7. LESSONS AND IMPLICATIONS

7.1 Key Lessons

From the results obtained in the course of this study the following main lessons can be drawn:

(a) Positive and interesting trends within research institutions

Beyond the shortcomings documented, it cannot be denied that policies have during the past few years, underscored improvement in the effectiveness of research institutions (including those related to fisheries research). One of the notable facts induced by the PIPs has been the transformation of certain institutions into legal structures (PSTE), which has improved their effectiveness and ensured the promotion of an entrepreneurial approach (system of promoting officers on the basis of output) and development-focused research. While their current structure still appears inadequate, especially at the level of fisheries research institutions, the trend seems encouraging.

(b) Encouraging local regulations for management of fisheries resources

Even if this trend is not generalized it should nevertheless be mentioned. This is the case, for example, with local agreements drawn up in the 5^th region in Mali with the direct involvement of the communities through their professional organizations and local authorities (territorial collectivities). This is an approach which is more empowering and guarantees the implementation or application of rules on the exploitation and management of resources.

(c) Low capacity of professional fishing organizations

The low capacities of professional organizations is a concern noted in most countries (with the exception of Senegal). Compared to the dynamic change in other sectors of activity (agriculture, livestock breeding) this situation seems disturbing and reflects the low level of attention allocated by fisheries support bodies in the field.

(d) Contribution of fisheries research to the SLs of communities and to PIPs

Results show that despite certain objective constraints, fisheries research through innovations and knowledge generated, has been a major contributor to fisheries livelihoods. The most remarkable contribution of research concerns the provision of decision-making assistance at the political level. Such a contribution should be enhanced through the establishment of institutional platforms between Research, Professionals and Policies, as well as the improvement in capacity for action of the research institution.

(e) Possibilities for capitalizing on socio-economic research in the framework of capacity-building for fishing communities.

Beyond knowledge and innovations for decision-making, socio-economic research could also be used profitably for the generation of organizational and institutional innovations to boost the capacities of professional fishing organizations. Similarly, they could make an interesting contribution to the enrichment of the SL approach and to the search for methods or mechanisms promoting development-centred research.

(f) Low priority given to fisheries research in some cases

This illustration has been made on the basis of resource allocation to the sector. This also reflects the problem of prioritizing among various issues which is a process that several countries, subject to structural adjustment, are currently encountering. This question raises the basic concern of promoting sustainable funding mechanisms. This is not a new issue given the current experiments underway in the area, namely in Senegal with the FNRAA. It is however a thorny issue for policies at country level.

Thus, beyond the procurement of funds, it is also necessary to seek appropriate mechanisms to attain a deeper involvement of users, both in the direction and funding of research activities. Experiments are also on-going on the issue of the emergence of semi-private institutions where users hold the major capital share (case for example of CNRA in Côte d’Ivoire). However these are mechanisms that cannot be applied in a blanket fashion but whose common denominator remains the existence of professionals who are sufficiently organized and who possess the appropriate capacities (including financial capacity).

(g) Difficulties of fisheries research institutions in developing a demand-driven approach among the fishing communities

Most countries have experienced difficulties with the development of a demend-driven research agenda. As indicated earlier, considerable efforts have been invested but much work remains to be done in this area of fisheries research. This often appears paradoxical if one compares it to what is happening in the agricultural research field. This situation is often linked to the youth of certain fisheries research institutions and the reasons for their establishment, (in some cases, the desire was simply to provide useful information to the technical supervisor to assist in decision-making). This partly explains the inadequacy of a policy to promote a participatory approach as well as difficulties in introducing frameworks or mechanisms to facilitate partnership with users.

(h) Very few direct partnerships between research and users in the fisheries sector

This situation has been noted in most of the countries and is largely due to the poor abilities of professional community organizations and the climate within certain research institutions (absence of incentive structure) which is not conducive to the establishment of such partnerships. However, analysis demonstrates that it is the capacities of the professional organizations which constitute the determining factor here. The examples analysed show that the professional organizations with the appropriate capacities are even in a position to contract various services from the private sector, as is the case with professional organizations in Senegal.

(i) A lack of mechanisms or support measures for the communities to capitalize on results of fisheries esearch

This situation, experienced in most of the countries, reflects not only the unsuitability of some current measures of dissemination for taking into account the specific needs of the sector, but also the absence of a global policy in the area.

(j) Incoherence of some policies introduced and affecting the livelihoods of the communities

This is illustrated in some countries by the need of the government to promote artisanal fishing as a means of effectively alleviating poverty on the one hand. While on the other, the concern of these same governments to rake in the maximum amount of foreign exchange through industrial fishing. This problem is clearly an issue in some countries and is illustrated by the dearth of attention given to artisanal fishing in spite of its major contribution to income generation and rural job creation. There is therefore a need to strike a balance, with a view to encouraging the contribution of artisanal fishing to poverty alleviation strategies

7.2 Concrete actions to improve the contribution of fisheries research to artisanal fisheries

Fishers livelihoods

Table 3 summarizes the main actions foreseen at country-level with a view to improving the contribution of fisheries research to the SLs of communities and to policies.

An analysis of these actions reveals a number of concerns, which, if taken into account, will improve the contribution of fisheries research to artisanal fishing communities livelihoods.

The study only covered a sampling of six out of 25 countries associated with SFLP. Theses ideas for action are therefore based on the issues arising from the sample survey but constitute a basis for the positioning of each country, each on the basis of its own context and realities. Four major categories of priority actions can be identified.

(a) Building capacities of fisheries professional organizations (organizational, institutional and especially strategic capabilities)

This is a vast area of intervention already having been examined and having led to the preparation of national action plans to strengthen farmers’ organizations. The activities foreseeable in the framework of SFLP will therefore be constrained by the existing process (this issue has already been discussed by some NCU like Mali which was the basis for success in all fisheries-related activities). Activities in the field would touch upon practical training in particular include study tours and exchange-visits between professional organizations. Issues relating to illiteracy are important as they determine the basis for capacity-building of professional organizations. This constitutes one of the primary responsibilities of the government and further studies in this matter are required.

(b) Building partnerships between research and fishing communities

This area of intervention determines the importance of the contribution of research to fisheries livelihoods. Activities foreseen in the field are multiple and comprise:

i) The creation of an enabling environment within research institutions promoting the conduct of demand-driven research. This takes into consideration aspects relating to the system of incentives to researchers and evaluation criteria for output. In some cases, namely within institutions developing along the lines of the PSTEs, this type of issue is often taken into account. However, it must be noted that these are issues implicating decision-makers in each country; the programme response at this level could be to continue reflection, encouraging a qualitative development of fisheries research institutions in all countries.

ii) Building the capacity of research teams in participatory approaches to development. Actions have already been initiated by the Programme in this area; here the idea is to strengthen such initiatives by widening the target group for such training (to representatives of professional organizations) and contributing to the preparation of training manuals in this area.

iii) Creating mechanisms by which fishing communities can influence research programmes. Such mechanisms are part and parcel of the restructuring that is on-going or completed in some of these institutions. Practical experience, however, demonstrates that the drawback of such measures resides in the non-sustainability of funding for the running of operations. A relevant activity in this area is to seek sustainable mechanisms for funding these arrangements while at the same time guaranteeing their functionality and appropriation by the actors involved.

iv) Encouraging participatory development activities in partnership between Research and Fishing Communities. The results of the study show that some research institutions are not used to, or prepared, to operate within a demand-driven set-up. The same is true of professional organizations whose capacities do not allow for the establishment of such partnerships. Thus the development of pilot initiatives in each country gives an opportunity to initiate training both within fisheries research institutions and at the level of professional association level. In some countries, the process of contracting out research will boost initiatives already underway. The promotion of such partnership operations has already been undertaken in the agricultural sector and has given producer organizations the opportunity to familiarize themselves with request and research contract services.

(c) Building capacity in fisheries research institutions

As outlined above, this issue goes hand in hand with the priority given to this sector and the issue of the need to focus these institutions on development needs.

As regards the experiences noted throughout this study, some key activities are to be expected:

i) Encouragement of sustainable mechanisms for funding research. This issue is also of relevance to agricultural research as a whole. The fisheries sector, however, does have a certain number of assets: the fact that research contributes directly to policies is a factor for sensitisation of decision-makers on the issue; similarly, the fact that fisheries produce is, to a large extent, evaluated in monetary terms also offers possibilities of interesting the profession on this subject.

Furthermore, in addition to on-going experiments in some countries such, as Senegal, the introduction of other areas of reflection involving both decision-makers and the professionals also seems relevant. As a basis for such reflection, it is important to undertake other activities such as the contribution of research to the SLs of communities, as well as an impact evaluation related to the contribution of research to PIPs. The framework of this study has not been wide enough for a consideration of these factors, which are nevertheless important both for policies and the profession. These evaluations could be conducted in each country.

ii) Boosting the scientific capacities of research institutions (human and material resources). This is an issue inseparable from that of sustainable funding of research institutions With particular regard for human resources and taking into account the situation observed within research institutions, particular attention will have to be given to enhancing social science skills (socio-economic aspects) and a participatory approach.

(d) Strengthening the contribution of research institutions to policies and to SLs of communities

Several activities are foreseeable but those relevant to the results of this study are the following:

i) The creation of an institutional platform for linkage between Research, Policies and Profession (Communities). In countries where professional organizations (PO) have sufficient capacity as in Senegal, such mechanisms have been established by PO lobbying. It seems from these experiences that the sustainability and functionality of such measures depend to a large extent on the existence of strong POs. Just as for the restructuring of research institutions, this is an issue implicating primarily the main actors concerned in each country. As for the concern for improvement in the contribution of research institutions to decision-making at the political level, the Programme action could contribute to the sensitisation of national authorities on the issue as well as to awareness in the area, etc. Similar to partnership mechanisms Research - Communities, the search for sustainable systems could become a relevant concern.

ii) The promotion of mechanisms to capitalize on research results with a view to improving the SL of communities. The unsuitability of actual measures for dissemination justifies the relevance of such an activity. Beyond institutional aspects pertaining to decision-making at national level, programme action could cover the following aspects: capacity-building for research teams in drafting techniques, presentation of research results to communities and decision-makers (including local authorities), support for the establishment of mechanisms to exploit results (information systems on innovations, for example).

Table 3. Synthesis of major actions envisaged at country level

7.3 Recommendations

This study on the contribution of fisheries research to fisheries livelihoods led to the identification of a certain number of positive facts and opportunities that would enable research to meet the needs of users. Furthermore a number of shortcomings have been identified as limiting to the contribution of fisheries research to the SLs of communities. Regarding these shortcomings, ideas for actions have been identified. In the same vein, some recommendations are necessary in order to attain the objectives of the study.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that the Programme cannot respond to all concerns. Therefore, the recomendations presented here are the priority issues upon which the Programme could act in partnership with each of the countries involved.

1. The publication of a synthesis of this study and its dissemination by SFLP in the 25 countries associated with the Programme. Results could also be published on the web.

2. Study results could also be disseminated via subregional seminars. Two to three of these could bring together representatives of countries, which have not participated, in the study (research, representatives of the profession, NGOs, Private sector, support and dissemination services....). The aim of these workshops is to analyse the implications of such a study in terms of actions to be undertaken to improve the contribution of research to SLs of fishing communities. These regional workshops could be held in partnership with other subregional or international networks.

3. Support for experimentation of demand-driven research systems in some countries. This consists in promoting (by placing funds) pilot partnership actions between Research and Community bodies for the participatory development of technologies (based on the expressed needs of users during the study (see country reports).

4. Support for capacity building in research institutions in the area of participatory approaches. Such support could be organized directly in the countries, where a need is expressed.

5. Capacity-building in research institutions in the area of communication with the aim of ensuring a better exploitation of fisheries research results.

6. Capacity-building for countries in analysing impact of fisheries research. To this end, a partnership could be developed with regional institutions like the Inter-State Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel through the Sahel Institute.

7. Support to government for national initiatives aimed at awareness-raising, promoting a system of development-centred fisheries research, and finding sustainable funding mechanisms for fisheries research.