4.1 Assessment Methodology

Ekbom and Bojö (1997), inspired by earlier work by Bojö and Chee (1995), World Bank (1996) and Loksha (1996), elaborated an elementary filter of thirteen criteria grouped into five sequential sections (Table 4.2) as an aide de memoir when mainstreaming the environment into World Bank CAS. Applying this filter to a sample of thirty-four CAS's (twenty-one from Sub-Saharan Africa, thirteen from elsewhere) they concluded that not only had environmental issues made some inroads into CAS documentation, the best CAS integrating the theme across all sections - rather than treating the environment as a separate and distinct component - but that the filter was, moreover, a useful analytic tool for reviewing the extent to which the environment had been successfully incorporated. Furthermore, the exercise threw up a "rich flora of inspiring examples" of effective environmental mainstreaming which were potentially transferable.

Table 4.2 CAS Environmental assessment framework

Source: Ekbom and Bojö (1997).

A modified version of Ekbom and Bojö's assessment framework was applied by Shyamsundar and Hamilton (2000) when examining thirty-seven CAS produced by the World Bank in fiscal year 1999. Besides amending the review criteria used^[30], they derived a four-point ordinal measurement scale allowing the (subjective) evaluation of each criterion which then permitted aggregation to produce a "country score". This not only highlighted national and regional differences in the treatment of environmental issues^[31], but also established a framework which allowed the environmental tracking of CAS over time. Significantly, while noting that there was still room for improvement, the authors also suggested that much of this improvement could come through the sharing of best practices (2000:3) - a number of which were highlighted in the accompanying text.

The framework was subsequently directed to assess the focus of PRSPs vis-à-vis environment-related issues by Bojö and Reddy (2001). Forty Interim and Full PRSPs from across the globe were appraised and, while the four-point measurement scale remained largely intact - albeit now ranging from 0 (no mention) to 3 (good practice), seventeen criteria were now encompassed within four principal analytic categories;

(i) Issues (in focus): A description of the major environmental concerns and opportunities.
(ii) Causal Links (assessment): Poverty-Environment Link Analysis.
(iii) Responses (to Environmental Challenges): Environmental Management measures, monitoring and evaluation; and
(iv) Process: Participation and inclusion of environmental stakeholders (2001:7)

The ensuing analysis found that while average scores were low (0.9), there was considerable variation (from 0.3 in the case of São Tome and Principe, to 2.2 in the case of Mozambique), and generally a marked improvement in scores as countries progressed from interim to full PRSP status. Once more, the paper presented a number of concrete examples of good practice under each of the featured categories, intimating that tracking updates were likely as more PRSPs became available^[32].

The assessment methodology was subsequently appropriated and adapted by Oksanen and Mersmann (2002) in evaluating the current status and emerging trends regarding the role of the forestry sector in Sub-Saharan African PRSPs. Twenty-five Interim PRSPs, eleven full PRSPs, 17 JSAs and four PRSP Progress Reports were analysed using a four criteria (the criteria equating to the categories employed in the Bojö and Reddy article noted above), four-point scale. The results were then compared to two broader factors - the degree of forest cover remaining in the country AND the existence of an ongoing national forestry policy and sectoral planning process - the latter appearing influential in ensuring forestry representation in PRSPs, as did modest (defined as between 7-40 percent) forest cover. Overall, while twenty-one of the twenty-four Interim PRSPs, and all the full PRSPs, mentioned the sector;

"... in general the sector was incorporated in a rather modest and unsystematic manner. The analysis of the cause and effect linkages between the forest sector and poverty and the treatment of forest related issues was generally weak. Considering this, surprisingly many forest-related responses and actions were proposed in the poverty reduction programmes (2002:123)."

An exploratory review of the relationship between small-scale fisheries and PRSPs in a 2002 SFLP sponsored study across eleven Sub-Saharan African countries was also equally critical of the incorporation process, suggesting that - with the exception of a few countries - the "situation is not very satisfactory." Worse, few fisheries-related responses and actions appeared in the final documents, as sector-pertinent issues were generally "diluted within proposals from the agriculture or rural development sector" (SFLP, 2003:3). While the study encapsulated ongoing work on poverty-profiling within the region, and was understandably strong on process given the envisaged outcomes of the SFLP work programme^[33], it unfortunately failed to produce a unifying qualitative methodology which would permit the synthesis of individual country findings.

Rather than derive a new methodology to rectify this oversight however, we instead choose to apply the assessment framework espoused by Oksanen and Mersmann, in effect substituting "fish for forest". Not only is their framework relatively straightforward to apply, it also has the added advantage of permitting cross-sectoral comparisons vis-à-vis the effectiveness of each sector's incorporation into national policy documents^[34] - although this is not the task here. Box 5 therefore outlines the assessment methodology applied, and the scoring scale deployed to produce the results outlined in Section 4.2 below.

To produce as comprehensive and systematic a picture as possible of the extent to which the fisheries sector has been integrated into the national development discourse, we apply the above methodology to analyse contemporary PRSPs (Interim and Full) and NDPs produced across the developing world^[35]. As such documents - particularly PRSPs - are expected to form the basis for subsequent donor assistance, we also analyse the extent to which fisheries related issues highlighted through such national development agendas are indeed reflected in the subsequent donor support strategies^[36]. Section 4.1 details these findings, adopting a regional perspective.