9 CRITICAL FACTORS FOR SMALL-SCALE FISHERS TO GET OUT OF POVERTY

9.1 SUMMARY TABLE

9.2 MAIN FINDINGS

Completing this section of the terms of reference presents perhaps the greatest challenge - to present an analysis of the literature on solving the development problem for small-scale fishers in the space of 4-5 pages! As would be expected, there are a large number of references dealing generally with fisheries and poverty in addition to those covered in the preceding sections of this report. As a result, the format of this section is rather different. We have attempted to group the literature into references relating to a number of key areas seen as important for poverty reduction. We have not gone into any detail in terms of the views and opinions within each topic, although the emphasis is generally self-evident. It is hoped that this will enable the reader to quickly identify the literature relating to factors that they are interested in, and which other authors have considered. This approach also serves to demonstrate the need for an integrated approached to poverty reduction due to the large number of factors covered in the literature which are thought to be important.

We have attempted to suggest which factors lie most comfortably within the realm of possible donor assisted support to the fisheries sector by indicating which ones lie just within the fisheries sector, and which ones require interactions between fisheries and other sectors. As with previous sections, only a few references support their hypotheses using any empirical evidence of the impacts of different factors on poverty, and these we have placed in bold in the text below, along with one or two other references thought to be of special interest.

It should also be noted that this section is of course informed by the preceding ones in terms of the importance for reducing poverty by: adopting a SLA and lessons learned from previous sustainable livelihood studies, managing common property resources, using appropriate technology, decreasing vulnerability, and maintaining effective fisher organizations. References relating to these topics (and related ones covered such as community-management) are therefore not considered again or included below but are all crucial in the battle to reduce poverty in small-scale fisheries.

While most references motivate for one factor as being especially important, some attempt to present an overall summary of different factors thought to be important for poverty reduction. The World Bank's World Development Report 2000 proposes a framework of actions to build up the assets of the poor based on increasing opportunity (principally through growth, market reform and increasing people's assets), empowerment (through better governance and increased participation) and security (through risk management and safety nets). Shaffer (2001) echoes the emphasis of the World Development Report and considers how the concept of poverty has been broadened and the analysis of the causal structure and dynamics of poverty deepened to focus on how and why individuals fall into and get out of poverty. These require correspondingly broader approaches to strategies aimed at identifying critical factors in poverty alleviation, and a greater concentration on vulnerability. He also outlines rules for success in poverty alleviation through public works and credit provision.

Smith (1979) is an example of more fisheries-specific work. He identified four sets of factors that affect the standard of living of fishers: 1) resource availability, 2) vessels and gear, 3) market power, and 4) inflation. He also presents a useful table first developed by Hamlisch (1967) dividing important factors influencing development into sociological, cultural and psychological, economic, and institutional. In summary he concludes that if one simple generalization regarding traditional fishermen had to be made, it would be "too many fishermen, not enough fish (Bardach 1977)", and this, sadly, is perhaps as true (if not truer) today as it was in the late 1970s. This leads to a number of key policy and research implications:

• Production technology is not the answer.

• Subsidies will lead to increased fishing pressure.

• Legislating for inefficiency to maintain employment will cause stagnation.

• Improvements in marketing and post-harvest technology will not necessarily result in increased prices received by fishermen due to market power of intermediaries and elasticities of supply and demand.

• Cooperative and organizational development, if successful is likely to encourage more people to enter the fishery.

• Alternative employment opportunities represent the only long-term solution that offers any real chance of raising the standards of living of those that remain in the traditional fishery.

• Given that fisheries are often an activity of last resort, doing nothing and hoping for a natural transformation is politically unacceptable and won't work.

Jomo (1991) and Neiland et al. (1997) also present a useful analysis of the many factors affecting poverty in Malaysian and Nigerian fisheries respectively. Their conclusions are very similar to those of Smith (1979 in that they emphasize the lack of control over fishing, the power of middlemen in the marketing of fish, the lack of access to resources and inputs by the poor, the failure of subsidies, and the need for alternative employment opportunities.

Other references relating to particular factors thought to be important in poverty reduction, are presented below:

1. Creating alternative employment opportunities: Non-fisheries sector. Bland 1995; Smith 1979; Pantin 1999 (tourism); Munthali, 1997 (ornamental fish); Neiland et al, 1997, Ashley et al, 2001 (tourism); Panayotou, 1980. But may be difficult: World Bank, 1999 (attempts unsuccessful in Pacific), Pollnac et al, 2001 (on job satisfaction).

2. Effective control of industrial fishing in the inshore-zone: Fisheries sector. Section 7 on technology, Pye-Smith, 1997; Silvestre and Pauly, 1997, Bailey 1997, RAPA/FAO 1987.

3. Credit provision: Fisheries sector. FAO 1996, Tan 1995, Jolis 1996, Pinstrup-Andersen and Pandya-Lorch, 1999; Tietze and Shresta, 1996; RAPA/FAO, 1987; Platteau et al, 1985.

4. Reduction of control over marketing by middlemen: Fisheries sector. Jomo, 1991; Abila, 2000; Tvedten, 1987; Guard and Masaiganah, 1997.

5. Sustainable development and exploitation, and enhanced environmental management: Fisheries sector and non-fisheries sectors. Acheampong, 1996; Barbier, 1991; Markandya, 1998; Lefebvre, 2001; Campbell, 1992; Reed?, Broad, 1994; Heady, 2000; Pantin, 1999, Munthali 1997, Markandya, 2001, Agbayani et al 1998, Pye-Smith 1997, Guard and Masaiganah 1997, Doulman 2001, DFID/EC/UNDP/WB 2002, Bailey 1997 (note: the literature suggests a causality in both directions with poverty leading to environmental degradation, and environmental degradation leading to poverty).

6. Integrated coastal management: Fisheries and non-fisheries sectors. White et al, 1997, Johnstone and Linden, 1999, Ngoile and Linden 1997, Courtey and White 2000.

7. Improved conflict management: Fisheries sector and non-fisheries sectors. Bennet, Neiland et al, 2001.

8. Use of participatory approaches: Fisheries sector. FAO 2000, Doulman 2001.

9. Special support for women in development: Fisheries sector. Tan 1995, Kibria and Arooy, 2000.

10. Improved entitlements and governance (e.g. ensuring the poor have access, comanagement): Fisheries and non-fisheries. Bene 2001, Bene et al, 2001, Neiland 2001, Shaffer 2001, Pomeroy and Berks, 1997.

11. Improved food security (through less export and less industrial fishing): Fisheries sector. Abila, 2000, Ahmed 1997, FAO 2000, Kent, 1997.

12. Legislation to require foreign fleet operators to invest in onshore infrastructure, thus creating jobs and hard currency revenues: Fisheries sector. Kaczynski and Looney 2000.

13. Using local and traditional knowledge, and local species (aquaculture), in improving sustainable livelihoods: Fisheries. FAO 2000, Edwards 2000, Thilsted et al, 1997, Jallow 2001, Ruddle 1993, Lewis et al, 1996.

14. Improving health and support for livelihood strategies dealing with HIV/AIDS: Fisheries and non-fisheries sectors. Appleton, 2000.

15. Favourable macroeconomic conditions: Non-fisheries sector. Neiland et al, 2001, McCulloch et al, 2000, Pinstrup-Andersen and Pandya-Lorch 1999.

9.3 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

The extent to which the range of factors presented contribute to poverty reduction, and a comparative perspective on which are more important/effective than others, is not known. It is therefore not possible to prioritise them, but a useful methodology for comparing different development initiatives (although not empirically-based) is provided in Neiland's 2001 paper "Fisheries development, poverty alleviation and small-scale fisheries: a review of policy and performance in developing countries since 1950." The further development and refinement of such an approach based around the SLA would appear to be critical for ex post evaluation and comparison of the success of development programmes.

All of the factors listed above are actions that could/can help with poverty alleviation. However, it seems likely that the approach that one takes to tackling the poverty problem is at least as important. Some important conclusions from Neiland's (2001) work that seem particularly relevant, are that:

• Poverty is complex, and cannot be easily addressed using simple technology transfer and capital investments through a sectoral approach.

• The correct diagnosis of poverty is a crucial first starting point for any development assistance, and must consider the overall economic, social and political system.

• Poverty and politics/institutions are closely related, and fisheries development can often be constrained by ineffective government, inappropriate institutional arrangements, and control by elites.

• So it is necessary to think carefully in each context about what are the chances and effective mechanisms for making changes that will reduce poverty while satisfying the rich and powerful at the same time e.g. a win-win situation.

Furthermore, assessing both the scale of the problem and nature of the poverty are essential if interventions are to be successful (Thorpe, 2001). These conclusions suggest that attempting to identify "the critical factors for small-scale fishers to get out of poverty" may be seeking an illusive goal. The history of development interventions has been informed by narrowly defined paradigms as to the "critical" factors for reducing poverty (e.g. production technology, credit provision, the environment, the incorporation of women into development initiatives, etc). The use of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, should be just that, an approach. It may not be especially helpful to try to develop generalizable conditions and factors for alleviating poverty. That is not to say that some factors listed above are not important or likely to be more important that others, and that lessons cannot be learned. Sustainable resource use for example (as enshrined in the SLA) is likely to be a prerequisite for poverty reduction (or at least to prevent increases in poverty), and poverty reduction strategies are likely to require cross-sectoral approaches.

But given the complexity of the poverty problem, the multi-dimensional nature of its causes, and the unique circumstances of every location/community, it is likely to be impossible to develop a blue-print which can be easily applied across different contexts. This conclusion is not particularly encouraging for development agencies, as it necessitates greater time and effort in both research and the design of interventions. However, its acceptance might help to ensure that interventions are based on the individual needs of each context, rather than on the paradigm of the day, and that they will be more likely to succeed as a result.