المنتدى العالمي المعني بالأمن الغذائي والتغذية

1. Defining progress towards securing sustainable small-scale fishers.

a)In terms of topics most relevant of SSF-Guidelines in our Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) context  would be responsible governance of tenure, sustainable resource management, social development/ decent work, gender equality, and climate change. 

b)Responsible governance of tenure: This guideline express that tenure and access to resources is vital for human rights guarantee and enjoyment. This point is a vital aspect of long term-viability of SSF, that represent half of the world catches, employing 90% of people involved in the sector (FAO 2014). In LAC context, 2.3 million people are directly/indirectly involved in the fisheries sector (Chuenpagdee et al, 2019) and SSF-LAC contributes globaly with 10% of the catches (Salas et al.2011).

Moreover, since 1999, COBI has been studied and recognized, how ensuring and guarantee fishing rights for SSF, have a positive effect on the sustainable use of resources, in comparison with other communities that do not possess a secure tenure (Bourillón, 2002).

Sustainable resources management: The topic of this Guideline calls for recognizing the role of SSF in conservation measures of their own areas, where their activities develop, calling for consultation and participation on designing, planification, monitoring and implementation of fisheries management strategies and policies, especially for historically underrepresented groups such as indigenous people and women. 

In this sense COBI believes this Guideline is of great relevance since as organization has developed strong methodological models for the participation of coastal communities in monitoring their resources and ecosystems for conservation purposes, using citizen science as a vehicle to capacity building and knowledge generation (Fulton et al 2019).

There is evidence of concrete benefits for resource conservation in the involvement of communities from the beginning, having as an example marine reserves in the form of no-take zones, have developed better when artisanal fishers have designed and generate the knowledge on the state of the ecosystem and the resources. (Fulton et al 2019).

Social Development and Decent Work: SSF: A general reality that SSF lacks systematically of labor and social rights, with precarious and even dangerous activities. Due to this situation it's vital to start making progress towards achieving decent work conditions in SSF, through specific legislation and clear public policies.

Gender Equality: The relevance of this Guideline lies in the fact that women have been historically excluded from the decision–making processes at the fisheries sector, despite their contributions, for example, fish processing, where up to 90% of this is made by women (FAO 2014). They remain unrepresented in official statistics, only recognized as helping or supporting male fishers' activities (Kleiber et al 2015).

There is evidence of woman and fisheries sustainability benefits since a study have to demonstrate how woman posses a long-term visión regarding benefits of sustainable use of resources and are willing to invest effort for achieving these outcomes, while men just see the relationship between fishing and income (Revollo-Fernandez et al 2016).

A stronger focus on knowledge, fairness, governance and gender balance is needed for creative solutions towards environmental challenges regarding marine ecosystems, including fisheries (Torre et al 2019).

Climate Change: Undoubtedly climate change is affecting and will affect disproportionately to SSF, compromising their sustainability and viability, for this reasons more than ever it's important to invest and work towards adaptation and mitigation efforts, focusing especially on how to socialize and escalate the traditional ecological knowledge, that SSF has developed concerning their adaptation and resilience to changing climate patterns.

2. At what geographical scale should progress be measured (e.g. local, national)?

Progress at Guidelines implementation should be measure at multiple scales (local, national, regional) and with a focus on different actors (goverment, fishers, civil society, industrial fishing).

Modifications to standardized indicators will be needed and the development of methodologies to measure this, for cases where groups and governments do not possess the capacities to do it.

3. Do you have suggestions for indicators that could be used to assess progress towards the priorities you identified under part 1? 

Until this moment suggested indicators could be the following: 

Responsible Governance of tenure

proportion of the adult population who perceive their tenure rights as legally secure, regardless of whether these rights are documented. Mandatory

proportion of adult population with secure tenure rights, that posses legal documentation, disaggregated by sex, type of tenure and cultural identity. Mandatory

existing legal and technical support for coastal communities regarding their tenure and access rights. Nice to have

Sustainable Resource Management

percentage of artisanal fishers, disaggregated by sex, that participate on the planification for the stablishment of management categories of marine zones (marine reserves, natural protected áreas, fish refugees). Mandatory

Number of fisheries that have specific long-term objectives to achieve sustainability in the fishery. Mandatory.

Number of fisheries that meets some international sustainability standard (MBA, Fairtrade, MSC, etc.) Nice to have.

Gender Equality

number of men and women who carry out activities within the value chain, which is not remunerated, within the fishing organizations of community partners, broken down by sex, age and fishing cooperative Mandatory

number of women and men in fishing communities, broken down by type of leadership position (member, manager, leader, etc.) Mandatory.

number and percentage of women participating as members within each fishing organization at the governmental and civil level Mandatory.

number and percentage of women, who participate in management positions within each fishing organization at the governmental and civil levels Mandatory.

number and percentage of women in fisheries decision-making institutions, by type of organization and scope of influence (local, community, district, national, etc.) Mandatory.

attitudes towards male / female participation in fishing and aquaculture activities. Nice to have.

4. Please describe any monitoring and evaluation frameworks and data sources you are aware of that could be drawn on to measure these indicators.

Good Practices to Eliminate Gender Inequality in Fish Value Chains released by FAO IN 2013.

UN Women, 2014 (https://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/libra…).

Aguilar y Castañeda, 2000 (https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2000-042…)

Quantitative indicators for common property tenure security, a publication of International Land Coalition

Reflection on Land Tenure Security indicators, a discussion paper by UNDP Oslo Governance Centre.

MSC. Working towards MSC certification: A practical guide for fisheries improving to sustainability (https://www.msc.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/for-bu… apartado 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives pag 343.)

5. What do you think are key elements of successful participatory monitoring? 

Strong public policies for community-based monitoring projects and methodologies.

Funding

Building of trust between scientists and community members.

Validation methodologies of data and knowledge gathered.

Early engagement of community members in the designing and implementation of the project.

Being systematic and constant.

6.What are your experiences with participatory monitoring?

COBI during the last 20 years has designed, tested and implement a community-based monitoring system on three key marine ecosystems in Mexico: kelp forests in Baja California in the Pacific, rocky reefs of the Gulf of California and the coral reefs of the Mesoamerican Reef System. This model has achieved to engage local fishers in data collection with two main objectives: a) science-based conservation for management decision, while improving livelihoods through knowledge and temporary employment. For this purpose 400 artisanal fishers and members of coastal communities have been participating in national marine reserve program, 222 fishers including 30 women have been trained to conduct underwater census using SCUBA gears, achieving 12,000 transects. For testing and validating the model, independent scientists have evaluated the training and the standards.

Fishery monitoring programs have been established with fishers and community members to collect data on certain species or areas. Small-scale fishers from seven communities in the Gulf of California, Pacific Ocean, Mexican Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico have been trained to collect data on invertebrates (incl. clams, penshell, lobster, and squid) and finfish (incl. ocean withefish, rooster hind, goldspotted sand bass yellowtail amberjack, and red snapper). Community members are trained to use different tools (traditional logbooks, e-logbooks, biometric measuring equipment, genetic sampling techniques etc.) by CSOs in collaboration with local Fisheries Research Centres of the National Institute for Fisheries and Aquaculture (CRIP-INAPESCA). The projects aim to improve the understanding of regional fisheries, fishery dynamics and to collect fishery dependent and independent data in data-poor regions.

7.Who should be the key actors involved in or responsible for the design and implementation of a monitoring system for the SSF Guidelines? 

Artisanal fishers (men – women- young people).

coastal communities

industrial fishing

civil society

academia

policymakers

processing and commercialization industry (retailers, buyers, restaurants)

Dear Forum participants,

Thank you to all who have contributed to this discussion so far, it is exciting to see how the depth and breadth of comments continues to expand as we receive more contributions. Certain topics have emerged as common threads across the contributions thus far.

Many participants have stressed the importance of the participatory approach, and how vital diverse SSF stakeholder engagement is. However, while this approach is highly valued, many have also pointed out how challenging it can be to execute in practice. Another frequently mentioned challenge is that of access to reliable data on SSF. For these reasons, many contributions have suggested that monitoring be carried out at the local level, but be connected or nested within a national or regional effort.

Additionally, there does not seem to be consensus on which components of the SSF Guidelines are the most important to measure, reflecting that the determination of priorities is highly context dependent.  Within different contexts, some have pointed out the importance of aligning monitoring efforts with other existing frameworks, laws and policies. While the advice about developing indicators has been varied, participants tend to agree that indicators should be simple, have both quantitative and qualitative elements, and be measured at different scales and over different time periods.

These topics are just a small sample of the varied feedback we have received. The more contributions, the more rich and valuable the discussion becomes. During the last few days of the forum, we welcome additional comments that will continue to foster an informative and thought-provoking dialogue. Many thanks to all consultation participants for your time and effort. We greatly appreciate your input.

Best regards,

Katy Dalton, for the FAO SSF Guidelines Secretariat

Q1. Although chapter 8 on gender equality may not be considered critical for the Caribbean some fisheries partners formed a Gender In Fisheries Team (GIFT) in 2016 to improve gender mainstreaming as set out in the SSF Guidelines. We have been very encouraged by the interest of both women and men, young and old, fisherfolk and academics. Often the dialogue is about ensuring that all in the fishing industry have a fair chance to succeed and prosper, so gender is only one dimension. In a regional survey, fisherfolk said that fisheries demonstrated gender equality much more than Caribbean society in general, and they were proud of this. We now need good metrics to measure and monitor the situation, particularly since many state and non-state gender agencies ignore our SSF.

Q3. One of the key elements of successful participatory monitoring is ensuring that the process is multi-purpose. That is, it serves several beneficial outcomes to which participants along different segments of the fisheries value chain, or in different fisheries or organisations, can easily relate over a reasonable period. Now there is a tendency to link monitoring to the achievement of the SDGs, but in many places the SDGs are still seen as a state concern removed from daily life. So it would be good to also have simple indicators suitable for multi-year high school curricula so as to facilitate intergenerational interest in monitoring fisheries and fostering stewardship.

1. Defining progress towards securing sustainable small-scale fisheries

Disaster risks and climate change is the most relevant topic of the SSF Guidelines for the Caribbean. Negative impacts of climate change are already evident in this region. The fisheries sectors of Caribbean islands are the most vulnerable to disasters and climate change. Climate change stressors (sea level rise and increased frequency of severe hurricanes) will continue to have significant negative impacts on the safety of fishers, fisheries infrastructure, boats and fishing equipment and coastal fishing communities. 

Efforts to provide climate services for the fisheries sector in the Caribbean need to be strengthened to reduce vulnerability to climate risk. The Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) was established since 2009 to strengthen the production, availability, delivery and application of science-based climate prediction and services. A Caribbean Framework for Climate Services (CFCS) has been established but special emphasis on integrating the fisheries sector needs to be prioritized. Existing climate products can be used to inform decison-making in the fisheries sector but sector-specific implications would be a useful addition. The development of setcor-specific products for the fisheries sector can support the provision of early warning information systems for the fisheries sector and promote sustainable use of ocean resources, thereby supporting the implementation of the SSF Guidelines.

1. Defining progress towards securing sustainable small-scale fisheries

As all parts and chapters are important and relevant to the sustainable development of small-   scale fisheries, I don't like to rank them, but rather consider them as a whole.

However, when it comes to measuring and evaluating the SSF Guidelines, I believe that chapters 3,4,10,11 and 13 are the most important ones. This is because the mentioned chapters frame the basis for monitoring and evaluating, but also guide cooperation among national and international stakeholders.

Monitoring should preferably take place at the local scale, as this is where the most important action is taken. From there it is then possible to scale up to "higher levels" (national, regional, global).

2. Meaningful and feasible indicators: How can we measure progress?

To monitor and to assess SSF it would be nice to use the SDG framework, and both quantitative and qualitative indicators. Because the SDG framework is not applicable on local scales entirely, the proposed global indicators must be accomplished by easy-to-use and most important understandable indicators. These indicators can be derived from other frameworks such as the EU MSFD or IUCN´s Red List Assessment. (I have suggestions for some indicators, which I describe in an article. However, as this has not yet been published, I do not want to make them public here. But feel free to contact me if you are interested in an exchange.)

None of the indicators should be mandatory as each community has its own context and issues and must decide what is important to them.

To my knowledge, there are only a few existing frameworks that focus on data-deficient SSF. These are:

- Adaptive Fisheries Assessment and Management (AFAM) Toolkit by Gavin McDonald et al. (2017)

- Too Big To Ignore´s Information System on Small-Scale Fisheries (ISSF)    and

- the indicators proposed by Ye et al. (2011) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.06.004

Other frameworks, like the Community-based Indicators framework (Boyd & Charles 2006), the Fisheries Performance Indicators framework (Anderson et al. 2015) or the Canadian Fisheries Research Network (CFRN) framework (Stephenson et al. 2018) require a rich data set, especially for modeling purposes, which makes them not applicable to most SSF situations.

3. Participatory monitoring: Key elements and experiences

Any monitoring attempt should be transdisciplinary, so key actors are the members of the fishing communities, national statistical offices, ministries and scientists.

Key elements of successful participatory monitoring are public/joint deliberations in order to build trust, and to reduce complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity. Of course, respect is key!

English translation below

PROPOSITION

OUTIL DE SUIVI ET D’EVALUATION DU NIVEAU DE REALISATION DES DIRECTIVES SSF

On peut s’inspirer de l’expérience développée dans le cadre du projet GOWAMER pour le calcul d’un Indice de gouvernance des ressources marines et côtières. Et mettre en place un Indice de Mise en œuvre des Directives SSF, (IMD SSF) ; Par une grille de notation des indicateurs pertinents retenus et le calcul d’une moyenne (valeur).

1. Qu’est ce qui définit les progrès vers la sécurisation de la pêche artisanale durable ?

1. Critère 1 : Efficacité de la gouvernance des régimes fonciers et de la gestion durable des ressources marines et côtières  
2. Critère 2 : Equité et égalité par rapport au genre et aux groupes sociaux dans l’accès et la gestion des ressources marines et côtières et des activités post-capture
3. Critère 3: Décence du travail, développement socio-économique et résilience des acteurs aux changements climatiques
4. Critère 4 : Cohérence entre les politiques de gestion des ressources marines et celles de lutte contre la pauvreté et de sécurité alimentaire

1. Indicateurs significatifs et réalisables/ comment mesurer les progrès ?

• Les revenus issus des activités locales de la pêche et la sécurité alimentaire sont améliorés et se poursuit à la fin du projet
• Un texte adapté au contexte de la pêche locale pour l’accès au foncier côtier et à la ressource pour soutenir les moyens d’existence des communautés de pêche existe dans un horizon temporel défini ;
•   Nombre d’aires marines protégées et /ou des zones protégées pour améliorer la biodiversité marine côtière sont mises en place dans un horizon temporel défini ;
• Nombre de récifs artificiels pour restaurer les habitats dégradés sont immergés dans un horizon temporel défini ;
• Nombre de plans d’aménagement de pêcheries sont élaborés et mis en œuvre dans un horizon temporel défini ;
• Nombre de plans de gestion de pêcheries sont élaborés et mis en œuvre dans un horizon temporel défini manière ;
• Pourcentage d’amélioration de la biodiversité marine et côtière dans un horizon temporel défini ;
• Pourcentage de textes tenant compte des aspects des droits de l’homme affirmant l’égalité des sexes dans la chaine de valeur de la pêche dans un horizon temporel défini ;
• Nombre ou pourcentage d’acteurs ayant adhérés à une couverture médicale universelle dans un horizon temporel défini ;
• Nombre d’infrastructures et /ou équipements participant à l’amélioration et à l’allégement des conditions difficiles de travail des acteurs sont mis en place dans un horizon temporel défini ;
• Nombre de mesures d’adaptation pour une résilience des acteurs face aux impacts négatifs des changements climatiques dans un horizon temporel défini ;
• Pourcentage de bénéficiaires du projet exprimant leur satisfaction sur les actions de renforcement de capacités réalisées dans un horizon temporel défini ;
• Nombre de missions de sensibilisation, d’informations et de communication sur les actions liées au développement de la pêche locale ;
• Nombre d’études réalisées pour renseigner le suivi et l’évaluation de la mise en œuvre du projet ;

1. Systèmes de suivi participatif/ éléments clés et expériences.

On peut s’inspirer du projet GOWAMER et mettre en place un Indice de Mise en œuvre des Directives SSF, (IMD SSF) ; Par une grille de notation des indicateurs pertinents retenus et le calcul d’une moyenne (valeur).

EXEMPLE : Méthode d’appréciation de IMD SSF.

VALEUR DE LA NOTE

PERFORMANCE DE LA MISE EN ŒUVRE DES DIRECTIVES SSF

NB : Le Suivi-évaluation participatif est une démarche qui met au centre de son processus les bénéficiaires du projet en faisant participer de manière accentuée toutes les parties prenantes. Les objectifs sont essentiellement fixés par les bénéficiaires du projet avec l’appui des agents du programme. Contrairement au Suivi-évaluation conventionnel dont les indicateurs sont choisis au début du projet, le Suivi évaluation participative choisit le plus souvent des critères à la place des indicateurs qu’ils revoient au fur et à mesure de la mise en œuvre du projet. Le SEP ne peut se faire qu’avec la participation active des bénéficiaires notamment dans un processus d’une analyse des informations qu’ils ont eux-mêmes collectées sur le terrain. L’analyse doit avoir une approche particulièrement qualitative et quantitative avec en exergue une acceptation de la diversité dan les points de vue. Le suivi des progrès  et  la capitalisation des informations et leçons apprises doivent se faire avec des outils appropriés et adaptés à la compréhension et à l’utilisation facile par les bénéficiaires du projet.  Le principal de ces outils demeure la fiche ou la grille d’évaluation par les bénéficiaires qui permet d’apprécier et de suivre les progrès enregistrés.

PROPOSAL

TOOL FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATING THE LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF THE SSF GUIDELINES

The experience developed in the framework of the GOWAMER project can be used as a model for calculating a Governance Index for Marine and Coastal Resources and setting up an Index of Implementation of the SSF Guidelines (IMD SSF) by means of a scoring grid of the relevant criteria selected and the calculation of an average (value).

1. What defines progress towards securing sustainable artisanal fisheries?

1. Criterion 1: Effectiveness of governance of land tenure and sustainable management of marine and coastal resources  
2. Criterion 2: Equity and equality in relation to gender and social groups in terms of access and management of marine and coastal resources as well as post-harvest activities
3. Degree of decency of work, socio-economic development and resilience of actors to climate change
4. Criterion 4: Consistency between marine resource management policies and poverty alleviation and food security policies

1. Meaningful and achievable Criterias/ how to measure progress?

• Higher income from local fishing activities and food security till completion of the project.
• A statement adapted to the local fisheries context regarding access to coastal land and resources in order to support the livelihoods of fishing communities within a definite timeframe
•   Definition of a number of marine protected areas and/or protected areas to enhance coastal marine biodiversity within a definite timeframe
• Immersion of a number of artificial reefs to restore degraded habitats within a defined timeframe
• Development and implementation of many fisheries management plans within a definite timeframe
• Development and implementation of many fisheries management plans within a definite timeframe
• Percentage of improvement in marine and coastal biodiversity within a definite timeframe 
• Percentage of human rights-sensitive documents affirming gender equality in the fisheries value chain within a definite timeframe
• Number or percentage of actors having joined universal health coverage within a definite timeframe
• Creation of a number of infrastructures and/or equipment to improve and alleviate the hard working conditions of the actors within a definite timeframe
• Definition of a number of adaptation measures to ensure the resilience of stakeholders to the negative impacts of climate change within a definite timeframe
• Percentage of project beneficiaries indicating their satisfaction with the capacity building actions carried out within a definite timeframe
• Number of awareness-raising, information and communication missions on initiatives linked to the development of local fisheries
• Number of studies carried out to document the monitoring and evaluation of project implementation

1. Participatory monitoring systems/key elements and experiences

Inspiration can be drawn from the GOWAMER project and an Index of SSF Implementation (IMD SSF) can be set up, by means of a scoring grid of the relevant criterias selected and the calculation of an average (value).

EXAMPLE : IMD SSF assessment method

NB : Participatory monitoring and evaluation is an approach in which the beneficiaries of the project are at the centre of the process by involving extensively all the stakeholders. Objectives are mainly defined by the project beneficiaries with the support of the programme officers. Unlike conventional monitoring and evaluation, for which indicators are chosen at the beginning of the project, participatory monitoring and evaluation usually selects criteria instead of indicators, which they review as the project is implemented. The participatory monitoring and evaluation system can only be carried out with the active participation of the beneficiaries, particularly in the process of analysing the information that they have themselves collected in the field.. Such an analysis must have a particularly qualitative and quantitative approach with emphasis on the acceptance of diversity among different points of view. Monitoring of progress and capitalisation of information as well as lessons learnt need to be done with appropriate tools that are adapted to the understanding and easy use by the project beneficiaries.  The primary tool remains the beneficiary evaluation sheet or grid, which makes it possible to assess and monitor the progress made.

All the chapters are condensed the issues very well.  Work on sustainable development still needs to be reviewed as we find the existance of poverty even after a decade of it's implementation.  This report exhaustively examined all aspects of Sustainable Development Goals.  

The said chapters also address Sustainaible Development Goals especially goals 1 and 2; to eradicate poverty and end poverty which is common among the fisher folks. However, the right to fish carries with it, the responsibility to do it responsibly

All the chapters are relevant and highly applicable to SSF Guideline. However, I think the 5 most relevant topics chapters are Chapter 1, 5, 7, 9 and 11. These chapters covers all activities of small-scale fisheries management including climate change, gender equality, protection of tenure right, fisheries governance and comanagement.

also, I think the progress should be measured from the local geograhical scale. That is why participatory monitoring will be a good tool to assess the progress. Often, many data are lost not reported at the national level, couple with the fact that Fisher folks are marginalised, their interest may not be well represented at the national level.

In June 2016, two year after FAO adopted the SSF Guidelines, a “National Seminar on Capacity-building for the Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines for Small-scale Fisheries” was hold in Brazil, aiming at learning about values, norms, and principles to enable its implementation in Brazil, through capacity formation and experience exchange to disseminate local knowledge, through a broad and participative process of dialogue.

Deliberations and outcomes from previous events held in Brazil with a direct or indirect linkage to the SSF Guidelines were starting points, although acknowledged the impossibility of comprehending and cover an exhaustive assessment of the topics, despite multiple and diverse contributions. Defining progress towards securing sustainable small-scale fisheries (Topic 1) required an identification of legal basis and public policies that, in principle, would have positive or negative impact in actions of implementing the SSF Guidelines, searching for political coherence in the national scenario, and becoming an instrument enabler of operating reforms in the existing complex legal and institutional framework. In this regard, the Guidelines were well-conceived considering understanding necessaries actions for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries, when conducting in Part 2 five thematic areas and issues taking social, economic and environmental aspects into consideration basis for sustainable development.

It is clear that connections among chapters, paragraphs, and topics strengthen the Guidelines’ objectives and goals, set in Part 1. Nevertheless, current political context of loss of social and economic rights and attacks in the field of environmental conservation, which threatens small-scale fisheries, their fishing territories, and the natural ecosystems, highlight that securing sustainability requires following relationships with other instruments. Mainly, promoting actions to support the sector’s transition to sustainable development from an economic and environmental perspective, strengthening food and nutrition security, for the sustainable use of natural resources, climate change adaptation and disaster risk management, at local level, although in light of regional (Latin America), national (Brazil), and sub-national (Brazilian Macro Regions) levels. Worth arguing for the need to confront legal instruments and initiatives linked to fisheries at national and international levels and the existing fishery management system, aiming at supporting alignment; incorporating small-scale fishing communities’ expectations and outlook; and contributing to establishing an efficient and effective institutional and legal framework.

Helping measuring progress (Topic 2) on the implementation of the SSF Guidelines, it is paramount establishing a "positive agenda" for civil society organizations, creating an autonomous movement coherent with basic human rights approaches, once neglected political spaces must be properly and adequately underwired. The process will consider following participatory methods of empowerment of fishers, strengthening exchanges of knowledge and experiences, to enable and facilitate communication between the government and the civil society organization. This is in line, and mandatory, with Sustainable Development Goal, SDG Indicator 14.b.1, that support actions to follow the “progress by countries in adopting and implementing a legal/regulatory/policy/institutional framework, which recognizes and protects access to small-scale fisheries' rights”. Worth mentioning that this “is a composite indicator calculated on the basis of the efforts being made by countries to implement selected key provisions of the SSF Guidelines”.

Hence, mechanisms and instruments for SSF monitoring & control, through actions in participatory fisheries management, fish production value chain, decent work, and socio-educational initiatives, with a focus on issues of gender, are meaningful and feasible indicators (Topics 2) “nice to have”. Which can promote knowledge on the current reality of the fishing sector and taking measures to be adopted for its sustainability, a following-up systemic assessment as results from cooperation projects once conducted on the Northeast Coast of Brazil small-scale fisheries.

From 2008 to 2011 the Brazilian Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Canadian charity World Fisheries Trust implemented a project known as Gente da Maré (GDM), or ‘People of the Tides’. GDM worked strategically to build institutional and community capacity and linkages between government, university researchers, and local fishing associations involved in projects to improve the livelihoods and well-being of ‘marisqueiras,’ women and families that depend on clam and oyster extraction, mainly the Venerid clam Anomalocardia brasiliana, in the Northeast Region of Brazil where the country’s highest number of coastal and estuarine small-scale fishers are concentrated. Consistent with many of the principles and guidelines in FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines for Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines), GDM promoted an integrated approach to equitable development of sustainable fisheries that included: co-management including participatory research and stronger research-policy interface; empowerment of women in fisheries occupations and improved opportunities for women; and value chain upgrading and democratization focusing on the decent work agenda, ..., towards the implementation of the SSF Guidelines in Brazil. (Mattos S M G, Wojciechowski M J, Macnaughton A E, da Silva G H G, Maia A M L R, Carolsfeld J (2017) Implementing the Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines: Lessons from Brazilian Clam Fisheries. In: Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R, Barragán-Paladines M.J, Franz N (eds) The Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines: Global Implementation, vol 14. Springer, Heidelberg, p 473-494.)

As key elements and experiences to participatory monitoring (Topic 3) it is paramount greater involvement of people and entities, as fishing territories and rights can be followed by the evaluation and modernization of small-scale fisheries. Dialogue with other representations, strategies of improvements in public policies, seeking an evaluation and transformation to strengthen self-esteem, through self-monitoring and control, working on the application of methodologies and technologies for sustainable fisheries are strategies worth constructing for full implementation of the SSF Guidelines and the Sustainable Development Goals.

In my point of view, there are inconsistent policies for small-scale fisheries monitoring and control and impacts on fishing resources and fishers’ livelihoods, showing the decline faced by Brazil to apply fishing management measures. In a daily basis, fishers struggle on defending fishing territories from a cultural perspective, developing community tools for the delimitation of their territories, through self-identification and improvement of fishing communities’ self-management, to facilitate access of producers to different assets (such as land, water, energy, and infrastructure) and rural financial services (loans, savings, insurances), as well as non-financial services (technical assistance, innovation, and knowledge).

Strengthen the implementation of techniques, methods a,nd tools that can be used to support fishing communities to be self-reliant in conflict resolution is a challenge worth exploring, once restrictions on access to fishing territories, and intolerance and violence against fisherfolks, are generating disturbances and high levels of anxiety and stress, leading to still unidentified and nameless diseases that affect fisherfolks. Such are historical dilemmas and perspectives from a political point of view, especially regarding the invisibility of small-scale fishers as producers of food and income, that must be stressed to improving the creation and implementation of multisectoral public policies and programs for food security and nutrition, strengthening their institutions, adjusting existing legal frameworks, and supporting robustness of information systems and resource allocation.