|
Number of references |
42 |
|
Geographical spread |
Asia 10, Africa 5, Global 5, Pacific 10, Americas 9, Developed 5 |
|
Number of references dealing with fisheries |
42 |
|
Number of references based on empirical research about the causes/impacts of poverty |
2 |
|
Yearly spread |
Pre 1980 1, 1980-1990 9, 1991-2000 25, Post 2000 3, ? 4 |
8.2.1 General
The literature suggests that fishworker's organizations can be formally and legally incorporated, or develop as a result of the informal groupings of fishermen organizing together for some common purpose. It is also appears that they can be categorized based on three main types of purposes and aims.
1. those which are concerned with local fisheries management or local fishing/social issues in small-scale communities (e.g. fisher councils, village-based organizations with the power to regulate fishing activity, or groupings of those with similar interests);
2. those which focus on credit, marketing, support for new business initiatives, and provision of capital inputs (e.g. cooperatives, associations, local savings groups);
3. those which concentrate on political negotiation or lobbying to deliver policy changes at the regional or national level, and resulting benefits for their members or those they claim to represent (e.g. artisanal fishermen's organizations, labour unions).
While some organizations are obviously multipurpose and involved in supporting more than one of the aims presented above (e.g. cooperatives may be involved in local management as well as the supply of capital inputs), the division is nevertheless felt useful in summarising the literature.
Successful fisher's organizations have the potential to provide significant assets to fishing households and communities. It has been suggested that in countries where small-scale producers are grouped into locally accountable membership organizations, rural development as measured by composite indicators of productivity, welfare and income distribution proceeds at a much more rapid pace than in countries where this is not the case (RAPA/FAO 1987). But what is the empirical evidence for such a claim in the literature?
8.2.2 Management and social organizations
There are many thousands of local management organizations throughout the world e.g. more than 1 300 in Japan alone (FAO, 1993), and increasing interest in their establishment and support as a method of effecting community management and co-management (Brown, 1998; McConney, 1998; Ahmed et al, 1995; Dyer and Leard, 1994; Satia et al, 2001; and others in Dyer and McGoodwin eds, 1994). At the local level, Bort (1987) provides a good example of how fishermen at Charco in Panama agreed through informal discussions to ban the use of trawl nets soon after they evidenced the impacts of their use on shrimp catches. Shrimp catches began to recover soon after the cessation of trawling. Bavinck (1996) also describes the evolution of such an initiative by a string of fisher councils along the Coromandel coast in India who decided to ban the use of "snail nets". It was perceived that the nets would benefit a small number of people in the short-term, but would bring about the decline of other fish stocks, and the ban was thus motivated by beliefs about ecological interdependence and social justice. Lenselink (2002) provides examples of groups of owners regulating fishing activity (to keep market prices high) and of local committees engaged in surveillance. A clear lesson is that if fishworker's organizations are to succeed in alleviating poverty it appears important that they must evolve from the needs and aspirations of fishermen themselves.
The section of this report relating to common property resources and poverty, has already considered the literature that claims that community management organizations and community arrangements can reduce poverty and increase equity and sustainability. Further examples include those presented by Jentoft (1989), and those in Dyer and McGoodwin eds. (1994). However, it is noted that in the fisheries sector, many of these studies focus on the apparent success of local-level restraint on fishing effort and on preventing the "tragedy of the commons", rather than on the impacts on poverty using any empirical evidence. While sustainability in itself is likely to be of benefit to the poor, it tells us nothing about the distribution of benefits, and it is clear that such organizations often benefit influential people in the community more than the vulnerable (Lenselink, 2002; Foell et al, 1999). The literature on common property also includes many conditions deemed to be important for successful involvement of community organizations in management (see also FAO Technical Paper 384/1, McGoodwin, 1994).
Locally based organizations also provide social benefits (e.g. rescue at sea, financial assistance during ill-health etc) that contribute to human and social assets, and thus assist with poverty reduction. In many small-scale fishing communities, social, religious, caste and cultural groups e.g. youth groups, women's groups, religious groupings etc, while not necessarily made up entirely of fishers or fish traders/processors, may nevertheless provide significant social benefits to those involved with fishing or related activities. The importance of such organizations is thought to be considerable (Lenselink, 2002; Archari, 1994).
8.2.3 Economic organizations (cooperatives, associations, and savings and credit organizations)
The literature suggests that there has been a relatively high failure rate of cooperatives in development projects (Poggie et al., 1988; Lenselink, 2002; Canizares et al, 1992), even though many projects have supported them, especially in the late 1970's and 1980's. Failure has often been due to a lack of identification by fishermen with the aims and motivations of these organizations, which have been created from above (RAPA/FAO, 1987). Furthermore, the emphasis on such organizations as conduits of inputs for increased production raises obvious questions about resulting overfishing and the impacts on the poor.
However, studies suggest that where cooperatives and/or savings and credit organizations are based on traditional savings groups, or supported by small-scale NGOs working at a local level and with proper consultation, such organizations are likely to be most successful, and the literature does provide some encouraging evidence for success (Vivekanandan, 1995; Meynell, 1990; Tao and Colyn, 1998). This is particularly so for women's organizations (generally involved with port-harvest marketing activities). However, we have found only one study that provides evidence for the effect of such organizations on poverty (Meynell, 1990). Other "successes" in the literature are usually defined in terms of continued functioning, levels of repayments, or membership levels, and not in terms of the impacts on poverty per se. An additional point of importance is that judging success or failure at any fixed point in time is problematic, as organizations go through periods of relative successes and strengths.
The useful work by Meynell (1990) was based on case studies of organizations (almost all cooperatives) around the world, as reported by in-country authors who were asked to select one organization deemed a success, and one deemed a failure. Although predating the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, the methodology employed the use of a Well-being Index, which was used to assess the change in well-being of members since the formation of the organization. "Different aspects of the physical, social, economic and political well-being were judged by the [contributing] authors". In addition, the authors in each country were asked to assess whether organizations were successful or not in terms of the organization's three main objectives. These included a wide range of aims broadly grouped into: socio-economic well-being of fishermen; fisheries development (including marketing and infrastructure development, access to credit, equipment provision etc); group action; community and social welfare; and involvement with Government.
While not actually based on quantitative empirical evidence as the methodology used more qualitative questionnaires, the activities that seemed to be most successful were marketing, credit, supply of fuel/gear/spares, and specialised activities such as boat-building and cold storage. Some of the numerous factors considered important for success (i.e. in terms of well-being, and in fulfilling the main aims of the organizations) include:
the initiative for forming the organization coming from the fishers, who must have a strong motivation for joining;
popular participation and the influence of members in decision-making;
good quality of leadership, election of key directors and managers, and a lack of corruption (usually through members vigilance);
adequate working capital and good quality of financial management;
a lack of Government control over decision-making, but support for training;
being less isolated from main lines of communication than failing organizations;
adequate facilities, services and equipment;
provision of a unique, efficient service in a manner that is profitable;
freedom in pricing agreements for marketing, and a tendency to purchase all their members' fish with a prohibition of sales by members outside the organization;
membership being confined to boat owners and crew, rather than traders, processors, etc.
These findings support the more qualitative views expressed in other literature. Cooperative facilities, management (especially the quality and integrity of leadership) and social solidarity are all found to be especially important to ensure cooperative success (RAPA/FAO, 1987). For example, Geheb and Binns (1997) found that fishermen on Lake Victoria had low savings levels, partly because of perceived corruption by those involved with cooperative management. Betke (1988) suggested that continued State involvement serves to ensure that cooperatives are more to do with coopting the rural elites than cooperatives for the poor.
8.2.4 "Political" organizations
A variety of forms of organizations have evolved in an attempt to deal with the fact that fishers are often at the margin of society - geographically, economically, socio-culturally, and politically (Kurien,1992). Some are made up of fishers themselves, while others claim merely to represent their interests. It is not within the scope of this report to consider in any detail the impact of organizations representing the interests of fishers, where the organization's membership/workers are not comprised of fishers themselves. Examples include NGOs and social activists operating at the local (Ahmed et al, 1995), national and international level, religious groups (Kurien, 1992) etc. However the potential impact of such organizations on poverty is considerable and should not be forgotten, especially given their potential not just to lobby and work with fisher's organizations, but also to assist with the creation of organizations whose representatives are fishers. NGOs can mobilize political support for small-scale fishers, and have even resorted to political violence to protect their interests against larger-scale industrial vessels (Bailey, 1985).
In terms of "political" organizations comprised of fishers themselves, there are a number of common aims such as:
recognition or preservation of historical access rights to in-shore resources;
a ban on some harvesting technologies that compete with small-scale fishers;
more appropriate technology;
fairer prices for catches;
more participation in the formulation of fisheries development and management practices;
increased wages and improved working conditions (by labour unions);
regulation of non-fishing activities impacting on the fisheries sector (e.g. environmental degradation from pollution, siltation, use or river water for irrigation).
The literature presents some interesting examples of such organizations, such as the Fishworkers' Union of Senegal (Gaye, 1995), which is attempting to make changes in EU policy and practice on fishing agreements, the All-Indonesia Association of Fishermen in Indonesia, which was successful in pressurizing the government to impose a ban on trawling, and the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum which is lobbying to make changes which will increase fisheries productivity in the Indus Delta.
Consideration of one example presented by Kurien (1992) in a little more detail is illustrative of some key themes. Kurien described how during the 1980s the Kerala Independent Fishworkers Federation mobilized against trawling by using fasts, roadblocks and large demonstrations. However, political forces throughout the 1980s undermined the Federation, and even though their activities resulted in the Kerala Marine Fisheries Regulation Act in the early 1980s, the use of artificial reefs that interfered with trawling, and the introduction of a monsoon ban on trawling in 1988, the impacts on poverty are questionable. The Fisheries Regulation Act was not well enforced, motorisation of the artisanal fleet during the 1980s drastically increased fishing effort dissipating rents, and following the three-month monsoon ban on trawling it is "unlikely that [the increased] harvest had a commensurate positive effect on incomes of fishermen" because increased landings resulted in depressed shore prices, although it did reduce the cost of fish for poor people and therefore assisted with food security.
The example supports other literature, which illustrates how politicians and policy makers have had to deal with the numerical political clout of some large organizations. However, while fisher's organizations might be vocal in their claims for support from Government (and even of their successes in reducing poverty) and may be successful to the extent of some policy changes, this does not necessarily imply that their actions are of great benefit in reducing poverty. This is not to say that they never are, but on the one hand a large number of forces often conspire against them so that effecting change is very difficult, and on the other, even if changes are made, other factors (e.g. lack of control on access by small-scale fishermen, or motorisation and increasing effort) may negate the benefits of any policy changes. Furthermore, we have found no evidence in the literature for the causal benefits from fishers organizations on poverty that have been backed up by empirical study.
The existence of national or even international groupings of small-scale fishers, bringing together small fisher organizations under one umbrella for the purpose of political lobbying is also interesting. Examples include the National Fishworkers' Forum (India) and the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF).
There is also little written in the literature we have reviewed on the effectiveness of unions operating in small-scale fisheries to bring about higher wages and improved working conditions. This is because most small-scale fishermen are either self-employed and have their own boats, or are crew on boats owned by other individuals. The existence of single owners with large numbers of small boats is rare, due the management time and complexity involved with overseeing small-scale fishing operations. There is therefore little or no potential for unions of small-scale fishermen to become involved in collective bargaining. Unions are therefore more involved in some of the activities described above e.g. supply of inputs. The role of unions to bring about changes in wages and working conditions may be more relevant in large-scale industrial fisheries. Based on the consultants' own experience, and whilst not presented in any literature, the Trawler and Line Fishermen's Union in South Africa has had a long history of meaningful negotiation with the large demersal trawling companies that has certainly made a concrete difference to both wages and employment conditions for poor "black" and "coloured" workers on South African vessels. However, such examples, being in industrial fisheries, are not strictly relevant to this study.
1. The importance of strong leadership for the success of all fisher's organizations, points to policy that aims to contribute to institutional strengthening through support for key individuals.
2. Support to locally-based organizations should not ignore or under-estimate the impacts of wider social, economic and political factors which can serve to undermine both organizations sustainability, but also the benefits to the poor created by such organizations.
3. Policy that aims to support organizations as a way of alleviating poverty must ensure that such organizations evolve from the needs and aspirations of fishers themselves.
4. State support must be appropriate but not restrictive.
1. There are few studies that actually measure the impact of fisher's organizations on poverty and the poor. This needs to be urgently rectified to substantiate claims that organizations can be of benefit, and that they require support and institutional strengthening.
2. Studies concentrating on the impacts of fisher organizations on poverty are needed to develop generalizable characteristics of those organizations that are of most benefit. Such generalizable characteristics may be related to the type of organisation itself, or the factors associated with its structure, management etc. For example, are organizations involved in political lobbying intrinsically more beneficial to the poor than cooperatives, and what methodology can be employed to measure the relative successes of different types of organizations on poverty reduction. Such studies will need to be carefully designed to identify the most important wider social, economic and political factors which can serve to undermine both organizations sustainability and the benefits to the poor. Such studies are essential to inform policy as to which organizations most warrant support.
3. Organizations by definition seek to generate benefits for their members. Greater research is therefore required into the inclusion criteria for organizations, and whether the poorest of the poor are disadvantaged or precluded in any way from membership of fisher organizations.
