DEVELOPMENT OF CODE OF CONDUCT GUIDELINES ON POVERTY ALLEVIATION
50. While noting that at the current time it was premature to seek an amendment of the CCRF to better incorporate poverty alleviation aspects, the meeting agreed that it would be desirable to develop appropriate guidance material on this subject (or more specifically a publication in the technical guidelines series of the CCRF). Various issues should be addressed and covered in this material from a poverty eradication/alleviation angle including:
greater awareness of the importance of small-scale fisheries in sustainable livelihoods;
strengthened collaboration and cooperation among all stakeholders in small-scale fisheries;
adoption of an integrated approach to river and basin use;
greater involvement of fishers in policy and decision-making processes;
increased use of traditional knowledge and traditional frameworks in small-scale fisheries;
improved post-harvest practices and increased utilization of small-scale fishery products;
better recognition of gender differences;
elaboration of conservation and management plans for river and lake basins, as well as coastal fisheries;
better marketing/trade on favourable terms for small-scale fisheries;
increased bilateral and international cooperation for inland water systems and coastal fisheries;
improved guidance to obtain better information;
attention to poverty in semi-industrial and industrial fisheries, as well on small-scale fisheries;
a reduction in poverty must crucially tackle the rights of poor, small-scale fisheries.
BETTER INTEGRATION OF FISHERIES INTO PRSPs
51. There is an urgent need for a better diagnosis of the role of the fisheries sector in poverty reduction. But those in the fisheries sector must have a greater participatory role in the development of PRSPs if fisheries issues are to be taken on board adequately. Problems with PRSPs include: (i) they are linked to macroeconomic factors of debt reduction, and not specifically to fisheries; (ii) they are sometimes motivated more by a desire to fulfil the requirements of the IMF and World Bank rather than by serious attempts to understand poverty; (iii) the level of participation and the process itself is very much determined by which ministries are involved and funded; and (iv) the level of geographical detail and subsequent targeting can omit the poorest of the poor.
52. Some important questions remain about the potential of the SLA to contribute to the process of developing PRSPs. Firstly, if the SLA is to be married to PRSPs, both approaches must be known to those involved in policy-making. At the moment, PRSPs seem to be better known to policy-makers than the SLA. Secondly, can PRSPs incorporate the detail obtained through SLA, and does the SLA provide appropriate information to inform strategies in PRSPs? Thirdly, are other sectors using SLA? Fourthly, to what extent do those involved with developing PRSPs really have the power and influence to change national policy? And finally, do the IMF and World Bank require the SLA to be used as part of the PRS process, and should they, given that the SLA is just one of a number of approaches?
53. Given that sustainable livelihoods are not sector specific and governance divided among various ministries, there is a problem of raising the profile of “rural development” sectors more generally in PRSPs. It was suggested that it might be useful to have a brainstorming session in-house at FAO by fisheries staff with staff in other divisions e.g. forestry, agriculture etc. on this aspect.
54. A focus on PRSPs should not divert attention away from the importance of other types of poverty alleviation strategies. Furthermore, in focusing on poverty in small-scale fisheries, and identifying fishing communities, it must be remembered that fishing plays a role in the livelihood strategies of many people not traditionally thought of as living in fishing communities, or thought of as fishers. If PRSPs are to assist poor fishers, care must therefore be taken not just to focus on the “fisheries” sector.
POVERTY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
55. Poverty assessments must take into account the importance of timing and seasonality. There is great need to remain vigilant about biases in poverty assessment methodologies. It was noted that quantitative assessment methodologies must be supported by qualitative ones, and that national level data that already exist (LSMS and census data) could provide great value when backed up by case studies. However, the availability of appropriate capacity for use in poverty assessments can be a serious constraint.
56. Political factors, power relations and physical infrastructure may be more important than the status of the resource base in determining poverty. There is great need for exploration into the relevant importance of different assets, acknowledging that there may be no perfect shape of the SL asset pentagon. Indeed measuring capital assets is very difficult and rather subjective, and questions remain about the extent to which the pentagon can be used to measuring poverty. Governance issues are fundamental to the factors that influence, create and prevent poverty. International factors and processes have great influence on the extent of good governance.
57. There was lively debate about the relative contributions of economics versus other disciplines. It was noted that income indicators of poverty are often highly correlated with composite indicators of poverty, but that the processes which contribute to poverty are much wider than just economic ones. It was also agreed that the diagnosis of income is not enough on which to base programme interventions. Participatory research to explore poverty issues is very important, and it was stressed that it should be checked and validated through appropriate techniques such as triangulation.
RESEARCH GAPS AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
58. There was agreement on the urgent need of research to obtain a better understanding of the manifestations and extent of poverty in fishing communities and on the causal factors of the dynamics of poverty. There was also agreement on the need of research of the factors that influence the contribution of fisheries and aquatic resources to sustainable livelihoods and poverty reduction in especially rural areas. The ACFR conclusions and the literature review provide valuable guidance on research priorities. Participants agreed to make submissions and suggestions on both the process of prioritization and prioritization itself
59. The research framework and methodologies need to be tailored to the intended use of the information. Research aimed directly at informing local-level support of sustainable livelihoods and poverty reduction has to be tailored to the specific situational context and should help in empowering the target groups in decision-making. On the other side, research aimed at measuring the comparative extent of poverty in small-scale fishing communities with other communities and occupational groups has to apply standardized definitions and assessment methods to ensure comparability. Similarly, the analysis of causal factors of the dynamics of poverty can rely to a larger extent on qualitative data for informing local-level poverty reduction strategies and actions than analyses that aim at generating generalizable findings on, for example, the influence of different types of governance structures on poverty in fishing communities. The cross-sectional and panel (i.e. time series) data analyses needed in the latter case have to be based on the use of a common methodological framework and comparable definitions and data collection procedures and usually require econometric techniques. There was agreement that both areas of research were complementary, and were needed to inform strategies and policies in support of sustainable livelihoods and poverty reduction.
60. Regarding the research to be undertaken specifically within the framework of the normative component of the SFLP, the participants agreed with the approach outlined in above paragraphs 46 to 49 and noted the complementary of the SLA and more conventional poverty analyses. Participants agreed on a series of issues that should receive attention in the selection and conduct of case studies as further indicated below.
61. There is an important gap in knowledge regarding the actual contribution of fish to human nutrition, and changes over time. Poverty and food security are closely linked. There have certainly been significant changes in food availability as a result of overfishing and changes in the species composition of the catch (i.e. fishing down the food chain), rapidly increasing fish exports by developing countries, and foreign fishing under licensing agreements. The impact of these developments on fishing and other communities and especially on the incident of poverty is not well researched but likely dependent, inter alia, on wider macro-economic policies. There is a need to try to identify win-win situations (i.e. pro poor and pro economic growth), although it is acknowledged that there may have to be trade-offs and losers.
62. There is a research gap of the factors causing institutional dysfunctioning on one side, and successful policy coordination on the other side, and an urgent need for more policy research and institutional analysis to identify why these failures (and successes) occur and what remedial action can be taken
63. There is also the need to examine how good local knowledge systems are (e.g. for assessing fish stock abundance), the factors that cause them to erode or disappear, and how they could be rejuvenated and strengthened by, for example, facilitating the combining of traditional and modern knowledge systems.
64. It was suggested that while a multidimensional understanding of poverty is essential, poverty alleviation strategies must be focused. It was widely agreed by participants that there is a dearth of literature dealing with dynamic processes and change. Given the lack of empirical studies on poverty, the question was also raised as to whether fisheries research can learn from other sectors e.g. forestry. It was suggested that researchers should consider the subprogrammes of the FAO-DFID livelihood support programme which are dealing with other sectors. It was also agreed that there is a need to identify specificity to fisheries, as well as commonalty with other sectors, as commonalties between sectors may be able to be tackled more easily by national, cross-sectoral policies.
65. It was suggested to revisit and possibly re-analyse past socio-economic studies (and data) to create baseline information for assessments of changes over time. There was agreement that case studies to be initiated within the normative project should build upon earlier research studies. Noting that many such studies have not focused on poverty, participants stressed the need for ensuring comparability of results.
66. The meeting also considered the need for effective tools to disseminate research findings of project/case study results, particularly given that written guidelines and technical reports are more useful to some than to others. It was agreed that key issues that need to be addressed are a) accessibility to the literature, and b) the dynamic nature of the debate on poverty. It was proposed that consideration should be given to guidelines for outputs that might include CD ROMS and web-based outputs to facilitate the ongoing debate, and noted that this would facilitate collaborative input by other projects and interest groups.
