11. The Secretariat presented "Poverty in Coastal Fishing Communities" contained in document ACFR/III/2000/3 and requested the Committee's advice on how FAO could best focus research aiming to help Members combat poverty in coastal fishing communities.
12. During the subsequent discussion the Committee addressed the conceptual framework for research on poverty in fishing communities and identified a number of issues to be considered for research. The Committee acknowledged the large ranging issues which the subject raised in relation to sustainable fisheries management. It noted that while major segments of small-scale and artisanal fisheries were believed to be poor there was, as yet, no precise definition of, or way to measure, poverty in coastal fishing communities.
13. The Committee further noted that past research on policies/programmes aimed to improve management might or might not extend to the impacts on poverty. Among such policies/programmes were: down-sizing heavily overcapitalized industrial fleets, consolidating property rights at local level, adopting holistic fisheries management approaches and structural change caused by technology development and globalization of trade. Such studies seldom assessed - or documented - vulnerability, exposure to shocks, extent of marginalization or lack of opportunities outside the sub-sector.
14. The Committee concluded that the conceptual framework within which `poverty' was considered was of utmost importance. The group held the view that the concept employed in paper ACFR/III/2000/3 was too passive, and, therefore identified several ways in which the concept could be enlarged, and thus lead to more meaningful research.
15. First it seemed important to remember that poverty is not a static condition but was in fact a dynamic condition. Individuals and households not only progressed out of poverty but also fell into it. Second it was clear to all that often poverty in fishing communities could not be usefully analysed separately from the public economic and social policies affecting development in poor fishing communities. It should not a priori be excluded that poverty originated not in spite of development efforts, but because of them. Third, in conducting studies of poverty in fishing communities it might be important to distinguish between the situation of marine (and large lake) fisheries and that of inland fisheries, as the two groups competed with different resource use groups.
16. The Committee suggested that it was necessary to undertake research aiming to obtain a more detailed, nuanced understanding of the various types and shapes of poverty in fisheries. In a sense this was research on the conceptual framework itself. Such research might include studies that compared the quality of life (thus including poverty) in fishing communities with the quality of life in the country or region of which they were part. This could be done through the comparison of indicators. Studies of the economic, social and physical vulnerability of fishing communities would be a very useful addition to such studies.
17. The Committee further suggested that empirical research on poverty in fishing communities could be divided into several areas of research. Among these would be: (i) the importance of the institutional/governance setting for the origin and persistence of poverty; (ii) studies on processes/mechanisms that had permitted fishing communities to escape poverty and, equally important, of mechanisms that had caused fishing communities to become poor; (iii) studies of the potential impact of effort modulating fishery management schemes on poverty in fishing communities; (iv) studies on community organizations and customary management regimes, their importance for adequate use of community resources and consequent effects on poverty; (v) studies comparing the economic and social rationale of industrial type fishing versus small-scale fisheries in situations where both were feasible; (vi) study of aquaculture as a mechanism for escaping poverty and (vii) studies on the scope of occupational opportunities outside the harvesting sector both within and outside the community.
18. The Committee recommended that, once a thorough understanding of the mechanisms of poverty had been obtained, it might be useful to look into the possibility of developing an instrument for "poverty impact assessment" analogous to environmental impact assessment. Such an instrument could then be applied as a precautionary measure in the evaluation of proposals for fishery policies, development programmes and management schemes.
19. The Committee discussed the potential value of using local and traditional knowledge in improving sustainable livelihoods in fishing communities on the basis of document ACFR/III/2000/4.
20. The Committee acknowledged that there was research merit in using sustainable livelihoods' analytical framework for understanding the place of traditional/local knowledge systems in fisheries. However, understanding traditional/local knowledge alone should not be the ultimate goal. It was also necessary to determine its adequacy for the objective of sustainable livelihoods and how to fill knowledge gaps.
21. The Committee noted that there was a need for more sociology/methodology work on how to obtain successfully and accurately such information from fishing communities, particularly so because the successful meshing of traditional/local knowledge with "scientific" research and management approaches was taking place in the socio-political context, and was accelerated and enhanced where there were strong democratic elements.
22. The Committee noted that there was a need to recognize the limitation of local and traditional knowledge in dealing with new problems arising from new and non-traditional technology/changes.
23. However the Committee highlighted the potential usefulness of local and traditional knowledge when looking at fisheries in the broader ecosystem framework and in the development of appropriate resource conservation methods such as marine protected areas. The Committee underlined the need for a more systematic approach to including traditional/local knowledge in research and management systems, pointing out that this could be enhanced through the development of collaborative research projects between scientists and fishers, a process which was being advanced in a number of developed and developing countries. The Committee identified research on rights-based fisheries regimes in small-scale fisheries as one of the most important opportunities for such collaboration. Finally, the Committee reiterated that research could cost less, have greater credibility and potentially greater impact when fishers participated in both the choice of research to be carried out and in the collection of the information needed.
24. The document, Research and development of appropriate genetic biotechnologies for the fishery sector in developing countries (ACFR/III/2000/5) was presented to the Committee for their consideration of FAO's role in research activities and how appropriate the technologies were for developing countries. The document described how genetic biotechnologies could be used both to assist in the further domestication of aquatic species and to help manage and conserve the genetic resources found in wild populations.
25. In the ensuing discussion, the Committee stated that the technologies should be made available. Recognizing that the field was changing rapidly, i.e. new technologies and techniques were being developed or refined, and that molecular genetic research required significant technical and financial resources, the Committee encouraged the access and transfer of modern genetic technologies in a realistic manner. In this regard, it might be prudent to develop regional programmes where technologies and resources could be shared among countries.
26. The Committee remarked that to transfer technology and improve capacity and understanding of genetic biotechnologies, FAO might assist in the development and implementation of training courses and workshops, such as the workshop on using DNA-based techniques in disease diagnosis on which the Committee was appraised at its Second Session in 1999. The Committee emphasized that a key consideration in transferring genetic technologies to the aquaculture sector was that they should be applied in an environmentally sound manner with due protection of native aquatic diversity. In addition, the social impact of genetic technology transfer should be considered and how it affected the autonomy and economy of rural populations. The Committee suggested that examination of certain agriculture sectors could provide insight into this issue.
27. The Committee noted that the application of genetic technologies to aquaculture, fishery management, and conservation was important for responsible fisheries and therefore endorsed FAO's activities in this area. The Committee also endorsed sections 3.13 and 3.14 of the Bangkok Declaration (the main output of the NACA/FAO Conference on Aquaculture Development in the Third Millennium held in Bangkok, Thailand from 2 to 22 February 2000) on the application of genetics and biotechnology to aquaculture.
28. The Committee acknowledged that the field of genetic biotechnology was progressing rapidly and these technologies were powerful and could provide information that might be difficult or impossible to obtain by other methods. In this context, the Committee affirmed FAO's role as a source of information on fisheries and as an "honest broker" in assisting Members. It noted that, although developing large programmes in research on certain aspects of the genetic technologies, such as resolution of current controversies over genetically modified organisms, was beyond the capacity of FAO at present, FAO should keep abreast of developments and monitor the application of research results in order to assist Members. The Committee envisioned FAO's involvement in research on genetic biotechnologies to be important in terms of its forward looking nature, albeit of limited scale.
