4.2 Results

4.2.1 Latin America

The development discourse in the majority of Latin American states (thirteen out of the sixteen) is presently not PRSP-determined, just three countries (Honduras, Nicaragua and land-locked Bolivia) having produced such documents to date. This presents a problem insofar as it is then potentially more difficult to identify the key policy document which takes precedence in defining national developmental priorities. This is less of an issue in the case of Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Peru who produce comprehensive five year NDPs or Strategies, more so in the case of the other economies. The key Argentine document appears to be the National Plan for Public Investment 2003-5 (Plan Nacional de Inversión Pública) produced by the Economics Ministry for example, the Planning Ministries of both Brazil and Ecuador both issue Multi-year Plans (Plano/Plan Plurianual), Guatemala circulates its own Poverty Reduction Strategy, while El Salvador, Chile and Paraguay publish the plans or programme of the current government (Programa/Plan de Gobierno)^[37]. Furthermore, there is also a strong possibility that the participatory processes which characterize PRSPs are absent or downplayed in documents formulated through traditional policy formulation channels - causing/continuing the marginalization of certain sectors (such as fisheries) vis-à-vis national developmental priorities. Notwithstanding these caveats, the Table below summarizes our findings (Annex 2.1. in Annex 2 provides a detailed analysis of individual country scores - with regard to PRSPs and NDPs, CAS and EU Strategy documents for each country).

Table 4.3 Inclusion of the fisheries sector in Latin American prsps and national development programmes

* The average is computed with reference to the sixteen countries in the Latin American sample.

Although six (37.5 percent) of the sixteen Latin American states mention fisheries issues, references to the sector are - by and large - fleeting. The Argentine and Costa Rican documents hint at growth opportunities and average earnings in the primary sector (including fisheries) respectively, the Paraguayan text acknowledges the dangers of overfishing, whilst the El Salvadorian and Mexican programmes comment upon the need for improved institutional co-ordination at the national (Mexico) or regional (Salvador) level. In contrast, Peru devotes a whole section of the Plan Estratégico Nacional (PEN) 2002-6 to reviewing the status of the sector (including a SWOT analysis), details the fisheries-specific activities to be developed over the period and the results expected (Best Practice).

Peru too provides the most extensive detail on causal links between fisheries and poverty-related issues, proposing a national programme to encourage domestic fish consumption levels to rise by 50 percent (16Kg to 24 Kg per capita p.a.) - targeted in particular at those with scarce resources - so as to improve national nutritional levels (poverty issues not being explicitly addressed in the PEN). Conversely, both the Bolivian and Honduran PRSPs offer rather more bleak thoughts, noting how the sector underpins subsistence lifestyles and enhances health risks for certain societal groups (youths diving for shellfish) respectively.

While nine of the sixteen countries posit fisheries related responses in their national policy documents, five of them go no further than mentioning that; projects will be started (Argentina, Nicaragua), tariffs will be revised (Ecuador), new Fisheries Laws will be approved (Nicaragua), tasks have been identified (El Salvador) or that fisheries and aquaculture development will be encouraged (Venezuela). Brazil (eight projects - in areas such as information provision, establishment of marine parks, new fishing harbours, and the installation of fish processing centres - are identified and costed), Honduras (two projects involve fisheries - including artisanal fishing support - are costed) and Uruguay (four strategic outputs - embracing rational industrial and artesanal extraction and promoting private investment in aquaculture - are identified and the policy conduits to achieve are detailed) do elaborate upon policy responses, although the most comprehensive rejoinder is provided by Peru. The Peruvian PEN not only establishes alternative fisheries visions ("To be a global leader in fisheries exports...") and the corresponding sectoral missions, but these are broken down into a series of costed general and specific objectives which are, in turn, linked to quantitative indicators thereby allowing for rapid project/programme evaluation against targets (Best Practice).

Links between the document formulation process and fisheries-related policies/processes are less easy to discern however. There is no apparent involvement - at least explicitly - of sectoral stakeholders (fishers, fish-processors, line Ministries) in the identification of national concerns, or the specification of ensuing development strategies in any of the countries. Equally, only Peru - through the sub-division of the PEN into a series of sectoral documents - could be construed as assimilating national fisheries policy into the final policy document. That said, even here there is no attempt to "nest" the different sectoral programmes/ documents within an integrated development strategy.

Our research suggests that donor strategy papers (specifically World Bank Country Assistance Strategies and EU Country Strategy Papers) are more disposed to acknowledge fisheries issues (Table 4.4). Twelve of the sixteen (75 percent) EU documents contain references to the sector, although the majority (nine) of these do no more than allude to the sector in the context of; past reciprocal cooperation (Argentina), restrictions on foreign investment in the sector (Brazil), trading patterns (Costa Rica, Honduras, and Mexico) and potential trade obstacles (Peru), local employment provision (Guatemala) and contribution to GDP (Peru), external aid receipts (El Salvador), and the dangers of agricultural run-off to fish stocks (Panama). More attention is paid to the sector in the Ecuadorian paper - where the dependence of the coastal economy on fish exports is highlighted and the dramatic decline in shrimp exports due to the white spot syndrome virus is detailed - and the Venezuela paper. A short economic précis of the sector is supplied, as are observations that the new fishing law, in encouraging traditional fishing, will have adverse effects on the industrial sector and, by extension, fish trade with the EU. The importance of fisheries to the Chilean economy is attributed to past policies of trade liberalization, although there is a growing realization that such liberalization may have contributed to over-exploitation of marine stocks, whilst the contribution of salmon farming to the regional economy is touched upon.

Fisheries issues are mentioned less in Bank CAS's - four out of eleven (36.3 percent) instances - and preoccupations are somewhat different too. In the case of El Salvador it is worries about the impact of earthquakes on fish production that is noted, while the Panamanian document aggregates concerns about overfishing shrimp to the effects of pollution on fish catches (as mentioned in the EU document). Equally the Chilean CAS focuses less on causes (trade liberalization) and more on the consequences (increased export diversification, ecosystem fragility) than the EU paper. The Argentine CAS dwells more on the fisheries sector than the EU Strategy paper - and iterates the need for sustainable fisheries management given the fragile status of marine stocks due to past overfishing.

Table 4.4 Inclusion of the fisheries sector in the Latin American CAS and EU Strategy Papers

* The average is computed with reference to the sixteen countries in the Latin American sample for the EU Strategy Papers, but with reference to eleven countries in the case of CAS (as five countries do not have a CAS document in the public domain).

In contrast, there is little evidence in either CAS or EU Strategy Papers of cause-effect links between the sector and poverty. While the Colombian CAS goes no further than noting that opinions expressed by an Afro-Colombian fishing community on same helped informed the Bank's Voices of the Poor study, the Venezuelan EU Strategy paper is somewhat better, not only noting that economic diversification involving the fisheries sector will affect areas with high poverty levels, but also pledging EU support in this endeavour.

Argentina - at least according to the reviewed CAS's - is the only country in which Bank responses to sectoral concerns are planned. Pilot efforts in sustainable fisheries management given the impending stocks crisis were upgraded in 2003 and awarded a budget of US$50 million, though few details are given on the project. Argentine fisheries figure on the EU agenda too, following the signing of a scientific and technical cooperation agreement (28 million euros) and European support for the formation of mixed companies and temporary associations oriented towards exploiting local fish stocks. While, in the case of both Brazil and Chile, nothing more than EU intent to sign a cooperation agreement is signalled, the Venezuelan EU Strategy paper pinpoints local difficulties in meeting sanitary and technical standards and the limited spectrum of local catches. It then develops a consequent support programme (objective/actions/conditionality/indicators/funding) for the sector (Best Practice).

Aggregate average scores - as expected in the light of the preceding analysis of scores by individual assessment criteria - was rather poor (Box 6), ranging from 0.27 (case of CAS) to 0.5 (EU Strategy Papers), somewhat surprising in hindsight given the importance of the region's extensive marine fisheries. Only Peru's Plan Estratégico Nacional (PEN) 2002-6 accords the sector priority in the development agenda, fisheries barely meriting a mention in most national policy documents (PRSP or otherwise). While many of the donor documents examined mention fisheries or fishery-related issues, such issues are too infrequently elaborated, save in those instances (Argentina for the Bank, Argentina, Chile and Venezuela for the EU) where the donor has - or is in the process of mounting - a fisheries programme or cooperation agreement.

4.2.2 Africa - Countries with PRSPs

Twenty-six African nations have either drafted interim or full PRSPs, four states (Mauritania, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda) having also subsequently completed progress reports. The extent to which the fisheries sector is integrated into such documents is summarized in Table 4.5 (Annex 3.1. provides a detailed analysis of individual country scores - with regard to PRSPs, CAS and EU Strategy documents for each country).

Nineteen (73.1 percent) of the twenty-six states mention fisheries issues, although in the majority of cases (12, 46.2 percent) the sector warrants nothing more than a short remark. The Chad and Malawi documents allude to the economic importance (in terms of either GDP, employment or export contribution) of fishing and other primary activities, the potential for the development of the sector is hinted at in the Ivory Coast, Malawi, Mali and Rwanda papers, while the humanitarian crisis is blamed for the slump in inland fisheries production in Sierra Leone. The Ugandan PRSP Progress Reports note the trade impact of the EU ban on Ugandan fish exports, while sectoral responsibilities (Niger), national fisheries strategies (Tanzania) and the need for private initiatives (Congo D.R.) and the optimal use of fish resources (Madagascar) also merit a mention. Other fisheries-related issues are touched upon in the Rwanda (invasive nature of water hyacinth and its impact on fishing) and Zambia (anglers and fish traders are high-risk groups vis-à-vis HIV/Aids infection) PRSPs.

Table 4.5 Inclusion of the fisheries sector in African PRSPs

* The average is computed with reference to the twenty-six countries in the African PRSP sample.

More emphasis is given to sectoral developments in the Ghanaian PRSP due to the depletion of marine fish stocks, with calls for increased surveillance and the promotion of inland fisheries and aquaculture growth mooted as possible remedial measures. The document is somewhat unique amongst all the material analysed (PRSP-CAS-EU papers for all regions) insofar as it is the only one - with the exception of a brief note in the Malawi PRSP and Cape Verde national development plan in which the gender divide within the sector is highlighted. Fisheries revival also forms the thrust of the Senegalese document, with sectoral (vessel obsolescence, infrastructural and human capital inadequacies, low value-added and poor quality) and environmental constraints identified, and the economic importance of the sector underscored. The Benin document also discusses importance - in terms of presently underexploited potential, while commenting on the inappropriate fishing techniques that have clogged inland waterways. The Guinean PRSP rises to the environmental challenge, identifying the tasks necessary to both conserve and enhance national fish stocks, while highlighting the need for accompanying institutional reform. Whilst not a "fundamental area" of action for Mozambique, the sector is nevertheless viewed as a complementary activity and assigned its own sub-section in the report. Here too, the need for territorial control is stressed and environmental constraints are noted, as are the special needs of small-scale fishers. In contrast, while the Mauritanian document does not analyse fisheries issues separately, various references are scattered through the text indicating tax treatment, projected growth rates, and the potential for industrial, artisanal and coastal fishing expansion. The exemplar however is the Cameroonian contribution which forms part of an extensive and comprehensive PRSP. An annex provides a succinct and thorough summary (Background, constraints, potential) of the sector, while the main document "nests" relevant elements extracted from the annex within the global vision and objectives^[38] (Best Practice).

It is likely that the poverty-oriented reference frames of PRSPs also accounts for the relatively strong showing of causal links between fishery-related topics and poverty-related issues in the analysed documents (sixteen countries, 61.5 percent). That said, the majority (eleven, 42.3 percent) simply allude - as opposed to either elaborate or analyse - such linkages. The Gambian, Chad and Mali PRSPs, for example, simply state that average incomes are lowest (or that a disproportionate percentage of the poor are to be encountered) in the agricultural and fisheries sectors. Five of the PRSPs hint at the potentially empowering aspects of fisheries growth, seeing increased catches as; a latent contributor to improved nutritional levels and livelihoods (Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and Zambia) and food security (Guinea), an "important sector" in the struggle against poverty (Mozambique), and fisheries-derived revenues as favouring those groups most affected by poverty (Senegal). The Mauritanian document is a little more cautious; suggesting the impact upon poverty will depend on market trends for fish products and gaining improved EU Agreement terms. Conversely, the Burkina Faso PRSP sees food security failings as heightening over-exploitation of local natural resources, including fish stocks.

Environmental degradation - and its consequent effect in forcing the poor to rely on natural resources (inc. fisheries) - is also highlighted in the Malawi PRSP, though this document then goes on to identify fisheries development as an explicit objective under Pillar 1 (specifically Sources of Pro-Poor Growth) of its six-point programme, given its importance as a protein source to the country. The Ghanaian document, in comparison, refers to micro-economic household analysis (Living Standard Survey and participatory poverty assessments) which identifies traditional fishers - along with a number of other rural agricultural producer groupings - as being extremely poor and vulnerable as a starting point for determining the needs of such individuals and, by definition, the key policy issues (although these are not elaborated specifically vis-à-vis the fisheries sector in the main PRSP document). Both the Benin and Madagascar documents emphasize the need to tackle poverty-fisheries linkages - either by eliminating the use of inappropriate fishing tools and techniques which are seen as the principal cause of poverty in the sector, or by establishing funding systems which enable poor fishermen to access credit. In Burkina Faso, fisheries is not considered a national priority sector, and therefore the sector has not been a direct beneficiary of PRSP/HIPC funds. The fisheries sector effectively participated in the review of the PRSP in 2003; representatives of fishing communities, fisheries administration and other stakeholders took part in the regional and national stakeholders' consultations, and various reports informed the review process. As a result, and for the first time, regional level PRSPs were developed. Although fisheries is still not a national poverty spending priority in the revised national PRSP, it is a priority sector in at least three regional level PRSPs.

Once more, best practice in this respect is evinced in the Cameroon PRSP. Participatory consultations highlight links between fisheries and poverty, with the document going on to confirm the importance of the sector in terms of both enhancing food security and creating wealth, before bemoaning stagnation in the artisanal sector as it "has good growth potential that could benefit the poor (PRSP, 2003:42)." The accompanying annex then identifies constraints which impede the industry delivering the landings necessary in order to meet the current needs of the population (Best Practice).

While many of the countries (twenty-one, 80.8 percent) recognize the need for a sectoral response, just over half (eleven, 42.3 percent) of the accessed documents simply content themselves with unelaborated promises. Such promises range from; basing the sectoral response on undertaking a preliminary evaluation as a first step (Congo D.R.), unattached agricultural master plans (Central African Republic), long-term development programmes (Djibouti) or a wider water resources strategy (Ethiopia), facilitating fish marketing and processing (Kenya), advancing action programmes and micro-credits (The Gambia), supporting environmentally sound fishing (Chad), stocking ponds and fisheries (Niger), researching into fishing incomes (Uganda), establishing community based natural resource management programmes (Zambia) or promising support for infrastructural development and a new fisheries code (Benin).

More substance is found in the Mali (developing new water-bodies, equipping women's wholesale fish trading associations), Mozambican (objectives and measures to be taken identified with regard to traditional and industrial fishing, aquaculture and training requirements), Madagascan (shift towards a licence based regime for shrimp, maritime and inland fisheries, with five specific actions identified under the rural development pillar), Cameroonian (strategies for expanding artisanal output and aquaculture outlined and subsequently included in an implementation matrix) and Ivory Coast (six steps necessary for sectoral development are outlined) documents however.

The best of the responses provide detailed strategies/activities AND costing/monitoring indicators of the proposed interventions. Although the Malawi PRSP does this on an aggregate basis via its Action Matrix (the 2003 Annual Review tracking progress to date), the Mauritanian policy matrix goes further and identifies the specific priority actions and costs necessary for "strengthening the fishing sector's integration into the national economy"^[39]. A succinct summary of the overall fishing strategy elaborated with the support of the players involved is tracked through a 2003-5 Matrix of Measures and subsequently costed under the Priority Action Plan in the case of Senegal, while Ghanaian policy seeks to maximize economic benefits from a rational use of fish/aquaculture resources, principally through a costed rehabilitation of fish hatcheries programme. Probably the best is the Guinean document - four priority objectives concerning fisheries are identified, these objectives then being broken down into individual concrete tasks and accompanying indicative targets, and costed over three years (Best Practice).

Finally, the process criterion was identified in ten (38.5 percent) of the PRSPs analysed. In the main, the process extended to no more than consultation with stakeholders in the sector (five, 19.2 percent of cases) - with no/limited recognition of their inputs (Mozambique), no obvious linkages between stakeholder demands and policy analysis or responses (Ivory Coast), or simply recognition via the participatory process that some action on the fisheries front was necessary in the fight against poverty (Mali, Uganda). The Ghanaian document is somewhat more forward looking, committing the government to promote greater stakeholder participation in policy processes in the future through offering organizational support in the present. Involvement of base stakeholders in the document formulation process in Cameroon (specific fishing communities were involved in the national participatory assessment of poverty, and their suggestions were reflected in the published PRSP), Madagascar (unspecified capacity building in inland fisheries linked to environmental decentralization and integrated coastal zone management proposals) and Senegal (participation with the players involved identified the problems and proposed solutions for all stagers of the cycle of fisheries activity) - was rather more pro-active, helping to embed fisheries firmly into ensuing policy documents. The most effective PRSPs on this score however, are the Malawi and Guinean ones. In the Malawi case, not only were fisheries stakeholders involved and their inputs channelled via the Environment and Natural Resources thematic working group into an iterative consultative process which delivered the consequent PRSP, but the resulting document offers opportunities for enhanced future participatory inputs by the sector via a strategy of "creating mass awareness of the environment and natural resource management"^[40] and the creation of Community Based Natural Resource Management groups along the coast. Guinea similarly commits itself to strengthening base capacities by supporting the development of maritime and inland fishing villages, combining this with plans to establish an national and regional structure to deliver fisheries information, creating an appropriate administrative structure in the process (Best Practice).

Donor Strategy Papers tend to be equally strong on signalling fisheries issues (though less so in terms of either links or responses). However, while thirteen (65 percent) of the CAS documents do mention the sector, references in the main (11 cases, 55 percent) are extremely fleeting. These tend to either acknowledge the importance of the sector to GDP, employment and/or exports (Mozambique), mention current fisheries growth rates (Burkina Faso, Uganda) touch upon the factors impeding sectoral development (lack of domestic demand and non-competitive labour and pricing policies in the case of Djibouti, need for peace - case of Sierra Leone, trade barriers noted but not elaborated - case of Senegal), or allude to environmental issues associated with fishing (Malawi and Tanzania). Fraud or illegalities in the distribution of fisheries licences are the raison d'être for the sector's inclusion in both the Guinean and Madagascar documents, while the Congo D.R. and Zambian CASs simply note FAO and bilateral aid extended to the sector respectively. More emphasis is found in the Mauritanian paper which stresses the importance of fisheries to the national economy and provides a shortened resume of structural reforms undertaken in the sector in the preceding decade.

Although a similar number of EU documents (thirteen, 59 percent) denote fisheries issues, such references are rather more profound. The Guinea CSP contains a complete section highlighting the growth, current size, challenges and constraints facing the sector (although it does neglect to detail policy responses). Equally, both The Gambian and Senegalese CSP cover comparable ground - and also choose to emphasize the need to regulate access to the sector and the lack of effective control over foreign fishing activities - albeit, in a briefer fashion (Best Practice).

Table 4.6 Inclusion of the fisheries sector in African CAS and EU Strategy Papers

* The average is computed with reference to twenty-two countries for the EU Strategy Papers (no Strategy Papers are available for Kenya or Ivory Coast, and the Mali and Congo D.R. ones could not be accessed due to technical difficulties), but with reference to twenty countries in the case of CAS (as five countries do not have a CAS document in the public domain).

Fish and forex earnings form the centrepiece of the Mozambican CSP discussion of fisheries issues, with substantial commercial overfishing, unlicensed fishing and smuggling contributing to declining revenues, and growing environmental problems with few benefits for the local population. Export revenues are one of four government objectives (the others are optimize fiscal receipts from the sector, create employment and enhance value-added, and improve fisheries knowledge) in the Mauritanian fisheries case, the paper also providing a brief synopsis of past EU-Mauritanian Fishing Agreements. The remainder of the papers (seven papers, 36.3 percent), mostly note donor support to the sector (case of Benin, Chad and Madagascar) or how fisheries fits (C.A. Republic, Tanzania) or doesn't (Sierra Leone), as the case may be, into the national agenda. The Djibouti CSP simply mentions the sector as an alternative generator of revenues.

Causal links are mentioned equally infrequently in both sets of donor strategy documents. The Benin CAS document simply comments that Southern lagoon fishers are amongst the poorest national groupings (poverty identification), while a Box profiling poverty in the Mauritanian document alludes to a credit programme devised to provide assistance to disadvantaged fisheries groups (poverty alleviation). The EU documents appear more concerned with poverty alleviation, suggesting that revenue generation by industrial fisheries is insufficient to eradicate monetary poverty and the focus should be shifted instead towards employment creation (Mauritania) and government policy - in fisheries as with other sectors - should seek to orientate economic performance in a way that benefits the poor (Madagascar). The exception, perhaps, is the EU CSP for Guinea which identifies regional differences in fish consumption patterns and proposes increased fish culture as a strategy to reduce such inequities.

Fisheries-related responses were limited to just four countries (20 percent) in the CAS documents. The Senegalese document alludes to an ongoing Fisheries sector Review in FY04 which will identify the technical assistance needs of the sector, while the Gambian and Malawi CAS refer to Bank projects directed at expanding fish and farmed shrimp production and activities on Lake Malawi respectively. More detail is provided in the Mauritanian CAS, specifically in terms of both past Bank collaboration in the fisheries arena and its current involvement in implementing a comprehensive Fisheries Resource Management System. Five (22.7 percent) of EU Strategy documents cover fisheries responses and actions. The Gambian CSP merely notes EU support in strengthening rural (including fisheries) institutions, the Sierra Leone report notes the sum of five million euros could be mobilized to evaluate local fishing resources with a view to offering same to the EU within the framework of a SL/EC Fisheries Agreement, while the remainder (Madagascar, Mauritania and Senegal) provide rather more particular information on EU Fishing Agreements with the nation concerned, how such funds were used on the domestic plane, and other collaborative ventures with the EU.

Aggregate average PRSP scores varied markedly (Box 7); one country (Lesotho) failed to mention the fisheries sector completely, the majority score below 1.0, six (Benin, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania and Mozambique) offer good synopses in one of more of the categories to ensure an above unitary ranking, while five (Cameroon, Ghana, Guinea, Malawi and Senegal) give fairly extensive coverage to the sector in their respective PRSPs. This contrasts markedly with the minimal coverage given to the sector in Bank CASs - five countries failing to merit a mention, while only the big pelagic fishing nations of West Africa (Senegal and Mauritania) score above 1.0. This is all the more surprising perhaps given that such Bank lending strategies are supposed to be based upon the underlying PRSP documents^[41]. Although the EU CSP aggregate rating is 42 percent higher (0.5, compared to 0.35) than for the Bank CASs, this is partly explained by the more detailed "issues" and "responses" evident in those countries with which the EU has (or had) a Fishing Agreement (Gambia, Madagascar, Mauritania and Senegal).

4.2.3 Africa - Countries without PRSPs

Twenty-one African nations have not yet produced PRSPs - although seven (Angola, Burundi, Congo Rep., Eritrea, Gabon, Nigeria and the Sudan) are in the process of doing so - consequently, in the absence of such documents, we have resorted to using what appear to be the key national policy documents instead^[42]. Unfortunately, while the IMF and World Bank act as (easily accessible) repositories for PRSP documents, no such facility exists with regard to national policy documents and while identification of such documents proved to be a comparatively simple task, accessing - despite extensive and comprehensive web searches - was much less so. This notwithstanding, the Table below summarize our findings for this group of countries (Annex 3.2. provides a detailed analysis of individual country scores - with regard to national agendas, CAS and EU Strategy documents for each country).

Table 4.7 Inclusion of the fisheries sector in African NDPs (non-PRSP Countries)

* The average is presently computed with reference to the three countries in the African non-PRSP sample.

Although fisheries related issues were raised in both the Equatorial Guinea (with regard to the potential of the sector) and South African (in terms of more explicit black empowerment within this - and other - sectors) literature, such themes were not elaborated. In contrast, the Moroccan Plan de Développement Economique et Social 2000-4 devotes various sub-sections of the document to tracing the evolution of fisheries, the problems confronting the sector and the financial losses incurred as a result of the cessation of the Fishing Agreement with the EU (Best Practice). Although the same document does mention the lack of social security provision within the sector (causal link), it is particularly strong on policy response - identifying objective outcomes (modernization of fishing infrastructure, capacity-building - at the local and institutional level, improved fisheries surveillance and scientific research) for the period 2000-4, and costed strategies designed to achieve such targets (Best Practice).

Donor Strategy Papers are fortunately more readily accessible, at least in the case of the EU CSPs (seventeen available, 81 percent), although few (seven, 33.3 percent) Bank CAS are either in the public domain or have been completed (Table 4.8).

Fisheries issues turn up in eleven EU CSPs (68.8 percent), although a majority (seven, 43.8 percent) offer no more than a momentary mention. The potential of the sector is alluded to in the Eritrean, Swaziland and Congolese CSP, with growth constraints noted in the Congolese and Angolan documents (taxes and poor sanitary requirements in the case of the former, difficulties in preserving and marketing fish in the interior with regard to the latter). The Algerian report underlines the importance of sustainable fisheries development, the Tunisian and Eritrean CSPs recounts donor support, while the Gabon document advances the case - although doesn't specify precisely how - for diversifying away from oil and towards fisheries (and forestry and tourism).

Table 4.8 Inclusion of the fisheries sector in African CAS and EU Strategy Papers (non-PRSP countries)

* The average is computed with reference to sixteen countries for the EU Strategy Papers (no Strategy Papers are available for Liberia, Libya, Nigeria, Togo or Zimbabwe), and with reference to the seven countries which have a CAS document in the public domain.

Fisheries potential is also covered in the Somali document, although rather more extensively (meriting a separate sub-section of the report), whilst the Moroccan document enumerates both this and the enormous fisheries investment planned under current government policy following the cessation of Fishing Agreements with the EU. The cessation of, and history behind, such agreements are also detailed in both the Equatorial Guinea and Namibian CSPs. The former also noting government intentions vis-à-vis the sector, whilst the latter briefly explains the rationale for the "Namibianization" of the sector and fishery benefits accruing to Namibia under the Lomé convention terms. Three (42.9 percent) of the CAS papers reviewed allude to fisheries issues, either with regard to bilateral (Norwegian - case of South Africa) or multilateral (FAO - case of Morocco) support to the sector, or to simply note that the privatization of fisheries ports has now been accomplished (Tunisia).

Causal links are only evident however within the EU Country Strategy Papers sampled. The Eritrean food security strategy is predicated upon using revenues generated from the high-value fish export sector to support other groups within the sector, joint ventures being used as a similar strategic tool to reach marginalized groups in Namibia (redistributive options). The Angolan CSP also talks of high local levels of food insecurity, insisting that as the fisheries sector is "of such importance for food security that it must be included in the food security strategy and action plan (Angolan CSP, 2002:28)" - although no further details are given.

Just one - the Moroccan (which mentions the implementation of a pilot fisheries development programme funded by the Bank as a means of trialling new approaches to promote small-scale fishing) - CAS report details a fisheries-related response. EU CSP responses (four, 25 percent) pledge to either provide funds for improved sanitary controls (Eritrea) or fisheries surveillance under the EPRD facility (South Africa), or mention the possible start (Angola) or resumption (South Africa) of an EU Fishing Agreement with the respective African state. Gabon goes a little further, summarising the history to, and benefits expected from, an ongoing Fisheries Agreement with the EU.

Aggregate average scores (Box 8) are a little spurious in this case given the small number of countries whose national development strategy documents we have been able to locate (three, 13.6 percent) or for which there is a CAS available in the public domain (seven, 31.8 percent). However, the EU donor average of 0.48 - distilled from sixteen (76.2 percent) CSP documents bears comparison with the EU CSP average scores found in both Latin America and Africa (PRSP countries) and suggests a similar "benign neglect" towards the sector save in those instances where Fishing Agreements are in the frame.

4.2.4 The Asian economies

Nine Asian countries have completed either a PRSP (Cambodia, Mongolia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam, Yemen) or an interim PRSP (Bangladesh, Lao PDR, Pakistan) while other key national policy documents were analysed for another seven countries (Bhutan, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Oman, Philippines, Thailand). Table 4.9 summarizes our findings (Annex 4 Table 4.A provides a detailed analysis of national policy agendas for each country).

Being the world's principal fisheries region in terms of captures (with half of the world's twelve largest producer countries), aquaculture production (all of the world's nine major producer countries), total population engaged in the fishery sector (85 percent of world total) and fleet size (84 percent of total decked vessels, 51 percent of powered un-decked vessels and 83 percent of non-powered boats) (FAO, 2002b), inclusion of fisheries related issues in National PRSPs and Development Plans may be reasonably expected. However, although the Asian sample scored higher than other regions with regards to almost all criteria (only surpassed by the "fishery issues" scores of the African NDP sub-sample and SIDS), only in the case of "responses" does the regional average score climb significantly above one.

Ten (66.7 percent) of the analysed sub-sample of 15 countries mention fisheries issues, with four (26.67 percent) not extending the discussion any further beyond brief references to; the potential of fly-fishing within the national tourism strategy (Bhutan), the rapid growth experienced by the sector (Viet Nam) and the importance of food safety of fish products and the potential impact of port development projects on small-scale fisheries (India), and the consequences of unsustainable fishing practices (Thailand).

Five national policy documents (35 percent) touch upon fisheries issues in a somewhat more substantial manner. A comprehensive chapter on agricultural development in the Tenth Malaysia Plan dedicates several paragraphs to the fisheries sub-sector, aquaculture and fisheries development prospects. The Sri Lankan PRSP discusses the impact of war on fisheries, noting that production in the north has begun to recover since the February 2002 ceasefire, and identifies severe coastal erosion as a pressing environmental concern, not least because of its negative impact on the livelihoods of thousands of fishing families. The importance of effective coastal zone management is the key fishery-related issue discussed in the Yemeni PRSP, highlighting areas of concern as diverse as overfishing, destructive fishing practices, water pollution due to waste and chemicals, as well as the damage inflicted on coastal zones and fishing communities by tourist resort development. Three outstanding accounts of fisheries issues within the Asian sub-sample, are provided by the Cambodian PRSP, the Omani Sixth Five Year Development Plan, and the Philippine Medium-Term Development Plan. The Cambodian PRSP addresses aquaculture, fisheries management and livelihood improvement, and community fisheries in separate sections, with frequent other references helping to effectively mainstream fisheries issues throughout the document. In contrast, the Omani and Philippine documents discuss fisheries issues in distinct chapters. The Omani Plan provides a detailed evaluation of the (disappointing) performance of the sector under the preceding five year plan, this helping to pinpoint the contemporary challenges faced by the commercial and artisanal fishing sectors. In the case of the Philippines, two separate chapters, discuss in detail (i) the state, challenges and future of the agricultural and fishery sector, and (ii) environmental issues (incl. fisheries resources) and responses (Best Practice).

Table 4.9 Inclusion of the fisheries sector in Asian PRSPs and National Development Plans

* The average is presently computed with reference to the fifteen Asian countries for which we have PRSPs or NDPs. No NDP could be obtained for seven countries (The Bangladeshi interim PRSP was not analysed due to technical difficulties.)

Causal links between fishery related and poverty-related issues are mentioned in nine documents (60 percent), two-thirds of which (6, 40 percent) refer -in a rather ephemeral manner- to the employment and growth potential of the sector and/or its impact on local incomes (Bhutan, India, Pakistan, Viet Nam, Yemen), the significance of fish products in securing health and nutrition objectives (India, Mongolia), the lack of access to fishery-production enhancing opportunities for the poor (Viet Nam), the effect of environmental degradation on the livelihoods of the poor (Yemen), and the fact that certain populations engaging in fisheries are poor (India, Yemen). In contrast, while essentially commenting on the same issues, the analysis contained in the Cambodian (growth and incomes, consumption, environmental degradation), Philippine (employment and income, fishers among the poor, environmental degradation) and Sri Lankan (growth and incomes, coastal fishing communities are among the poorest) documents is somewhat more profound. Noteworthy are the discussions of fish consumption expenditure and natural resource access of the poor in the Cambodian PRSP, and the comments on vulnerability and the seasonal poverty of fishing families in the Sri Lankan PRSP.

As noted above, twelve policy documents (80 percent) contained fisheries responses, making it the highest scoring criterion in the Asian sub-sample. Whereas four countries (26.7 percent) make only fleeting references in terms of the need to establish hatcheries to re-stock rivers (Bhutan), the diversification of rural livelihoods via the promotion of fisheries (Lao PDR), the need to increase the supply of fish and fish products (Mongolia), as well as the demarcation of areas for the protection of aquatic fauna and local fishing areas (Thailand), seven countries (46.6 percent) place rather more emphasis on fishery responses. India, with multiple responses scattered across its rather lengthy Tenth Five Year Plan, plans to promote aquaculture to diversify rural incomes in "backward regions", and to boost research activity in order to promote sustainable fisheries and aquaculture growth. The Eighth Malaysia Plan details a variety of interventions aimed at stimulating sustainable growth in fisheries, aquaculture, fish processing and ornamental fish-rearing, including improved coastal and marine resource management, infrastructure provision (fishing complexes) and promotion of research activity, and reflects on the possibility of integrating sport-fishing activities in tourism packages. Similar measures are announced in Viet Nam's PRSP, yet more emphasis is placed here narrowing the material gap between ethnic groups, and specific support policies targeting the poor such as the provision of production inputs and subsidized credit, information, training, and risk-management capacity building. Sri Lanka, basing its fisheries policy on its National Fisheries Development and Coastal Zone Management programmes, details strategies to ensure the sustainable development of the sector, combined with specifically targeted interventions to bring poor and socially excluded groups, including fishers, into the economic mainstream, yet fails to provide a fully articulated expenditure framework.

The most elaborate response strategies are outlined in the Cambodian, and Yemeni PRSPs, which include action/implementation matrixes detailing objectives, strategies, monitoring indicators and budgets - and the Omani Sixth Five year Plan and the Philippine Medium-Term Development Plan (MTDP). Rice-fish farming and aquaculture, and community-based fisheries management are identified as key components in Cambodia's strategy for equitable agricultural development. Particularly noteworthy interventions include a programme to promote improved resource access for poor families and communities, a study examining the commercial importance of freshwater fisheries, and gender-specific extension programmes - to reflect the dominant role of women in traditional farming, fishing, and related commercial activities. The Yemeni PRSP aims for fisheries growth of 7.8 percent p.a. without sacrificing stock sustainability, detailing projects and programs (Support to Research, Assessment of Fish Stock, Creation of an Integrated Marine Control and Inspection System, Creation of Quality Control Laboratories, Improvement of Traditional Fishing in the Red Sea, Fisheries Production Promotion) aimed at achieving this target. The Omani document outlines a series of objectives (including pursuit of average annual growth of 3.9 percent p.a., improving post-harvest activities) and the policies, mechanisms (encouragement of a youth ships programme, extending the provision of marine fishing licences etc.) and investment programme expected to deliver such goals. Probably the best response strategy is provided by the Philippine MTDP, however, which outlines a comprehensive strategy for agricultural and fisheries development, with the Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 and the Fisheries Code of 1998 at its core. One central element of the strategy is the designation of Strategic Agricultural and Fisheries Development Zones (SAFDZ) to protect the country's agricultural and fishery resources and ensure their optimal, economically and environmentally sustainable use. Furthermore the government plans to extend education and training services to marginal sectors, including fisherfolk, by extending the National Agriculture and Fisheries Education System and strengthening its institutions, such as the National Centre and the Provincial Institutes of Agriculture and Fisheries (Best Practice).

Six national documents (40 percent) include references to the involvement of fisheries stakeholders in the policy process. While two (13.3 percent) countries merely mention the crucial role of women's and youth mass organizations in the process of poverty reduction (Lao PDR) or signal intentions to promote community participation in the protection of natural resources (Yemen), four (Cambodia, Thailand, Philippines, Sri Lanka; 26.7 percent) provide more details as to the ways in which such participation is to be achieved. Most notably, the Philippine document, developed with the participation of fisheries stakeholders, outlines the legal obligation of local governments to ensure such participation in the identification of SAFDZS and the elaboration of related development plans. The most elaborate account, however, is provided by Sri Lanka, which dedicates a whole section of its PRSP to detailing a variety of community-based coastal preservation and marine resource management projects to be implemented over a period of five years (Best Practice).

Donor Strategy Papers for the Asian sample are available for 14 countries in the case of World Bank Country Assistance Strategies (CAS) and 19 countries in the case of EU Country Strategy Papers (CSP). Table 4.10 summarizes our findings (Annex 4 Tables 4.B and 4.C provide a detailed analysis of CAS and EU CSP for each country).

Table 4.10 Inclusion of the fisheries sector in Asian World Bank CAS and EU CSPs

* The average is presently computed with reference to fourteen countries in the case of CAS (nine countries do not have a CAS in the public domain), and nineteen (for four countries no CSP is available).

The CAS -with a total of ten documents (71.4 percent) containing relevant references- are strong in terms of fisheries issues. General issues raised include the intention to raise the quality of aquatic products (China), the role of research and extension services in raising production (Lao PDR), donor support to the sector (Viet Nam, Philippines), fisheries related environmental issues (India, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand), and the vulnerability of fishers to HIV/AIDS (Thailand). Whereas six countries (China, India, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Thailand, Viet Nam; 42.9 percent) merely comment on such issues, four (28.6 percent) provide more extended discussions with regards to common property resource access of the poor (including fishing grounds), the adverse effects of poor physical infrastructure on fisheries productivity and livelihoods and the role of Cambodian trans-border migrants in Thailand's fish processing industry (Cambodia), the development potential of the coastal strip on the Arabian sea for fisheries and related industries (Pakistan), the government strategy for agricultural and fisheries modernization (Philippines), and environmental issues and fisheries growth potential (Yemen).

EU Strategies for the Asian sub-sample are weaker on fisheries issues with 11 (57.9 percent) documents offering primarily brief remarks related to the sectors contribution to GDP (Cambodia), fish exports (Lao PDR, Korea, Malaysia, Yemen), environmental issues (Bangladesh, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam), donor support (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines, Sri Lanka), and food security (Lao PDR, Yemen). Only two EU CSPs (10.5 percent) contain deeper discussions regarding the linkages between fisheries and environmental issues (Indonesia and Thailand).

Causal links between poverty-related and fishery-related issues were identified by four CAS (28.6 percent). Three (14.3 percent) of these go no further than noting the potential contribution of fisheries to the livelihoods of the poor (Philippines, Yemen) and the negative effect of fisheries resources degradation on livelihoods (Bangladesh, Philippines). In contrast, the Cambodian CAS incorporates a somewhat more extensive reflection on the link between common property resource access (including fishing grounds) on the one hand and the livelihood and food security of the poor on the other. Only two EU Strategy Papers (10.5 percent) cover causal links by discussing the potential contribution of fisheries to rural livelihoods and food security (Cambodia and Sri Lanka).

In contrast to causal links, fisheries responses are slightly better represented in World Bank CAS (five instances; 35.7 percent). The strategies for Bangladesh, the Philippines and Viet Nam (21.4 percent) make only passing remarks to responses, whereas the remaining two documents provide more detail on current or planned interventions in the areas of environmental protection and marine resource management (Indonesia, Yemen).

Six EU Strategy Papers (31.6 percent) feature fisheries responses, although half (Bangladesh, Philippines, Viet Nam) offer only minor remarks. The Yemeni paper provides some information on three fisheries related EU projects and stresses that EU aid to the country is aimed at realising the full potential benefits of the Everything-But-Arms-Initiative. The most extensive detail, however, is provided by the discussion of a study to assess potential future EC funded fisheries projects in the Cambodian CSP, and the EC support strategy for an Aquatic Resource Development and Quality Improvement Project in Sri Lanka (Best Practice).

Rather unsurprisingly, given the importance of the sector in the region, aggregate average scores for fisheries inclusion in PRSP and other national policy documents (Box 9) turned out to be slightly higher than those of other regions. That said, scores for individual countries vary considerably- with two documents (Jordan, Nepal) failing to include fisheries issues altogether, a selection of countries offering average coverage (India, Malaysia, Oman, Thailand, Viet Nam), and three countries (Cambodia, Philippines, Sri Lanka) achieving particularly high scores, indicating an extensive coverage of fisheries issues in relation to all criteria. Although overall coverage of fisheries issues compared to other regions is also above average in World Bank CAS and, good in EU CSP, good coverage of the sector in national policy documents does not always translate into high scores in donor documents, as illustrated by the Philippine CSP, for instance.

4.2.5 The transition economies

National policy documents were analysed for thirteen Transition Economies, eight of which have elaborated PRSPs or interim PRSPs. Table 4.11 summarizes our findings (Annex 5 Table 5.A provides a detailed analysis of national policy agendas for each country).

Despite the considerable number of countries without - or with only limited - access to maritime resources in the sample, fisheries issues are incorporated in more than half of the national policy documents (eight; 61.5 percent), an outcome partly explained by the use of EU guidelines for the elaboration of national development plans in accession countries, and their consequent ability to access EU structural funds (including the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance) to promote the development of the sector.

Table 4.11 Inclusion of the fisheries sector in transition economies PRSPs and National Development Plans

* The average is presently computed with reference to the thirteen Transition Economies for which we have PRSPs or NDP. (No National Development Policy could be obtained for ten countries, and the Czech NDP could not be analysed due to technical difficulties).

Three countries (23.1 percent) merely allude to issues relating fisheries to environmental concerns (Albania, Kyrgyzstan) or the development potential of inland-fisheries (Armenia, Kyrgyzstan), while five documents (38.5 percent) provide more detailed accounts. Azerbaijan discusses the environmental pollution of the Caspian Sea, and the Hungarian, Lithuanian and Slovenian documents develop more extensive overviews of the state and challenges of the national fisheries sector. Beyond doubt the most comprehensive coverage is provided by the Estonia development plan, which dedicates several pages to a detailed examination of the entire fish production chain, including the volume of fish-stocks, (state and capacity of) the fishing fleet, fishing ports and the fish processing industry and fish export markets (Best Practice).

Causal links between fisheries-related and poverty-related issues are to be found in five national policy documents (38.5 percent)- all but one Poverty Reduction Strategies. Four (30.8 percent) of them only briefly comment on the contribution of fisheries to rural livelihoods (Albania, Armenia, Estonia), or fish to consumption (Georgia). Only the Azerbaijan PRSP provides more elaborated thoughts, noting that employees in the fisheries sector are among the poorest paid public servants, with incomes below the absolute poverty line, and highlighting the mutually reinforcing relationship between poverty and environmental degradation in the case of the Caspian Sea.

Eight of the thirteen (61.5 percent) documents reviewed offer - in six cases (46.2 percent) elaborated - fisheries responses. Only two countries (15 percent) content their selves in making vague promises to protect fisheries resources (Armenia), to promote fishing cooperatives, and to diversify the food industry by incorporating fish products (Romania). The Albanian document features somewhat more detail on planned interventions (fishery resource management, fisheries and aquaculture promotion, fish processing), as do the Azerbaijan (protection of the Caspian Sea, salary increases for public servants in the fisheries sector), Hungarian (modernization and revitalization of the fisheries sector), and Lithuanian ones (development of marine and interior fisheries, creation of a general fishery information system). The most complete fisheries responses, however - containing detailed accounts of strategies/interventions, as well as targets/monitoring indicators and budgets - are to be found in the Slovenian and Estonian NDPs.

The Slovenian document sets forth a fisheries development programme nested within the overall strategy for agricultural restructuring and rural development, containing two principal lines of action; sustainable resource management, and the promotion of freshwater fish-farming. The Estonian Plan - with the overriding objective of bringing all links in the fish handling chain into conformity with EU food, occupational safety and environmental protection requirements - discusses in great detail (objectives, rationales, activities, target groups, monitoring indicators and targets, financing plan, coordination with other programmes) each of the five fishery-related objectives (Investment support for aquaculture; Investment support for processing of fish and aquaculture products; Promotion of new market outlets; Modernization of fishing ports; Restructuring of the fishing fleet) embraced by the country's rural development strategy (Best Practice).

References to the pro-active involvement of fisheries stakeholders in the process of policy-making and implementation were encountered in only three (23.1 percent) national policy documents. The contribution of the fisheries sector in the drafting of the national development plan is noted in the Estonian NDP, whereas the Albanian and Azerbaijan PRSPs discuss measures aimed at promoting community participation in the management and protection of fisheries resources.

The analysis of donor strategies for the Transition Economies is summarized in Annex 5 (Tables 5.B and 5.C provide a detailed analysis of CAS and EU CSP for each country).

References to the fisheries sector in donor Strategy Papers for Transition Economies are extremely scarce. Fisheries issues are mentioned in only five (26.3 percent) of the available 19 CAS, with the majority (four; 21.1 percent) making only fleeting references to the status of the fishery sector in EU accession negotiations (Hungary, Latvia, Slovenia) or fishery-related environmental problems (Azerbaijan). The Armenian CAS provides a slightly more extended discussion on natural resource depletion (including fisheries). The representation of fisheries issues in EU CSP is even lower (two out of 8 available CSPs; 25 percent). The Russian CSP alludes to Russia's rich fisheries resources and fisheries issues concerning Kaliningrad, whereas the Azerbaijan document offers a more elaborate reference to the environmental problems of the Caspian Sea.

Table 4.12
Inclusion of the fisheries sector in transition economies' World Bank
CAS and EU CSPs

* The average is presently computed with reference to nineteen countries in the case of CAS (five do not have a CAS in the public domain) and eight countries in the case of EU CSPs (no CSP is available for sixteen countries).

The only donor strategy paper referring to causal links between fisheries related and poverty-related issues is the Armenian CAS (5.3 percent), which points out that many poor people are forced by deteriorating socio-economic conditions to over-exploit natural (including fisheries) resources.

Average scores for the Transition Economies -rather unsurprisingly in the light of the above analysis- are poor (Box 10), particularly in the case of donor strategies (CAS/ CSP), with the lowest scores among all the regions examined. Sixteen of the nineteen available CAS (84.2 percent) either fail to include the sector altogether or provide a very fleeting reference. Only the Albanian and Armenian documents address fisheries issues somewhat more extensively. EU Country Assistance Strategies - available for only eight transition economies- mentions the sector in just two instances (25 percent).

Although national policy documents score slightly better, the low importance assigned to the sector is evident in most of the documents. Notable exceptions are the Azerbaijan PRSP and the Estonian Development Plan, with average scores denoting extended references to fisheries in relation to two or more criteria.

4.2.6 Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

There is a strong likelihood - given their topographic characteristics - that SIDS, surrounded as they mostly are by vast expanses of water and with correspondingly large EEZs, are more economically and socially reliant upon maritime activities (most notably fishing) than mainland economies in either Africa, Asia, Latin America or Europe. Unfortunately this geographic isolation has not been fully surmounted by electronic technology, and ready access to key national development data and strategies is somewhat circumscribed. So, while we have been able to identify the key national policy documents for thirty-five (85.4 percent) of the forty-one SIDS highlighted in Annex 6^[43], we have only been able to retrieve eleven of the thirty-five (31.4 percent) - a respectable sub-sample nevertheless. Table 4.13 below summaries our findings (Annex 6 provides more detailed information on the respective documents).

All countries in our sub-sample refer, in one way or another, to fisheries related issues in the analysed documents, although the majority (eight, 72.7 percent) only do fleetingly. Fleet growth (actual or intended) is the reference point in the Samoan and Mauritian documents, the forex importance of fisheries is noted in the Interim PRSP of Guinea-Bissau, the Cook Islands Budget Policy Statement refers to recent landings growth (though also comments on the low value-added presently created within the sector), while the Bahamian Budget Communication identifies the sector as one of the six pillars of the economy.

In contrast, the Guyanan PRSP sees fisheries as not being central to the national development plan, the PRSP of Sao Tome and Principe merely cautions against coastal overfishing, and the St. Lucian Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy and Action Plan proposes a need for agricultural diversification - which includes fisheries. Issues are more explicitly addressed in the Programa do Governo 2001-5 of Cape Verde, with fisheries size and forex importance being discussed (along with views for the sustainable and productive exploitation of the sector) and Vision 2018 of the Marshall Islands - which contrasts the pressures emerging on local reef fisheries (as a consequence of the aquarium trade) with the present inability to fully exploit the resource rent opportunities incumbent within an EEZ of over 2 million square kilometres.

Table 4.13
Inclusion of the fisheries sector in the NDPs of Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

* The average is presently computed with reference to the twelve SIDS for whom we have NDPs/strategies.

The most comprehensive coverage of fisheries issues however is be found in the Strategic Development Plan 2003-5 (SDP) of Fiji and the Sixth National Development Plan 2001-5 (6NDP) of the Maldives. Marine resources - with the goal of encouraging the sustainable utilization and development of marine and fisheries resources - are accorded their own sub-section in the Fijian Plan, tuna operations and international/regional obligations are discussed, and current constraints and opportunities are identified. Even better is the Maldives document. Having pinpointed the country's dependence on fisheries (and tourism), the Plan then goes on to enunciate twelve clear issues (overexploitation of exotic reef species, increased landings of poor quality fish, inadequate local technical expertise in production technologies etc.) which pre-occupy sectoral planners (Best Practice).

Causal links, as in the other regional areas, are less adequately addressed (five countries, 41.7 percent). Poverty identification is the basis of the Fijian contribution, the 2003-5 Plan noting the high (90 percent) contribution of fisheries to the subsistence of local communities, while the St Lucian and Guyanan documents relate to processes of poverty alleviation. St Lucia notes - though fails to specify - the role of the Soufriere Regional Development Foundation in contributing to poverty reduction in fisheries, as does the Marshall Islands document with regard to aquaculture/mariculture in general, while Guyana notes the necessity of private involvement in the post-harvest sector if incomes are to be sustained or improved. The Maldives goes a little further, combining identification (noting the link between declines in fisheries exports and national poverty levels) with alleviation (Policy Goal 19 - ensure sustainable socio-economic development of fishing communities).

Despite the unanimous recognition of fisheries issues in the documents analysed, rather less (eight, 66.7 percent) articulate responses. The Cook Islands assigns an undisclosed amount to support the sector, increasing fiscal exemptions to ensure a "harvest-friendly" regime. The Samoan document is equally unforthcoming about the amount of funds assigned to purchase fishing aggregate devices (FAD), the IPRSP of Guinea-Bissau fails to disclose any of the contents of an impending Fisheries Law, while the Mauritian National Strategy for Sustainable Development 1999-2005 only provides a cursory reference to some of the objectives of the Ten Year Fisheries Development Plan. More detail is encompassed within the Cape Verde Progama do Govierno and the Marshall Islands Vision 2018, which identify eight and five enabling policy measures (promote external investment, reconsider the role of the state etc.) respectively in order to enhance the contribution of the sector.

Best practice - although in these instances the responses are not costed - is to be found in the Maldives and Fijian documents, however. Fiji's SDN identifies four fisheries policy objectives (sustainable development, promote production and export of value-added products, increased community participation through ownership of companies, and provide appropriate institutional/physical infrastructure) - and the Maldivian 6NDP four key policy areas (promote diversification, increase private participation, manage sustainably, and to ensure the socio-economic development of fishing communities). Each document than elaborates a series of strategies (Maldives) or key performance indicators (Fiji) to ensure compliance with the underlying policy objectives (Best Practice).

The documents analysed appear to be a little weak on process though (five countries, 41.7 percent). The Guyanese document merely suggests (in Annex 6) that poverty reducing public spending will be tracked via aquaculture development in the country's artisanal fisheries, though no details are given as to how. The Marshall Islands promises to establish community fishing centres - although the role they are to play in the policy formulation process is left undisclosed. No details either are given either on the precise way the fisheries sector is involved - notwithstanding claims regarding its participation - in the formulation of the St. Lucian policy document, nor in the Fijian Plan that promises to "facilitate the active participation and involvement of resource owners in the mainstream activities of the industry by 2003 (SDN, 2002: 27)." Once more, the Maldives excels. Strategies detailed under Policy 19 - ensuring the sustainable development of rural fishing communities through greater devolution of resource management authority - highlights six strategies designed to foster (and maintain) greater participation in the decision-making process by rural fisherfolk and promote good governance within the sector (Best Practice).

Table 4.14 Inclusion of the fisheries sector in SIDS CAS and EU Strategy Papers

* The average is computed with reference to thirty-four countries for the EU Strategy Papers (no Strategy Papers are available for Aruba, Bahrain, Cuba, Fiji, Haiti, Singapore and Tokelau), and with reference to the nine countries that have a CAS document in the public domain.

There is a marked disparity in the availability of donor support strategies - while we have thirty-four EU CSPs, just nine (of which three - Cape Verde, the Dominican Republic and Guyana fail to mention the fisheries sector whatsoever) CAS are available for analysis (Table 4.14). Of these nine CAS documents, four (44.4 percent) raise fisheries related issues. In the case of the Belize and Papua New Guinea it is with reference to the comparative advantage in fisheries (PNG) or aquaculture growth prospects (Belize), while the Trinidadian CAS contents itself with alluding to government programmes to support fisheries and aquaculture. The Maldives' CAS is more effusive, noting the strategic nature of the sector vis-à-vis contribution to the national economy and the potential for future fisheries growth if key identified policy and institutional constraints are addressed (Best Practice).

A plethora of EU CSPs (30, 88.2 percent) pay heed to fisheries issues. Of those which purely signal such issues (fourteen, 41.2 percent), the identified concerns relate to; recent fisheries growth (Aruba, Cape Verde) and/or the need to exploit the full potential of the country's fisheries - including niche markets (Bahamas, Dominica, Jamaica, PNG, Sao Tome and Principe, and Tonga), the sector's contribution to the local economy (Guyana, Niue), donor support (Aruba, PNG, St. Vincent, Sao Tome and Principe), hygiene failings (Cape Verde and St. Vincent), and concerns about the resource base (Aruba, Bahamas) and inappropriate fishing techniques (Comoro Islands).

Specific preoccupations are mentioned in the Bahamian (problems of fish poaching) and Niue (lack of local landing facilities) CSPs. A further fourteen countries acknowledge a similar broad range of issues, albeit treating them in rather more depth. These include, for example, the Seychelles - which highlights the need for stock protection measures and the need to reconcile fisheries, tourism and environmental objectives - and the Marshall Islands - which provides details on the country's coastal and oceanic fisheries and the benefits obtained under the 1997 National Fisheries Policy and the accompanying licence regime.

License fees, fisheries growth and the governmental involvement therein, also feature highly in the Kiribati, Micronesia and Tuvalu CSPs précis of each country's fisheries development. More details on the contents of the fisheries issues advanced by those other nine countries garnering a mark of two are contained in the Annex 6.C. The best exemplars of integrating fisheries issues into donor strategy documents provided by our regional survey are to be found in the Maldives and St. Lucia CSPs. The latter offers a succinct sectoral overview, pointing out how it's failure to presently gain HACCP certification is hampering development before going on to delineate the aims of the STABEX-funded fisheries development programme. The former also emphasizes a challenge - insofar as the impending graduation from ACP status is likely to have a profound impact on tuna exports to the EU - as well as providing general background details on the sector's importance in the national schema of things (Best Practice).

Linkages between poverty and fisheries were apparent in ten (29.4 percent) of the EU CSPs. Efforts to link fisheries with poverty (poverty identification) are alluded to in the Cook Island (reef/lagoon fishers have subsistence lifestyles), Dominica (income provider and livelihood for 2,000+ fishers) Niue, Samoa (such subsistence activities have declined over time), the Solomon Island (artisanal fisheries are an important source of rural income and protein) and Tuvalu (fishing - amongst others - is a subsistence activity) CSPs. In contrast, both the Tongan (access to resources - including fishing rights and land) and Cape Verde (fishing is the ultimate free resource for the most vulnerable) documents pinpoint potential reasons as to how fisheries - or access thereto - may assuage/exacerbate poverty (poverty alleviation).

The St. Lucia CSP, in a similar vein, notes the government intent to achieve self-sufficiency in fish and other basic foodstuffs. One CSP (2.9 percent) is a little more forthcoming on such linkages. The Belizean strategy quotes a 1996 Country Poverty Assessment which indicated the main source of income for 45 percent of the poorest quintile was derived from agriculture and/or fishing - before drawing a link between agriculture (not fisheries unfortunately) and poverty. Linkages in CAS reports number three. The Jamaican Country Programme Matrix notes that the rural poor are farmers and fishers, the Maldives paper notes fishing to be a principal source of livelihoods and nutrition for much of the atolls' population, and Belize CAS recounts the quintile statistic mentioned above - but then neglects to finger fishers as a clearly identifiable group exposed to poverty in the rural areas - before referring to the increasing numbers of the poor who indulge in fishing as a livelihood option.

A small number (two) of fisheries-related responses are to be encountered in the CAS briefs. The Sao Tome and Principe CAS contains a promise, nothing more, to fund a study on the fisheries sector, while the Maldives CAS details past Bank support and ongoing assistance programmes for the sector. Fifteen (44.1 percent) of EU CSPs report fisheries related responses. These range from providing support to; improve sanitary processes (Bahamas), upgrade fishing facilities (Barbados), aquaculture development (Belize), unspecified local development imperatives (Cook Islands), enhance local management capacities (Bahamas), purchase new boats (Kiribati), fish inspection project (Maldives), small regional fisheries centres (Solomon Islands) and ensuring coherence between EU tuna harvesting interest and national development objectives (Niue, Papua New Guinea).

Unfortunately, such responses are merely noted - rather than elaborated upon - as is also the case with EU Fishing Agreements (current, past and intended) signed with Cape Verde, Mauritius and Palau. While the Guinea-Bissau and Sao Tome and Principe CSPs are a little more forthcoming with regard to details on EU Fishing Agreements, the most comprehensive response tabulated to sectoral issues can be found in the Seychelles document. Aside from a review of EU-Seychelles Fishing Agreements, the CSP suggests potential avenues for future collaboration (formulation/implementation of a sectoral strategy, capacity-building, fish-processing), pending local requests - and recognizes the need to ensure coherence between such initiatives and EC development co-operation policies in related fields via permanent policy monitoring (Best Practice).

Aggregate average scores (Box 11), are relatively high (as was to be expected), although once more there was a marked divergence - Fiji and the Maldives scoring particularly strongly compared to Sao Tome and Principe and Samoa, where fisheries scarcely merit a mention. EU CSPs similarly recognize the importance of fisheries-related issues for the SIDS, this being reflected in a rather higher average score (0.77) thanks to the variety of initiatives - not just bilateral Fishing Agreements - being proposed or undertaken in such states.

It is clear then that the extent to which the fisheries sector is mainstreamed into national development discourses (whether in the form of PRSPs or other, more traditionally generated, national development strategies) and donor support schemes vary across, and within, regions. While countries such as Cambodia, Cameroon, Estonia, Fiji, Guinea, Malawi, the Maldives, Morocco, Peru, the Philippines and Senegal score highly^[44], the sector fares markedly worse in other countries. One reason for this variation may lie in the relative importance of the sector as an established "motor of growth" or, alternatively, as a "harbour of poverty" as identified in Section Three of this report. The final, and concluding, section therefore compares the extent to which the sector has been incorporated (Section 4) - with the outcomes expected if the socio-economic importance of the sector to the national economy were to be taken into account (Section 3).