This Section briefly evaluates the underlying assumptions of this study, based on Sections 2-5, which described and analysed the livelihood aspects of artisanal fisheries and the various systems and organizations that regulate artisanal fishing.
Reminder of the underlying assumptions of the objectives
|
· Overfishing is prevalent and negatively affects artisanal fishers’ livelihoods. · Responsible fisheries management is required to address this problem. · Responsible fisheries management requires the active involvement of artisanal fishers. · Active involvement of artisanal fishers improves the effectiveness of fisheries management measures. · Effective fisheries management improves artisanal fishers’ livelihoods. |
This study shows that the assumptions are oversimplifications of reality. For an implementing programme like the SFLP, they require further specification and nuances to be applicable. The first assumption, for example, could be rephrased to say that there are signs of overfishing in many fisheries, but that the situation needs to be specified in each case because it varies per resource, per region of a country and per type of fisheries (see Sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.5). Similarly, for the second assumption, fisheries management can resolve part of the problem of overfishing. However, employment opportunities in other sectors could also be a way of reducing the pressure on fishing resources.(Sections 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5). Furthermore, fisheries management measures can have purely biological objectives (such as in a park), and not take into account artisanal fishers’ livelihoods.
In the third and fourth assumptions, the specific group of fishers and their type of involvement need clarification (Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.4, 5.3.2 for the artisanal fishers and Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 5.2). Which groups of artisanal fishers, with which types of fishing strategies and livelihoods strategies, need to be involved for the management of a certain type of fisheries in a certain region (at a specific time of the year, at a certain level of current exploitation of the resource, etc.). Will their active involvement consist of their implementing government rules, deciding on policy issues, or the fishers running their own local management scheme? These two assumptions have another assumption in them: that fishers should participate in government fisheries management, ignoring the possibility of government supporting local initiatives. The cases show that it is not so much active involvement, but direct interest in and commitment to a management measure by both government and fishers that lead to effective management measures. Enforcement is an essential element in effectiveness.
Finally, this study shows that effective fisheries management does not improve all fishers’ livelihoods, certainly not in the short-run. Management involves giving rights to some and excluding others from accessing the industry. Those excluded will need some other means of livelihoods to survive.
A number of trends can be identified which are conducive to increased collaboration between fishers and government in fisheries management measures, as well as for an increased attention for livelihood aspects. Within communities and fisher groups there are already rules and committees governing fishing and there is an increasing awareness in communities of the need to protect stocks. In the government administration there is an increasing interest in artisanal fisheries. There are already processes of consultation with fishers for the elaboration of management plans and regulations. The ongoing decentralization processes whereby collaborations between communities and government are encouraged through such mechanisms as local fisheries councils and community-based fisheries management committees.
On the other hand, there are a number of factors that complicate increased collaboration between fishers and government in fisheries management measures and attention for livelihood aspects, especially at the level of implementation. Different groups of fishers and processors with different interests amongst whom there is competition, accidents and conflicts can make collaboration difficult. Generally speaking, there is a history of strained relations between fishers and government authorities. Often, government has been unable or unwilling to enforce already existing laws, and industrial fishers tend to benefit from this, to the detriment of artisanal fishers. Unclear mandates or de facto division of tasks between different government organizations concerned with fisheries and maritime matters hinder effective fisheries management. Communication mechanisms between different levels between local, regional and national government organizations are not always clear and the availability of human and financial resources for fisheries management initiatives tends to be a constraint, especially at the local level. Even if there are human resources available, their skills and training are not always sufficient for the tasks they are asked to carry out.
The facilitating and complicating factors can be used as points of departure for improving fisheries management. There are two types of issues that can be worked on to arrive at a more livelihoods-centred fisheries management. Both types of issue take place in any fisheries management exercise, but how this is done is important for the effects on fisheries’ livelihoods:
1. All the phases in fisheries management, such as planning, implementation, MCS, and enforcement need to be addressed, both individually and as a whole, and clearly linked to livelihoods issues and objectives;
2. There should be a serious commitment to participation, representation, information and communication by those concerned with livelihoods and with fisheries management.
FAO, other international co-operation agencies and countries themselves should provide support to fishers and officials of government and other agencies to improve these two points. They can identify persons and means to support to stakeholders on the technical as well as on the process side. Some of these activities are already ongoing, but they could be expanded further. The sections below indicate more specifically what this support can consist of.
6.3.1 Improving the phases of fisheries management
|
· Awareness raising and training in fisheries management, management mechanisms and management phases, with reference to the CCRF. |
Insofar as knowledge and experience in fisheries management is insufficient, this can be improved by providing information and training based on the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the Guidelines for Fisheries Management, adapted for different target groups (fishers, fisher associations, decentralized government officials, NGO’s, literate and non-literate people, crew, owners and fishmongers, and so on).
|
· Awareness raising and training on how to include livelihood considerations and objectives in fisheries management. |
This can be achieved by showing the importance of fisheries for the national populations’ livelihoods, and the possible consequences of the collapse of some fisheries. Activities would include gathering, analysing and providing social, economic and other livelihoods data on fisheries to decision makers and stakeholders in a form that is readily accessible to them. A second way to ensure that livelihoods considerations are taken into account in fisheries management is to have a greater number of fisher representatives from different fisher groups actively represented in decision-making. A third way is to sensitize decision-makers to the livelihood impacts.
|
· Exchange of experiences on fisheries management and management mechanisms through case studies, etc. |
Where some knowledge and experience in fisheries management already exists, exchanges can help identify alternatives to or improvements in current practices. Such exchanges could take the form of meetings on specific topics or study tours to a specific area or country where a certain type of (formal or informal) fisheries mechanism is being put in place. Again, they need to be adapted to the target group.
6.3.2 Improving the fisheries management process
|
· Awareness raising, training and exchange of experiences on participation and participatory mechanisms at national, local and community levels and supporting decentralization and the shift from consultation to co-management. |
As in the points above, this information, training and exchange of experiences can be based on existing materials within FAO, for example Community Forestry (FONP) and the Extension Service’s (SDRE) publications. These, again, need to be tailored to specific target groups and should include aspects such as the advantages and disadvantages of different types of participation in different situations.
|
· Capacity building of fishers’ organizations and strengthening their representation in formal processes. |
Whether at local or at national scale, fishers’ organizations and their representatives could benefit from support to make their position in formal fisheries management processes stronger. How exactly this should be done should be identified in collaboration with these organizations.
|
· Improved collaboration and communication between stakeholders, including the poorest fishers. |
This issue can either be tackled directly or in a more indirect way. A direct way would involve a series of meetings or workshops that aim at identifying constraints and ways of improving collaboration or communication. A more indirect way would be to carry out a number of activities (such as the training or exchange visits suggested above) in a mixed group of stakeholders (from fishers, local government, national government, etc.).
