often a highly political issue which can be solved for the benefit of the small-scale fishermen only if the government is prepared to take the legal, political and enforcement steps necessary to redistribute the resources. This can best be done by integrating the development programmes with rational and participatory resource management schemes (see also: Christy, F.T. and M. Ben-Yami, 1982).
Development programmes in fishing communities, however, do not necessarily have to aim at increased catches. Where the fish resource is a constraint, they can range from decreasing production costs and improving utilization, processing and marketing of the fish caught to providing alternative employment for fishing folk (for example, manufacturing of ornamental objects from shells and fish teeth and bones, the raising of poultry on fish waste or fish culture in ponds and cages). In short, anything that may improve the lot of the community and its members can become a target for the development programmes.
(b) Backward level of technology and general development. The low level of development in rural fishing communities in most developing countries stems from the generally low economic, technical, industrial and educational level of development of the country itself. It is very difficult to implement successfully development programmes which require operation at technical and managerial levels much different from and strange to those already prevailing in the country in general, and in the community concerned in particular. While such projects may succeed in a meticulously planned and tightly administered industrial/commercial enterprise, with a large input of highly qualified, often expatriate, personnel and substantial financial resources, their chances of success at community level are close to nil.
Hence, while selecting options for the technology and the organizational structures to be used in a community project, careful account must be taken of the general economic, social, educational, cultural, and technological background. These limiting factors must be given the due priority even at the expense of apparently optimal technical, operational or business efficiency, however attractive these may look on the planning sheet.
) Duration of projects. In retrospect, many projects designed to change the life of the fishing folk seldom used long-term planning and a step-by-step approach.
For example, in a fishing community where fishermen use canoes to fish near the coast, their traditional fishing grounds may be overfished. To sail farther off into the sea where fish may be plentiful, the fishermen would need larger, motorized craft and more expensive fishing gear. Each fishing boat might need more people. More fish would be landed to be processed and marketed. All this would require credit, services, infrastructure and new forms of organization, previously unknown to and unavailable in the community. The new technology and technical know-how are only a part of the problem. A big question may arise as to who owns the equipment, who operates the services and who profits most from the new development. The changes may also affect the way of life of the people. Fishermen may have to spend more time at sea, their wives more time at the market. The life of the community as a whole will be affected. New social and political frictions and conflicts may develop. Some people may feel their former economic position endangered or their social status put at risk by the change occurring and may try to sabotage the programme. Dealing with these factors involves a process of change which may require many years or even generations.
In the meantime, the community becomes involved with unfamiliar technology and new organizational forms such as cooperatives, credit schemes, fishermen associations, etc., which need sustained, long-term technical and managerial support until a new generation which grew up together with the change is ready to take over.
Unfortunately, both international development agencies and national authorities, each for its own reasons, very frequently prefer to support development projects which can be planned and executed in a relatively short period. Projects of, say, two to five years are both administratively and financially convenient to development agencies. Politicians and administrators consider long-term, “open ended” projects a political liability. A mix of well-meant impatience and local pride assumes the form of a patriotic hope for early independence from expatriate technical experts and from foreign expertise in management. The general notion prevails that projects should be executed quickly, in a snappy, clear-cut manner with no ends left open.
But to attempt to develop in a short period what has taken generations to bring about in the industrialized countries is quite unrealistic. Undoubtedly, premature withdrawal of support is one of the main reasons for the failure of many of the earlier projects. (See also: Ben-Yami, 1980.)
(d) Lack of qualified staff. A reason for failure which still persists is that many countries in general, and their fisheries departments in particular, are unable to provide personnel qualified to plan, support and execute fisheries development programmes and extension work in rural areas. In some cases, expatriates have been deployed for rural development projects, although suitable national specialists were available in the country. This happens where local salaries are inadequate to motivate the national experts to leave the comfort and attractions of the cities. The areas which are essential for fisheries development and are most lacking in qualified staff are: mechanical and refrigeration engineering, fish handling, processing and marketing, fishing technology, boatbuilding and, last but not least, credit and business management.
(e) Ineffective extension services. The main tasks of fisheries extension can be defined as: (i) transferring to fishermen facts, information and know-how on improved new fishing, fish handling and processing techniques and equipment; (ii) informing and guiding the fishing folk and thus enabling them access to credit and other financial assistance; (iii) helping them to organize themselves for better representation of their views and interests and for rational utilization of available resources.
A widespread problem is the structure and deployment of fisheries extension services. Many developing countries maintain sizeable services, numbering in some cases hundreds of extension staff. They are, however, often deployed in ones and twos in remote areas where they are expensive to maintain and difficult to support. Because of their dispersion, lack of specialized training, lack of equipment, transportation, or funds for day-to-day operation, support and supervision, it is questionable whether they are having any real impact on the development process and whether they provide the sort and quality of service which the fishermen need. Often, the extensionists have serious communication problems, especially where they come from a linguistic, tribal, religious, class, racial, cultural or political background that is strange or unfriendly in the eyes of the fishing folk.
The problem of fisheries extension is made worse by the fact that in many developing countries the extension workers, as part of their duties, are required to collect statistics, undertake licensing of fishing craft, collect revenues and enforce regulations. This reduces the time and the resources available to them to undertake true extension work. Furthermore, many of these latter duties are looked upon by the fishing folk with suspicion and even enmity, and without trust and confidence there is little chance for successful extension work.
(f) Lack of consultation and participation of local people. Too many development projects have been designed following a relatively short “on site” examination of the situation by outside planners and, indeed, some have been designed by planners who have never visited the area where a project was to operate. Planners have rarely consulted the local people to find out what they consider to be their problems, needs, and priorities, and how they feel the project could best be implemented. Although not all requests one may hear in a village are realistic and feasible, had the planners consulted the local people more carefully they would have discovered how members of the community and its various sectors perceive their own needs and priorities. In a community lacking drinking water, for example, there is little point in starting any development project which does not deal with the water problem. Had the planners consulted carefully with the local people, they would have also received a better idea of what is and what is not going to work under the local conditions. In many cases the lack of popular organizations, associations, etc., within the rural communities meant there was no efficient mechanism through which local people could make their views known. This has also contributed to the difficulties in obtaining good local advice and participation in the planning process.
(g) Stratified society. Few fishing communities are socially and economically homogeneous. Some people own one or more boats, while others may be poor, sometimes migrant, hired hands. There are wealthy dealers and money lenders who may call themselves fishermen, even if only to exercise control and influence over fishermen's institutions and organizations. Most village societies are stratified, and in a stratified society, organization and institutions open to all rarely represent the interest of the poorer and weaker groups, but, rather, reflect those of the dominant ones.
Usually, the dominant people are the best prepared to absorb benefits of development programmes. It is not surprising that many such programmes have resulted in benefits for the strongest and richest in the community, often at the expense of the weaker and poorer fishermen.
(h) Lack of understanding of local traditions. During the planning and implementation of many projects, national and expatriate specialists assigned to them frequently failed to understand or accept local traditions, customs and cultural values, all of which, to one degree or another, affected the response of local people to the ideas of change. This often resulted in indifference, suspicion and even hostility to such change.
Most of the problems outlined above are not restricted to small-scale fisheries. The question of people's participation in development was one of the main topics during the 1979 World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (WCARRD). One of the Conference's recommendations reads: “Rural development strategies can realize their full potential only through the motivation, active involvement and organization, at the grass roots level, or rural people, with special emphasis on the least advantaged.”
The WCARRD concept can be summarized as follows:
People's participation is both an objective and an instrument. The main objective of development requires that benefits primarily should reach the rural poor. People's participation should be both an objective and the key means in the development strategy. This demands active participation of the rural poor in the development process as both agents and beneficiaries. Direct involvement of the intended beneficiaries in all phases of the process is the most important instrument for lasting change.
The people themselves can best determine their needs and priorities. Real participation means that development activities are not imposed on the people. Their involvement in selecting, designing and implementing local development activities ensures that priority needs as perceived by them will be met.
For effective participation people must organize. Development activities must depend, therefore, on social and political organizations (including local authorities) and other institutions at the grass roots level which are able and allowed to make decisions. For meaningful decision making, however, such organizations should have access to resources and decisive influence over their use. The leadership of such organizations should be representative and accountable.
Separate organization are needed for the poor. The poor need separate organizations and any conflict arising from their establishment should be resolved in a manner which benefits the poor. In a mixed organization the true interests of the poor are rarely reflected. Some options for people's organization in a fishing community are given in Fig. 1 and described in the following chapter.
There is no simple medicine which can remedy all the problems and shortcomings listed above. However, a more patient, comprehensive, integrated and participatory approach to the planning and implementation of small-scale fisheries development projects should produce positive results which would not otherwise be possible. Later in this Guide, people's participation will be dealt with in greater detail.
