FAO Fisheries Circular No. 979 FIPP/C979: ISSN .

FAO Fisheries Circular No.
979 FIPP/C979
ISSN ….….
LITERATURE REVIEW OF S TUDIES ON POVERTY IN FIS HING

COMMUNITIES AND OF LESSONS LEARN ED IN US ING THE S US TAINABLE
LIVELIHOODS APPROACH IN POVERTY ALLEVIATION S TRATEGIES AND
PROJECTS
FAO, Fisheries Circular No. 979 FIPP/C979
LITERATURE REVIEW OF STUDI ES ON POVERTY IN FISHI NG

COMMUNI TI ES AND OF LESSONS LEARNED IN USING THE
SUSTAI NABLE LIVELIHOODS APPROACH IN POVERTY
ALLEVIATION STRATEGI ES AND PROJECTS
Prepared by
Graeme Macfadyen
Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd
and
Emily Corcoran (Consultant)
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Rome, 2002
ii
The designations employ ed and the presentation of the material in

this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoev er on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
All rights reserv ed. Reproduction and dissemination of material

in this inf ormation product f or educational or other non-
commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written
permission f rom the copy right holders provided the source is
f ully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information
product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited
without written permission of the copy right holders.
Applications for such permission should be addressed to the
Chief , Publishing and Multimedia Serv ice, Information Division,
FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by
e-mail to copyright@fao.org
© FAO 2002
iii
PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document was prepared as a background paper for the Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods
Programme (GCP/INT /735/UK) and FAO Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research Joint
Working Party on Poverty in Small-Scale Fisheries – Promoting the Contribution of the
Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in Poverty
Alleviation, FAO, Rome, from 10 to 12 April 2002. T his is a slightly edited version of the draft
final paper submitted by the authors under contract to DFID/FAO Sustainable Fisheries
Livelihoods Programme (SFLP) in May 2002.
iv
Macfadyen, G.; Corcoran, E.

Literature review of studies on poverty in fishing communities and of lessons learned in using the
sustainable livelihoods approaches in poverty alleviation strategies and projects.
FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 979. Rome, FAO. 2002. 93p.
ABS TRACT
This report presents the findings of a literature review conducted on behalf of the DFID/FAO
Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme (SFLP). The authors reviewed nearly 300
published and Internet documents on various aspects of poverty in fisheries and on lessons
learned of poverty alleviation measures and approaches including the Sustainable Livelihoods
Approach (SLA). The principal findings of this review, undertaken within a short period of time,
indicate important research and policy issues. T here are very few studies and analyses on the
extent, nature, causes and dynamics of poverty in fishing communities. Similarly, the extent to
which the fisheries sector and its various linked activities (e.g. fish processing, marketing and
distribution) contribute to poverty alleviation and food security has been subject to limited study.
On the other hand, the literature abounds with statements, largely unsupported by empirical
evidence, that suggest that fishing communities belong to the poor, or poorest, strata of society.
There is also limited understanding on the impact on poverty (incidence, depth and dynamics) of
technological change, community and fishers’ organizations, and alternative fisheries
management governance regimes. On the policy side, the review found that while government but
especially donor-supported fisheries development and management programmes usually seek, at
least implicitly, to reduce poverty in fishing communities, these programmes are rarely targeted
on the poor. While empirical evidence is still very limited because of its newness, the SLA is an
improvement over conventional sectoral approaches for combating poverty in fishing
communities. The main advantages of the SLA lie in its multi-sectoral and integrated nature and
its foundation in stakeholder participation. However, application of SLA to guide interventions
and policy must be adaptive and flexible, which increases time and costs. Poverty reduction
strategy papers (PRSPs), currently in preparation in many of the poorest developing countries,
have so far made little explicit reference to livelihoods in small-scale fisheries. While the SLA is
thought to offer great potential to contribute to improving the relevance of PRSPs, there is some
concern over the extent to which SL principles are currently incorporated in PRSPs.
v
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY....................................................................... 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................... 1
1.3 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS ..................................................................................... 3
2 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS OF STUDIES TO ANALYSE POVERTY IN FISHING
COMMUNITIES..................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 SUMMARY OF REFERENCES....................................................................................... 4
2.2 MAIN FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 4
2.3 POLICY IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................ 10
2.4 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS....................................................................................... 11
3 LESSONS LEARNED FROM APPLYING THE SLA TO FISHERIES AND RURAL
COMMUNITIES................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 SUMMARY OF REFERENCES..................................................................................... 12
3.2 MAIN FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 12
4 REVIEWS OF USING THE SLA IN POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY PAPERS......... 18
4.2 MAIN FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 18
5 COMMON PROPERTY: CAUSE OR REMEDY OF POVERTY FOR SMALL-SCALE
FISHERS ............................................................................................................................. 25
5.2 MAIN FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 25
6 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SMALL-SCALE FISHERS’ VULNERABILITY AND
COPING MECHANISMS ...................................................................................................... 30
6.2 MAIN FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 30
7 IMPACTS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE ON EFFICIENCY, EQ UITY AND POVERTY
IN SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES ............................................................................................ 35
7.1 SUMMARY TABLE.................................................................................................... 35
7.2 MAIN FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 35
8 FISHWORKER’S ORGANIZATIONS: A VOICE FOR THE POOR.................................. 41
8.1 SUMMARY TABLE.................................................................................................... 41
8.2 MAIN FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 41
vi
9 CRITICAL FACTORS FOR SMALL-SCALE FISHERS TO GET OUT OF POVERTY....... 47

9.1 SUMMARY TABLE.................................................................................................... 47
9.2 MAIN FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 47
10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 51
10.1 SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE.......................................................................... 51
10.2 MAIN FINDINGS AND THEMES ............................................................................. 54
10.3 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................... 57
ANNEX 1 – TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................................................... 58
ANNEX 2 – PROJECT CONCEPT PAPER............................................................................. 59
ANNEX 3 – USEFUL INTERNET SITES ................................................................................ 63
ANNEX 4 – BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................ 66
SECTION 1: METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS OF STUDIES TO ANALYSE POVERTY IN
FISHING COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................. 66
SECTION 2: LESSONS LEARNED FROM APPLYING THE SLA TO FISHERIES AND RURAL
COMMUNITIES ................................................................................................................ 69
SECTION 3: REVIEW OF USING THE SLA IN POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY PAPERS .. 75
SECTION 4: COMMON PROPERTY: CAUSE OR REMEDY OF POVERTY FOR SMALL-SCALE
FISHERS........................................................................................................................... 77
SECTION 5: SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SMALL-SCALE FISHERS’ VULNERABILITY
AND COPING MECHANISMS ............................................................................................ 79
SECTION 6: IMPACTS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE ON EFFICIENCY, EQUITY AND
POVERTY IN SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES........................................................................... 81
SECTION 7: FISHWORKER’S ORGANIZATIONS: A VOICE FOR THE POOR ......................... 83
SECTION 8: CRITICAL FACTORS FOR ARTISANAL/SMALL-SCALE FISHERS TO GET OUT OF
POVERTY......................................................................................................................... 86
ANNEX 5 – ADDITIONAL REFERENCES OF INTEREST, NOT REVIEWED DURING THIS
STUDY ................................................................................................................................ 91
vii
Glossary of Acronyms
BCAS Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies
BMJ British Medical Journal
CCRF Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
CDF Comprehensive Development Framework
CEMARE Centre for the Economic Management of Aquatic Resources,
University of Portsmouth, UK
CPRS Common property resources
CS Civil Society
DFID Department for International Development, UK Government
DFID-SEA DFID – South East Asia
EU European Union
EURODAD The European Network on Debt and Development
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
HDI Human Development Index
HIPC Highly Indebted Poor Country
ICSF International Collective in Support of Fishworkers
IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development
IMF International Monetary Fund
IOI International Ocean Institute
I-PRSP Intermediate Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
IT DG Intermediate T echnology Group
LADDER Livelihoods and Diversification Directions Explored by Research
NACA Intergovernmental Network of Aquaculture Centres, Asia Pacific
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
ODG Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia
PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan
PIP Policies, Institutions and Processes
PPA Participatory Poverty Assessment
PQLI Physical Quality of Life Index
PRA Participatory Rapid Approaches
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
RBA Rights Based Approach
SAP Structural Adjustment Programme
SFLP Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme
SID Society for International Development
SL Sustainable Livelihoods
SLA Sustainable Livelihood Approach
SPA Strategic Partnership with Africa
T URF T erritorial Use Rights in Fisheries
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UPPA Ugandan Participatory Poverty Assessment
VSO Voluntary Service Overseas
WB World Bank
1
1 Introduction and methodology
1.1 Introduction
This report presents the findings of a literature review conducted on behalf of the Sustainable
Fisheries Livelihoods Programme, by Graeme Macfadyen (Poseidon Aquatic Resource
Management Ltd) and Emily Corcoran (freelance consultant). T he work was completed during
March 2002 in time to serve as an information paper for the meeting of the Joint Working Party
on Poverty in Small-Scale Fisheries (Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme and FAO
Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research), Rome, Italy, from 10 to 12 April 2002.
The terms of reference for the literature review can be found in Annex 1.
Additional background to this literature review and the motivation for ongoing work on fisheries
and poverty is presented in the Project Concept Paper (see Annex 2).
1.2 Methodology
A wide number of sources of information were accessed in an attempt to obtain relevant
literature. These included:
- databases of journal abstracts (Agricola 1992–2001/2, CAB International Abstracts

1992–2002, Econlit 1969–2002, Sociological Abstract 1986–2001/2, Aquatic Science and
Fisheries Abstracts 1992–2002, Aquatic Biology, Aquaculture and Fisheries Resources
Abstracts 1992–2002) – access through FAO1 ;
- FAO online catalogue;
- CEMARE (University of Portsmouth) library (site visit to run searches)2 ;
- research requests posted to IIFET (International Institute of Fisheries Economics and
Trade) email distribution list;
- individual requests made to staff known to the consultants dealing with fisheries and
natural resources at FAO, DFID, World Bank, Asian Development, Asian Development,
and the European Commission;
- individual requests made to personal contacts of the consultants;
- the Internet using search engines such as Google;
- reference list from papers presented to the DFID-FAO SFLP (GCP/INT /735/UK)
Workshop for Poverty, Small-scale Fisheries and the CCRF, Cotonou, Benin, November
2001;
- internet sites of organizations and information of possible interest (see Annex 3 for a list
of useful sites and links, with a brief description of the sort of information available at
each site);
- requests to libraries at IT DG, ODI, Oxfam and Care.
In examining the terms of reference, the scale of the task involved with the literature review is
immediately evident. Given the limited time and budget available for the study, we have therefore
had to be selective in our search for relevant information. The initial approach taken was to
generate as many references as possible of potential interest. All references were then rapidly
1
Thanks to Jean Collins (fisheries library) and Patricia M errikin (m ain library) at FAO for their help and
assistance
2
Thanks to Christopher Martin (CEMARE librarian) for his help and assistance
2
assessed based on titles, and where possible abstracts, to decide whether to access full records.
Those records selected and accessed were then reviewed, analysed and synthesised into the
findings contained in this report.
The search strategy for all databases of journal abstracts and for the CEMARE library, used
keywords associated with each main item of the terms of reference as shown below in bold:
1. the applied methodology and findings of studies that have been carried out to analyse poverty
in fishing communities (pove rty and (fishing or fishe ries or fishery) – this search generated
many references also relevant to all other points below);
2. a synthesis of the findings of lessons-learned studies on applying the SLA to fisheries and
rural development (especially in South Asia and West Africa) (“sustainable livelihoods”
and (“case studies” or “lessons le arnt”));
3. a synthesis of reviews of using the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) in Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) (“sustainable livelihoods” and “pove rty re duction
strategy pape rs”);
4. a synthesis of studies on small-scale fisheries on:
a) the “ commons” nature of fisheries: cause or remedy of poverty? ((commons or
“common prope rty”) and fish*) and (“common prope rty” and pove rty);
b) the special characteristics of small-scale fishers’ vulnerability and coping mechanisms
((vulne rab* or coping me chanisms) and (fishe rs or fishing or fisherie s or fishery));
c) the impact of technological change on efficiency, equity and poverty (te chnology and
(fishing or fishe ries or fishe ry));
d) the role of fishworkers’ organizations: a voice for the poor (organizations and (fishing
or fishe ries or fishe ry));
e) the critical factors for artisanal/small-scale fishers to get out of poverty: evidences and
inferences (poverty and (fishing or fishe ries or fishe ry)).
Searches of journal databases conducted whilst at FAO generated a number of records which
looked interesting but which were not available in either the FAO fisheries library or the main
FAO library. Some of these were subsequently obtained from other sources for review, but given
the large number of records already collected for review and analysis, and the limited time
available, others were not. Annex 5 contains an additional list of references which are likely to be
of particular interest to the topics examined in this report, but which the consultants did not have
time to access and review.
A number of other filters were also employed to make the amount of information to be analysed
more manageable. While some particularly interesting literature pre-1990 has been included in
the review, the majority of references relate to the last twelve years. In addition, while the terms
of reference refer to small-scale fisheries (i.e. which could be taken to include many inshore-
fisheries in developed countries), with one or two exceptions, almost all references selected for
review relate to developing country artisanal/traditional fisheries (note Smith 1979 provides a
useful summary of the differences between small-scale, traditional, artisanal and industrial
fisheries).
In addition, while the Concept Paper refers to a comparison of fisheries with other sectors, the
terms of reference require a literature review relating to fisheries only, except for the review of
SLA and rural development, and SLA in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. Some non-fisheries
related articles have been included, but the large majority refer to fisheries only.
3
Internet searches were particularly relevant for the identification of more recent documents (1998
onwards), an increasing number of which are being made available as full text PDF documents,
free and online. A complete review of online information has not been possible for this review,
although Appendix 3 is an attempt to direct users to the most up to date and relevant sources.
These filters, along with the fact that there are other journal databases that could have been
searched, and the fact that alternative keywords could have been employed for those databases
that were searched to identify additional records, mean that it is acknowledged that much relevant
literature is sure to have been missed. Nevertheless, we hope that the 300-odd references
reviewed as part of this study have generated some key issues and points of interest, and
highlighted areas of necessary further research.
1.3 Presentation of results

While some of the items in the terms of reference and associated literature overlap in context, for
ease of presentation this report is structured so that each item of the terms of reference is dealt
with in a separate section. Each section begins with a summary table for the references reviewed.
All the references that have been reviewed in full (but not all those initially identified as being of
interest but not accessed) are itemised in the Bibliography in Annex 4 in the usual form of author,
date, title, and source (e.g. Bloggs J., 2001, Fisheries and poverty in Africa, Marine Policy Vol 3
(2) pp35–45). The Bibliography is presented as a series of tables corresponding to the main
points/sections of the terms of reference, and provides the following additional information:
1. The area/country to which the reference relates. It is hoped that this additional
information will highlight geographical areas where research appears to be most
prevalent and areas where it appears to be lacking. We acknowledge that the references
reviewed are skewe d geographically by a concentration on references in English and the
sources of data we have used. Nevertheless an interesting graphical presentation of the
geographical coverage of references is provided in the conclusion.
2. Whether the study provides empirical evidence of the impacts on poverty. T his provides
the reader with some idea about the extent to which studies have specifically assessed and
measured impacts on poverty.
3. Where the reference has been sourced from i.e. where the consultants have obtained it.
This will enable the reader to rapidly access those that they would like to view in full.
4. Finally, we have also placed in bold text a few selected references that we feel are key
reading for each of the points in the terms of reference.
4
2 Methodology and findings of studies to analyse poverty in fishing

communities
2.1 Summary of references

Numbe r of refe rences 31
Number of fisheries related references 10
Geographical spread West Africa 4, East Africa 4, Southern Africa
1, SE Asia 3, S Asia 2, Pacific 3, Latin
America 1, Global 3, T heoretical 10
Number of references based on empirical 14
research about the causes/impacts of poverty
Number of references defining poverty 18
Yearly spread 1980–1990 1, 1991–2000 13, Post 2000 17
2.2 Main findings
2.2.1 What is pove rty, why me asure it and how has it been done ?
A limited number of studies were found in published literature, which measure poverty in fishery
communities; all are recent with most written since 2000 (see bibliography for this, and other,
sections). There is however a more substantial volume of literature at a more general level dealing
with poverty, how it has been measured in the rural development context, and discussions of the
validity of different approaches. This body of work provides information that can certainly be
useful in informing the measurement of poverty in fishing communities.
Until recently in fisheries, it has been a common assumption that i) small-scale fishers are poor
(Smith, 1979 and World Bank, 1982 in Béné et al. 2000) and that ii) development initiatives in
small-scale fisheries set in place by governments, donors and NGOs would implicitly contribute
to the reduction of this poverty. T he issue of poverty and the reduction of poverty in many cases
has only recently become an explicit objective (pers comm., Gillet, 2002).
Why is poverty important? The interest of the international development community in poverty
was renewed after the publication of the 1990 World Development Report, stimulating the
international prioritisation of poverty reduction (Moser, 1998). This commitment is evident in the
agreement of the International Development T argets, which arose from UN conferences in the
early 1990s. An understanding of poverty is required at two levels. Firstly to be able to measure
progress towards these ambitious targets, poverty needs to be measured. This has lead to a
considerable evolution in the professional understanding of poverty, what it is, who is affected
and how it can be most appropriately measured. Secondly, to be able to help the poor break the
poverty cycle, one needs to understand the poverty cycle, who it affects, why and what
opportunities can be used to plan interventions to improve their conditions (Pittaluga, et al., 2001
conf). The FAO has begun to consider poverty as a result of indications that although complex,
there are links between poverty and the degradation of natural resources (Bellamy, 1995; Reardon
and Vosti, 1995; Willmann 2001 conf.) and that to achieve their mandate of sustainable
development, both natural resource and poverty issues need to be addressed.
Poverty has been measured using a range of indicators, and detailed descriptions and critiques of
their relevance are well de bated in the literature (Thorpe, 2001 conf.; Chambers, 1989). Figure 1
5
attempts to illustrate the evolution of poverty indicators showing the shift from simplified
statistical/economic indicators based on nutritional inputs, income and consumption within the
household, through an approach looking at basic needs requirements (“the deprivation of material
requirements for minimally acceptable fulfilment of human needs, including food” (Cox et al.,
1998)), to more recent attempts which try to embrace the multi-dimensional aspects of poverty.
Figure 1. Different indicators of poverty showing their evolution to embrace a more holistic
understanding of poverty (based on, Thorpe, 2001 conf; Cox et. al., 1998)
Multi dimensionality of indicators
Nutritional based Basic needs and Income/ The absence of Well being
Measures composite consumption – basic capabilities approach (Based
(calories/day, indicators (HDI, poverty/destitutio to function on the SLA)
anthropomet ric PQLI) n lines, head (UNDP )
measures) count / poverty
gap measures
Qualitative
Quantitative
The relevance of linear poverty indicators is questioned by many of the articles we have
reviewed. It is argued that econometric terms are too narrow, and oversimplify poverty
(Chambers, 1989; Cox et al., 1998; Bebbington, 1999; World Bank, 1999). It does not, for
example allow elements of well-being or ill-being out of the cash economy to be included.
(Carnagie and Goldman, 2001). T he concept of poverty has wide implications, which must be
addressed in order to understand links between rural poverty and livelihood sustainability
(Bebbington, 1999). The use of participatory approaches in development with target communities
is resulting in a change in the way professionals define poverty. It is the subject of extensive
discussion that cannot be developed here. Some examples of poverty definitions based on, or
influenced by, perceptions of the poor are presented in Box 1. This illustrates that when the poor
are asked to define poverty, many of their criteria are based on assets, rather than income, some
of which are intangible and at best difficult to quantify. Naryan et al. (2000) report five key
elements that contribute to the concept of poverty according to the poor. T hese are:
1. Poverty is multidimensional and complex.

2. It is a lack of the assets needed for well being.
3. It includes psychological aspects.
4. It is an absence of basic infrastructure.
5. It focuses on assets and vulnerability to risk, not income.
6
Box 1
Trying to define poverty – examples based on participatory experiences
“ Poverty constrain s human development, restricts people’s choices and robs them of dignity and self respect” (DFID-SEA,
Cambodia)
“Don’t ask me what poverty is because you have met it outsid e my house. Look at the house and count the number of holes,
look at my utensils and the clo thes that I am wearing. Look at everything and write what you see. What you see is poverty” A
poor man, Kenya 1997 (Narayan et al.., 2000)
“The poorest (miskené in Arabic) are those that live on the will of others” , Guin ea (Corcoran, 2001)
“ Poverty is not necessarily rela ted to money…someone may be poor according to in come poverty indicators, but be better off in
terms defined outside the cash economy (subsistence affluence)” , (pers comm. Garry Preston, 2002)
Poverty is multifaceted, comprising of a number of materia l and non materia l, in tangib le dimensions (McGee, 2000)
“The poor are those who experience vulnerability, social marginalisatio n, exclusion from a sustain able livelih ood and have self
perceptions of poverty as well as in come poverty.” (Beck and Nesmith 2001)
“ Poverty is humiliation, the sense of bein g dependent…and bein g forced to accept rudeness, in sults and in difference when we
seek help” Latvia , 1998 (Narayan, et al.. 2000)
How poverty is defined, affects what should be measured, and how, as well as the ability to
identify poverty reduction measures (Gillet, pers com., 2002). T his has brought about a
realization that new approaches are needed to cope with this more sophisticated understanding, in
a move to narrow the gap between previous professional definitions and local perceptions. The
main ideas and themes relevant to measuring poverty from a multidimensional perspective are:
1. Quantitative, qualitative or both? T he subjective vs. the objective approaches to poverty are
considered to be polarised (Moser, 1998, Bebbington, 1999). What is realistic?
Quantitative indicators give an insight as to the scale of the problem; the qualitative
indictors are more adept at addressing why people are poor. Addressing multi
dimensionality is time consuming, and imposes practical restrictions. The appropriateness
of how and what to measure depends on what the information is needed for, by whom, at
what scale and the resources available (Thorpe, conf 2001). A study looking at results of
qualitative (participatory poverty assessments) and quantitative poverty assessments
(Household Surveys) in Uganda showed that these methods are neither contradictory nor
complementary as they stand (McGee, 2000). The use of SL approaches allows space for
creating opportunity for linkages in future work.
2. The use of participatory approaches is vital in allowing the inclusion of qualitative
indicators, and considers the range of assets people have, and their ability to access these
assets as a basis of analysis.
3. Triangulation is an essential process in the collection of qualitative information.
4. The application of an asset based framework (Reardon and Vosti, 1995), Moser (1998)
describe frameworks slightly different from the SL framework supported by DFID.
Recognising that people have a range of different assets that they manage to create their
livelihood strategy is an important step in recognising the complexities and dynamics of
poverty (Moser, 1998)
5. Bebbington (1999) emphasises the importance of access to assets as a means for the poor to
build sustainable and poverty alleviating livelihoods. In addition, it is the proportion of
7
different types of assets, not just the amount of assets an individual or household has access
to, that affects poverty.
6. Assets are perceived by the poor as making visible one’s poverty status. Needing to ask for
help is a social sign of poverty, not being able to read is another. Similarly the lack of
access to physical or natural assets is a sign of poverty (Cox et al., 1998).
7. The non-poor are not necessarily the least vulnerable (Moser, 1998). T hose who are
economically unstable can easily fall below the subsistence border line if conditions
deteriorate (Jazairy et al., 1992 in Cox, Farrington and Gilling, 1998).
8. Describing communities as poor and non poor is an over simplification. Different types of
poverty exist both within and between communities (Béné et al., 2000; Gillet, pers comm.,
2002). In studies which disaggregate by socio-professional groups or gender in fisheries, or
other rural sectors, these groups are also heterogeneous, with poorer and less poor
individuals or households undertaking similar activities. It is the differences between these
people and how they devise a strategy to survive that is important. T he SLA is a holistic,
dynamic, people-centred, sustainable approach which lays the framework on which
different methodologies are being developed to address these questions. These approaches
are being developed across the development sector in an attempt to look at who is poor and
how their needs can be addressed base d on strengths and opportunities.
2.2.2 Applie d me thods use d in rural de velopment

Participatory Pove rty Assessments (as used by the World Bank) use trained field teams to
apply participatory approaches. T he teams use groups, focus groups, key informants and other
tools, which are triangulated to increase validity. Such methods aim to understand poverty, how
people deal with poverty, trends and dimensions, and the impact of policy (UPPA, Uganda,
1999). In the case of Uganda, the PPAs were useful in identifying the types of policy that could
influence the factors that will allow the poor to move out of poverty (McGee, 2000).
Well being analysis uses PRA techniques to help village participants categorise poverty levels
based on their assets, hunger period, income, and the amount they spent for an annual festival.
This allowed the original target group to be desegregated into 4 sub groups for resource allocation
purposes and reduced exclusion in a rural micro credit project (Kar, 2001). An important note
from this example is that the poorest tended to be risk averse and the most difficult group to
assist.
Poverty Mapping allows the location of identified determinants of poverty. It can be used from a
global to a micro level. A range of methodologies can feed into poverty maps depending on the
objectives of the exercise, definition of poverty, limits on the data, analytical capacities and costs.
The extent to which these maps measure the broader aspects of poverty depends on which
methods are applied. Participatory approaches solicit self-generated definitions of poverty, the
determinants of which can be uncovered using the livelihoods approach (Davies, forthcoming).
Davies highlights the importance of considering bias and potential errors in the data as limitations
of poverty mapping. T he robustness of the final output (including statistical error) should be
scrutinised, as the attractive and clear presentation of information in the maps can easily be
misleading.
Wealth Ranking is used as part of a participatory or livelihoods analysis (Khanya www,

Carnagie and Goldman, 2001; ODG, 2001). This is a method taken from the PRA repertoire to
desegregate the given community according to wealth/poverty criteria, which are defined by the
8
participants. It is a very quick categorisation, and does not lead to understanding the broader
aspects of poverty.
Poverty Profiling can be executed at the national, waterbody, or community level. National level
profiles have been undertaken in countries preparing PRSPs in line with World Bank and IMF
requirements (www.worldbank.org/poverty). Poverty profiles use secondary data and
participatory methods to understand who the poor are, why they are poor, how many poor there
are, and where they are concentrated.
2.2.3 Examples of me thodologies and findings of studies in small-scale fishing

communities
For each reference below, a short summary of the methods used and the key findings are given.
From the documentation available and conversations with experts in the field, it is evident that
there has been a recent upsurge in the amount of work undertaken to measure poverty in fishing
and aquatic resource dependent communities. Much of the documentation on such work is not yet
available.
An analysis of poverty and aquatic resource use – focusing especially on the livelihoods of the
poor in Cambodia. DIFD-SEA Aquatic Resource Managem ent Programme.2000.
Me thods: The programme used a mix of (i) quantitative data, HDI, income based poverty
lines based on the cost of providing minimum calories and per capita consumption, national and
regional level census data and other secondary literature. In particular the article describes the
development of a country specific HDI based on economic and social indicators, a broader
indicator than the standard HDI. (ii) Key informant interviews. The analysis is based primarily on
economic data.
Findings: The method identified who the rural poor are, defined on the basis of the poverty
line and indicating differences between regions. Large provincial differences were found in
human and social indicators. The importance of small-scale inland fisheries for the rural poor is
emphasised, especially the poor aquatic resource users including the subsistence aquatic resource
collection activities of the landless. Fish were highly significant as a source of dietary protein in
the diet of the rural poor. Key issues identified to orientate change were: access rights to fisheries
(varied according to the scale of fishing); communication difficulties between the poor and
supporting agencies; and insufficient technical knowledge to support subsistence fishers.
Poverty and aquatic resources in Vietnam: an assessment of the role and potential of aquatic
resource management in poor people’s livelihoods. DIFD-SEA Aquatic Resource Managem ent
Programme.2000.
Me thods: Involved secondary data collection for 7 regions and a validation workshop. It
aimed to define different dimensions of poverty, and areas of high poverty of aquatic resource
dependent people, to be used to target livelihoods analyses. There was insufficient information to
achieve the aims using the secondary information.
Findings: Information was available on aquatic resources and on poverty, but was not
linked together. Information was particularly lacking on subsistence or “ wild” fisheries that are of
importance to the poor. Regional reports identified some areas based on official poverty
assessments, but no information as to the causes of poverty or where there is a high dependence
on aquatic resources.
9
Evaluating livelihood strategies and the role of inland fisheries in rural development and poverty
alleviation: The case of the Yaéré Floodplain in North Cameroon (Béné, C., Mindjimba, K., Belal,
E., Jolley, T., 2000.)
Me thods: The study used participatory wealth ranking in 21 villages. The structure of the
approach used semi-structured group interviews with key people, participatory mapping of the
natural and physical resources, and construction of a seasonal calendar. The criteria for wealth
was defined by the respondents
Findings: Between 2 and 3 groups were identified, depending on the village. Income was
not a major criteria, and herd size was the most sited measure as it acts as a fund bank in times of
difficulty.
Access rights and ownership of rights to the water bodies was not cited as a cause of
differentiation of wealth (it is noted by anthropologists that the ethnic majority in the area, the
Mousgoum have a rather egalitarian culture). The poorest groups have the highest dependence on
the fishery and therefore the equitable access to the water body is critical for the poor in an area
where agricultural land is scarce. The number of different activities in poorer households was
found to be significantly higher than in richer households.
Livelihood and Poverty Baseline, Integrated Lake Management Project, Uganda. September 2001.
Me thods: Questionnaires were designed on the SL approach, translated into the appropriate
language and administered by trained facilitators. Every 5 th house was sampled on a walk through
of the parish. A target was set to sample 20% of the parish. Data was analysed using Microsoft
Excel. T he second method wa s wealth ranking based on physical, human and financial assets
(including qualitative indicators). How questionnaires are delivered was seen to be critical to the
outcome.
Findings: A clear demarcation of wealth groups was difficult as the communities are
composed of a continuous spectrum of livelihood statuses.
The average number of dependants increases with the wealth group (raising the question: if
groups with high levels of dependants are targeted will more people be reached?)
The majority of the poorest wealth group were not born in the parish (i.e. are non resident),
however helping such groups is sensitive.
Female-headed households were disproportionately represented in poorer wealth groups and the
poorer wealth groups have less opportunity to diversify livelihoods.
Handbook for Livelihoods Analysis and PRA. STREAM – Support to Regional Aquatic Resource
Management .2002. NACA, DFID, FAO, VSO learning and communication initiative.
Me thods: A SL framework was used as a basis for analysis. Within the framework,
secondary data sources (national, regional statistics, reports and indicators), sample surveys and
existing PRA tools are used to collect the information. This provides the opportunity for the poor
to express their own perceptions, remain at the centre of the investigation and be involved. The
SL framework removes sectoral constraints. The method aims to understand poor livelihoods of
aquatic resource users and the role of aquatic resource management in their livelihoods.
Pilot usage of the livelihoods analysis has been undertaken in 7 Vietnamese villages, with aims
for replication at a larger scale.
10
Expe cte d findings: The main contribution to household income; constraints to accessing
assets; different risk factors of social groups in the villages; and the ability and constraints on o
exercising individual and group choice.
Poverty Profiles of Artisanal fishers: Methods Based on the SLA, examples of Benin, and
Guatemala. (second case study in Guinea) (Corcoran, E, Working paper 2001; Pittaluga, F., Corcoran,
E., Senahoun, J, in SFLP Workshop, 2001; Corcoran, E., Johnson, B., Senahoun, J., Theielun, C , working
paper, 2002)
Me thods: The methods for these poverty profiles are based on the SL framework, and use
the SL approach. This enables the methodology to be flexible and adaptable to different
objectives, depending on the objectives, time, country and the type of community (e.g. whether it
is a small-scale fishing community set around an inland water body, or a maritime coastline). It
can also be adapted to look at a national level profile, at the level of a particular water body, or at
the community level.
The methodology has 4 main components, (i) a secondary data review (makes use of existing
profiles, quantitative data, government or agency reports) (ii) participatory brainstorming sessions
using multidisciplinary key resource people at the appropriate administrative level (iii) refining of
livelihood groups with homogeneous focus groups of target beneficiaries identified in step ii, and
(iv) validation of the findings in the field.
Existing participatory approaches and methods are used in components ii – iv. The role of
facilitation in the brainstorming and in the focus groups is essential to gain the added benefit of
group dynamics.
Findings: The main causes of vulnerability to poverty are identified by the participants;
who the poor are and who are the most vulnerable to poverty; the location of the poor through
mapping and using quantitative data supported by the participatory work; how many people are
poor. This method is still being developed, but there are indications that it will be able to help
understand the variation of poverty levels between people undertaking the same key livelihood
activities.
Further work is needed on the quantification of the capital assets, the weighting of macro and
micro variables on poverty and development in the understanding of poverty and vulnerability.
The structure and presentation of the information needs further development to enable it to be
informative to policy makers, and communities.
2.3 Policy implications

• Development of realistic participatory poverty measurement methodologies in the small-
scale fisheries sector (although not exclusively) is a required pre-cursor to more effective
policy formulation. Difficulties in defining poverty will affect the success of measurement
and poverty reduction policies (Baulch, 1996 in Sporton, 1998). Baulch and McCulloch
(1998) describe a high turnover of poverty in rural Pakistan suggesting that policies should
be developed to try and increase the exit rate from poverty and at the same time reduce the
entry rate.
• The level of policy development in inland fisheries is very low and often ignored (Béné et
al, 2000), however, inland fisheries are important to the poor particularly in areas of
inundation where agricultural land is scarce. T his high dependence on inland fisheries
means that policy change will have a proportionately larger effect on the poorest (Béné et
al, 2000). It must be clear who these people are.
11
• Differences in long and short term poverty have big policy implications. Short term
temporary or seasonal poverty might require safety nets or access to credit. Long term
chronic poverty requires more fundamental policy adaptations in education for example
(Sporton, 1998)
• Policy must be sensitive to gender issues in resource allocation and asset control and the
reported feminisations of poverty (Sporton, 1998). It must recognise the economic and non
economic roles of women in the household and the differing perceptions of poverty held by
men and women.
• Without understanding the intra community heterogeneity of poverty differences there is a
danger that poverty alleviation policies could have unintended negative impacts on some
groups (Béné et al., 2000).
2.4 Research implications

• Vulnerability is a separate issue to poverty (Chambers, 1989, Corcoran, 2001), and one that
is linked to the asset-base of the household or individual. It refers to defencelessness,
insecurity and exposure to risk, shocks and stresses. Many of these factors can be seen in
the definitions of poverty. More research needs to go into identifying indicators for
vulnerability. If poverty reduction is the priority of governments and aid agencies, then
reducing the vulnerability of people to fall into poverty must be one important element of
this task. As inferred in the Ugandan Lake Management Project, is it appropriate to assist
the vulnerable rather than the poorest, in order to reach the largest number of people? (Also
a development and policy issue).
• Development of a flexible methodology is required that will allow for site specific
variations in the perceptions and relevant components of poverty as seen by those who are
poor. Methods must make the best use of existing information and reflect the multi-
dimensional, site specific and dynamic nature of poverty that is now being conceptualised
as a result of working in partnership with target beneficiaries.
• Better understanding is required about the type of poverty prevalent in small-scale fisheries
communities? What are the proportions of people in transitional and chronic poverty in
fisheries? These differences also need to be distinguished in poverty measurement. How
are different members of the community and the household affected? Where is the balance
between having enough information and making timely decisions?
• More research is necessary to be able to ascertain the most significant contributing factors
to poverty in the fisheries communities, and what type of intervention (not necessarily in
the fisheries sector) is necessary to alleviate this poverty.
12
3 Lessons learned from applying the SLA to fisheries and rural

communities

West Africa 8, East Africa 9, Southern
Geographical spread Africa 5, South Asia 4, SE Asia 3, Latin
America 3, Africa/South Asia 2, Developed
1, Global 7, Theoretical 10
1980–1990 0, 1991–2000 35 (of which oldest
Yearly spread
is 1997 and 18 from 2000), Post 2000 17
3.2 Main findings

The Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) concept first came about in the late 1980s. Early iterations of
the asset based approach were first put into practice from the mid 1990s by SID and IISD, and
introduced to UNDP in 1996 and DFID in 1997. A brief history of the SLA is outlined in SID
(2000) and descriptions of the guiding principles and framework can be found in numerous
publications as well as online (Scoones, 1998; Carney, 1999; FAO, 2000; Allison and Ellis, 2001,
www.sflp.org; www.livelihoods.org ).
The concepts of SLAs are not new, but build on best practices of researchers and agencies around
the world. What is new, as pointed out by Carnagie and Goldman (2001), is the bringing together
of the different elements into an approach which focuses on poverty alleviation (Baumann and
Sinha, 2001).
The first programme to explicitly apply the SL approach throughout its project cycle is the
DFID/FAO Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme for West Africa which began in 1999
(Allison and Ellis, 2001). Prior to this, SL was applied in analysis or ad hoc, but since then the
number of SL influenced interventions has grown rapidly. DFID currently has 116 SL guided
projects and programmes (DFID, 2002b). These address a range of issues at different scales
across the globe promoting pro poor policies relating to (amongst others) natural resource use,
rural, urban and peri-urban development and the impact of EU policies on developing countries.
UNDP have SL programmes running in 10 countries (UNDP–SL, 1999).
Publications of SL experiences are all very recent. More than half of the references reviewed have
been published since 2000, and all since 1997. An increasing amount of information is being
made available on the Internet, where platforms for information dissemination and exchange have
been established in a way which should facilitate wide public dissemination of new experiences
and enable feedback as these interventions progress. A key point that emerges from the literature,
is that because the SLA is a new concept in terms of its formal application, at the moment the
majority of literature concentrates on lessons learned from design and implementation.
13
Understanding the impact of SL initiatives on poverty alleviation is still very much a work in
progress.
The lessons learned which are presented below aim to draw together experiences showing the
value of SL approaches, and detail what can be drawn from these experiences to date. A vast
number of lessons were presented in the literature reviewed, and these have been synthesised to
present the main emerging themes. The Inter Agency Forum on Operationalizing the Sustainable
Livelihoods Approaches, which was convened in 2000, has contributed greatly to bringing
together the experiences of SL applied in programmes and analysis until 2000.
3.2.1 Aims and Uses of the SLA

There is general concordance of the main aims of using a SLA despite the large variation in
application. T he definition of aims below is an attempt to combine the key elements:
“The SLA provides a conceptual framework allowing (i) the main factors affecting people’s
livelihoods and (ii) the direct and indirect linkages between these factors, to be considered in the
context of developing policies for poverty reduction. It is an approach that aims to be powered by
the poor and help people achieve lasting improvements, assessing impacts using self defined
indicators.”
It is generally agreed that SL concepts are people focused, pro poor, policy orientated, attempt to
encompass environmental and social stability, have the potential to explain the complexities and
dynamics of livelihoods (in this instance of the rural poor), poverty and vulnerability. SL does not
stand alone, but should tie together with other concepts and tools (quantitative and qualitative),
striving for a more holistic approach to poverty. To try and achieve these aims SLAs are
constantly changing and adaptable to different contexts.
Although in some regions, such as Latin America, there has been little explicit use of the
analytical framework and no use of SL to direct participatory appraisals (Ditchburn et al, 1999),
the application of SLAs have been diverse and include:
• As an analytical framework for all stages of project and programme cycles (design,
implementation, monitoring, review and assessment)
• As a conceptual tool to think about the objectives, scope and priorities for development in
the context of poverty reduction, identifying key constraints and opportunities
• As a tool to help structure primary information collection and secondary information
analysis and review
• As a basis for policy-relevant empirical research to capture the cross-sectoral nature of
rural livelihood strategies, informing policies to support the least sustainable livelihoods.
3.2.2 Practical lessons

• SL approaches are adaptable and should be use d as a flexible framework changing
according to country and group contexts (Brock, 1998; T urton, 2000b). Once an objective
is set, the framework acts as a conceptual guide to asking questions (Scoones, 1998). Such
flexibility makes comparison of research sites difficult (Brock, 1999)
• The approach is iterative and dynamic, learning from experience (DFID, 2000).
• Translation of the terminology into other languages is difficult (Ditchburn et al., 1999).
• The holistic, people centred nature of SL means that the process is complex, demanding
higher inputs of time, information, and skill for the analysis (Scoones, 1998; Barr and
14
Haylor, 2000; Ashley 2000), than conventional quantitative methods (Nicol, 2000). Cost
effective methods that maintain the poor as the priority but also enable impact monitoring
are required (Farrington et al., 1999).
• T ime is especially important for sharing SL concepts with partners and a diverse range of
actors who are used to working independently (Farrington et al., 1999; Wanmali and Singh,
1999; DFID, 2002). Such investments are essential to ensure ownership of the process at all
levels and require flexibility of donors.
• SLAs require an effective team to undertake the participatory analysis. Communities
usually have a very extensive understanding of how to maximise their livelihoods, shown
by the diversity of strategies used. Help is needed for the more complex collective
assessment of community priorities, dynamics and motivations, and how to accommodate
them, (Ashley, 2000).
• Participation can bring people into the development process and highlight the roles of
stakeholders (Lewins, pers.comm. 2001). However participation alone is not sufficient
because a) participation can improve understanding but better understanding does not make
reality any easier to change” (T urton, 2000) and b) to ensure ownership, people need to
have a role in decision making (Wanmali and Singh, 1999).
• Developing community owned SL initiatives where the principles are adopted and applied,
is a long process which needs considerable involvement of local people in the process and
in the decision making, for example in Namibia where communities have been making
decisions based on factors broader than cash alone (Ashley, 2000). T here are ethical
questions relating to the amount of time that participants are expected to give up to become
involved in the process (Brock, 1998)
• Fisher’s livelihoods are readily described by the SL framework through its concentration
on key assets, social interactions, rights of access, influence of adverse shocks and trends
(Allison and Ellis, 2001).
3.2.3 Conce ptual lessons from application of SL in rural de velopment and small-scale
fishe ries
Dive rsity of strate gies: Livelihood strategies are made up of many components, (Sporton, 1998)
which may be sedentary and migratory (McDowell and Hann, 1997). Experience from Africa and
South Asia shows that rural livelihoods are not composed of one activity (fishing, livestock or
agriculture) to the exclusion of all other activities. Livelihood diversity is a more important
determinant of poverty than the level of crop production (Hussein and Nelson, 1998; Ritchie et al.
2000). In Benin, people reliant on manual labour are considered poorest (Corcoran et al, working
paper 2002). SLA recognises this diversity and facilitates its description as well as the
complexities of constructing livelihoods (T ownsley, 1998) necessary to address a holistic view of
poverty. T he needs and options identified using SLAs are usually multi-sectoral, which has
practical institutional implications both across sectors and between decision making levels (Nicol,
2000). Improved targeting, advocacy, planning and the breaking down of cross-sectoral barriers
are some of the benefits.
Macro-micro: SLAs create an enabling environment for synergies between development entry
points at different levels, and stimulates dialogue between decision-making levels.
SL helps to explain how people operate livelihood strategies, and why different elements are
selected – this can show how market and non-market factors in policies, legislation and culture
contribute to the opportunities and barriers in people’s lives (such as access to assets) (Caswell,
1997; Barr in DFIF-SEA, 2000; Allison and Ellis, 2001).
15
Diffe rential impacts of inte rve ntions: SL allows a look at the direct and indirect impacts of
interventions on different assets in different social and economic groups of people, allowing
observation of the diversity that exists within a community (Ashley, 2000b). Compromise and
trade-offs may be required where different priorities emerge for different actors (Scoones, 1998)
Poverty focus: Poverty is the assumed focus of the SL approach, although it is rarely explicit in
the literature reviewed. It recognises social, economic and environmental dimensions within the
holistic definition of poverty. Vulnerability, which refers to the resilience and sensitivity of a
livelihood (Allison and Ellis, 2001) is a core dimension to poverty, the reduction of which, as
previously discusse d, should be a priority to achieve poverty alleviation (Carney, 1999). It is vital
that SLA maintain a focus on poverty alleviation.
Monitoring: Monitoring is essential in achieving accountability, transparency, sustainability
and learning. Monitoring livelihoods requires a pluralist approach that relies on both participative
and quantitative methods. Neither type of measure is sufficient on its own to understand the
holistic nature of poverty and livelihoods in enough detail to adequately inform policy (Orr and
Mwale, 2001). At present there are still difficulties in finding the most appropriate monitoring
indicators which encompass the dynamism and complexity of the process, but which are simple
enough to be practical within given time and financial constraints. The identification of
monitoring indicators and ways of quantifying aspects of SL, particularly for social capital
remains on-going.
Knowle dge and learning: Traditional and local knowledge has an important role in the SL
processes (Ditchburn et al, 1999) as well as formal research, in efforts to increase the relevance
and success of policies. Traditional knowledge has implications of sustainability (tradition is
passed through generations). An FAO paper (2000) on the importance of traditional knowledge
presents a model of the SLA in which knowledge is the core asset which allows the potential of
other assets to be released. How knowledge is used itself also has big implications. Sharing of
knowledge can be used to unite, and strengthen; withholding information on the other hand can
exclude, limiting its use and further acquisition to the elite (FAO 2000; Nicol, 2000)
Sharing of experiences and learning at all levels, across sectors and between actors is noted to be
a vital element of the SLA; a legitimate output that is as worthy of evaluation as technical results
(FAO, 2000; Ritchie et al., 2000; SID, 2000). There is a constant need to improve lesson sharing;
increasingly facilitated using the World Wide Web to improve accessibility. At present these
resources include the electronic publication of full text information on line, development of web
based disc ussion fora, e-conferences and research portals which focus on development, (“ One
Fish” is a fisheries-focused example). See Annex 3.
Powe r and politics: Ashley (2000), SID (2000), and Baumann and Sinah (2001) all agreed
with Farrington et al. (1999) that power, and political aspects are not adequately dealt with in the
SL framework, although political capital is implied in linking assets with PIPs. Different types of
power and empowerment affect who can participate in what, who has access and rights. Power
and politics have often been blamed for the failure of development in the past, and unless political
capital is explicitly considered, this is unlikely to improve.
3.2.4 Shortfalls in the SLAs, note d from expe rience :

• Underestimation of the role of cultural, political and institutional history of the
communities, in explaining causes of poverty, current issues and possible routes out
(Caswell, 1997; Ditchburn et al., 1999; Magnusson, 2001; Lenslink and Cacaud, 2002).
• The use of the household as a unit of measurement, a unit which is often not cohesive and
whose definition changes between regions and cultures.
16
• Intra household dynamics are not visible. E.g. the ratio of dependants, those economically
active, income distribution, work sharing, etc. are all essential in understanding who is poor
– it is not necessarily the household head (Hussein and Nelson, 1998).
• The lack of gender visibility is particularly important in the use of aquatic resources, where
activities have a heavy gender bias (T ownsley, 1998, Hussein and Nelson, 1998). E.g. West
Africa, where men dominate fishing activities and post harvest is dominated by women
(T ownsley, 1998). Improvements in how SL analysis reflects these aspects from the unit of
the household is very important.
• Power, market forces and the role of immigration are not explicit in the framework (Failler,
2001 conf.), although all three of these factors have very significant impacts in small-scale
fisheries throughout the world.
• SL does not incorporate accountability and legitimacy, which are key elements of
development failure over the last 40 years. Clarifying accountability provides an insight
into democratic empowerment (Bingen, 2000).
• T ime is forgotten as an asset, and is expensive for experts and donors, but even more so for
the participants and the target beneficiaries.

1. SL approaches aim to identify win-win policies (reduce poverty, promote economic growth
and environmental sustainability) through understanding the livelihoods of the poor and
identifying potential policy barriers (Barr, in DFIF-SEA, 2000). Fisheries do not exist and
cannot be regulated in sectoral isolation (Sarch and Allison, 2000). The SLA helps us
understand both fisheries production systems and adaptive strategies of fisheries communities.
This can inform the formulation of cross-sectoral policies; so essential for the sustainability of
livelihoods.
2. The diversity of livelihood strategies undertaken in small-scale fisheries and in other rural
livelihoods include sectoral and geographical mobility which are influenced by seasonal
fluctuations, inequality and other factors. Supporting SLs requires policies that support
occupational pluralism (including strategies such as seasonal migration across national
borders), which is more than diversification out of the sector. The challenge is to put the
complexities and uncertainties realised during the SL analyses into policies in less flexible
structures and institutions. Without linkages between action at the community level and
policy, the development of community capacity is futile (Failler, 2001 conf.). The DFID
funded LADDER project has been set up to address these issues and will be tracing
relationships that exist between micro level outcomes and macro level policy processes in
Eastern Africa (ODG, 2001)
3. SLAs can help provide evidence to policy makers which is not evident or available from
statistical information, e.g. the importance of subsistence fishing and collection of aquatic
resources in the livelihood strategies of poor rice farmers in S.E. Asia, activities which are do
not appear in national statistics (DFIF-SEA, 2000).
4. Existing information and statistics have proven inadequate for decision-making in fisheries.
As a result the sector is undervalued for its role in supporting the rural poor (DFIF-SEA,
2000). Béné et al (2000) attribute the failure of many fisheries programmes to a lack of
understanding of complex livelihood strategies and the relationship between economics, social
aspects and institutions that characterise small-scale fisheries communities. A SLA encourages
the move away from conventional management, which correlate increased fishing effort with
increased incomes and therefore livelihoods (Allison and Ellis, 2001).
17
5. SL requires an enabling political climate. Recommendations arising from analysis might be

impossible to implement where top down politics dominate, such as in Nicaragua (Magnusson,
2001). In other countries where a lack of political democracy has followed colonialism, such
as in Malawi, self reliance has been stifled leaving behind it fatalism, discouragement and
disempowerment. SLA is helping people to look at things in a new light; to help people
understand the responsibilities of their governments and stimulate empowerment for
communities to increase their voice in decision-making (Helmore, 1998).
6. Donors and governments need to increase coordination of efforts.
7. The SLA clearly has a key policy role in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. This will be
discussed in the next chapter.

1. Further research is needed to understand the subtleties of the components of the SL
framework.
a. What are the relationships between assets? Are there knock on effects if the access to
one asset is reduced? Is one group of assets more important than the others?
b. What are the links between assets, environmental factors and PIPs with respect to
poverty alleviation? (Lewins, pers.com.. 2001)
c. What are the differing roles of institutions in SL of the rural poor? (Caswell, 1997)
2. How can the value of information (whether from traditional, local, technical or scientific
knowledge) be increased to strengthen the SL process, in particular for monitoring and
measurement of impacts? (FAO, 2000; International Oceans Institute, 2002)
3. An investigation of SL indicators (especially of intangible assets, such as social capital) is
required to determine the degree to which the SLA has succeeded in improving livelihoods
and alleviating poverty (International Oceans Institute, 2002). Understanding poverty
through definitions, mapping and monitoring are on-going challenges requiring continued
research (Wanmali and Singh, 1999).
4. Research is required to help improve cross-sectoral responses to the diverse livelihood

issues raised in SL analysis of concern to target groups. For example:
a. How AIDS is affecting fisheries communities – a health/human capital issue raised
through the SL analysis process. With the highly mobile nature of many fishing
communities it is a question that needs addressing urgently (Townsley, 1998).
b. The questions surrounding livelihoods, migration and remittances (McDowell and
Hann, 1997) are particularly relevant to many coastal and inland fishing communities
of West Africa and South Asia.
5. Greater understanding is required into synergies between different rights-based approaches
which in countries such as Cambodia are highly influential on the livelihoods of the poor
(T urton, 2000a).
6. Research is necessary to ensure the removal of barriers to the SL process at the institutional
level. This will be facilitated by:
a. increasing flexibility of donor project cycle management;
b. increasing multi-disciplinarity and cross-sectoral dialogue (Neiland, 2001);
c. addressing the gaps between action plans and policy (macro-micro links) (Wanmali and
Singh, 1999). An example of such a study is described by the UNDP (2000) where
their SL country programme is currently addressing the issue of bridging the gaps
between macro policies and micro realities.
18
4 Reviews of using the SLA in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

West Africa 1.5, East Africa 6.5, Sub Sahara
Geographical spread
Africa 3, Asia 1, Global 2, T heoretical 12
(excluding websites)
Yearly spread 1980–1990 0, 1991–2000 8, Post 2000 18
4.2 Main findings

The process of developing Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) was begun in 1999 as a
way of strengthening country level development strategies as indicated in the 2000/1 World
Development Report (Farrington, 2001). It provides a new focus, putting poverty at the centre of
policy frameworks (EURODAD, 2000), and the majority of the literature has been produced very
recently. Only a few examples of PRSPs incorporating the SLA have been published. The current
literature on PRSPs and involvement of the SLA is highly theoretical and dominated by
intellectual debate. Examples are given where they are available, but there is a need for further
empirical research to understand the ways in which the SLA, amongst other approaches, tools and
methods can strengthen poverty reduction strategies. Increasing amounts of PRSP material is
being made available on the web, particularly through the World Bank, IMF, and EURODAD
(see Annex 3). The accessibility of this material raises interesting questions of equity of access to
knowledge for those in countries involved in the process but without access to the Internet, for
what ever reason.
No literature referring to PRSPs related to small-scale fisheries was found in either published
material or on the Internet. The low visibility of the fisheries sector in PRSPs is of great concern
given the number of poor and marginalized people dependent of fisheries, either directly or
indirectly. In the 25 West African partner countries of the SFLP, for example, there are estimated
to be 7 million people living directly or indirectly off small-scale fisheries. It is important that the
specificities of fisheries-based livelihood strategies are taken into consideration by the PRSPs to
ensure appropriate policy. T his is a matter that is currently being addressed by the SFLP.
4.2.1 History of PRSPs

PRSPs are country strategies put together by country authorities with the participation of Civil
Society (CS) which build on the vision of the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF), a
broad long-term country driven development frame used by the World Bank and IMF (World
Bank, 2000). They are the basis of World Bank and IMF funding for over 30 countries, and, in
the case of the 41 HIPCs, additionally serve as a guide for the appropriate use of resources freed
up as a result of debt relief (WB, 2000; EURODAD, 2000; Farrington, 2001; Rowson, 2001).
The Aim of PRSPs is to provide clear plans to achieve stated goals, strengthen country
ownership, broaden the representation of CS (especially the poor), improve the coordination of
19
development partners and appropriately focus the resources of the international community. It
promotes the integration of poverty and environmental policy into a macro-economic framework.
It is essential that these efforts are led by the country concerned, and supported by donors and
members of the international community (World Bank, 2000; DFID, 2001).
Before the introduction of PRSPs, poverty reduction generally focused on economic issues and
the belief that poverty reduction was driven by economic growth (Cleaver, 1997; Rowson, 2001).
Cleaver demonstrated that an annual drop in poverty by 2% would require 6–7% of economic
growth. It is now widely accepted, as illustrated in the previous chapters that poverty reduction
and policy debate must not only be focused on the poor but also requires collaboration with the
poor. T his requires organisational and attitudinal changes across private, public and civil society
sectors as well by development partners (World Bank group, 2000). It also requires a move away
from donor driven projects to a situation that is supporting the development of government
capacity and promoting participation to ensure relevance of development. Cleaver (1997)
attributes the start of this change to the SAPs of the early 1990s, although participation was poor
and development undertaken along strongly sectoral lines.
4.2.2 Summary of PRSP re vie ws to date

PRSPs do not have a blue print but try to incorporate (DFID, 2001, World Bank, 2000; McGee et
al., 2002):
(i) A diagnosis of poverty and the obstacles to poverty alleviation. Participation is strongly
promoted and helps address the multiple dimensions of poverty.
(ii) The identification of long– and medium–term policy targets. T he process presents
opportunities to discuss cross-sectoral and decision-level boundaries, increases the
number of active stakeholders and broadens policy perspectives.
(iii) The provision of a monitoring framework to follow progress and share information.
(iv) Identification of ways to improve donor assistance and the relevance of donor projects.
(v) An increased level of participation and inputs from a broad base of stakeholders, the
promotion of networks between actors of similar scale, and dialogue between donors and
governments.
There have been variable signs of success and failure of PRSPs, and the precursor I–PRSP
(EURODAD, 2000). What then are some of the concerns that have been raised regarding the
PRSP process?
PRSPs tend to look at poverty through an economic lens making weak linkages between policy
and poverty, disregarding information that does exist and neglecting to look at the broader aspects
of poverty or the social impacts that loan programmes might be having (EURODAD, 2000;
World Bank, 2000; Rowson, 2001; FAO, 2002). Issues beyond the scope of traditional economic
development must be integrated into the process, including for example, livelihoods and rights.
The BMJ criticises the PRS process with regards to the implications of health for the poor.
Recognition of the importance health and a right to health care are considered to be prerequisites
for successful poverty alleviation strategies by Rowson (2001), and are not yet adequately
covered by the PRSPs.
“ Ownership” of the strategy is also often disappointingly weak. Greater participation needs to be
developed at all levels, and not restricted to community consultations (including the donors) to
achieve national ownership and strengthen accountability. Information on PRSPs is frequently not
readily available to those that might be interested and keen to learn from the experiences of others
20
(McGee, 2002). In addition it would seem that CS and NGOs have yet to be able to demonstrate
any influence or involvement in macro economic policy. Difficulty in achieving genuine
participation has been attributed to capacity constraints in terms of human financial resources
more often than lack of will (World Bank/IMF, 2000; McGee et al., 2002). Capacity further
hampers strategy development due to crude data collection systems for monitoring poverty
reduction, fragmented government policies and demoralised public servants. T hese are just some
illustrations of the difficulties in preparation of strategies (Rowson, 2001). Where policy is being
revised, the concentration appears to be more on the policy formulation process than on its
content. T he resultant strategies are therefore proving to be of varied usefulness (EURODAD,
2000).
There are also huge variations in how institutions work in different contexts – and how this
affects policy delivery in both formal and informal institutions. Conventional policy has often
failed to engage informal institutions and may even be detrimental to them. This could be
particularly detrimental to the poor who have weak social capital and rely on informal or local
institutions to act on their behalf (Shankland, 2000).
Many of the issues raised above were considered during the recent IMF conference “Financing
for Development (FfD) and the IMF an International Conference on Financing and
Development“ held in Mexico, 18–22 March 2002 (www.imf.org/external/np/pdr/FfD/2002/).
The aim of this conference was to emphasise the importance of putting into action the
recommendations, consensuses and strategies that have been developed. Fighting poverty was one
of the four main themes of the conference focusing on the progress of PRSPs. As well a s the
presentation of a review of PRSPs 2 years after their inception, the question of degree of social
impact of policies was also addresse d through the presentation of a Social Impact Assessment,
which is to be taken up by all Bank and IMF joint ventures to consider the impacts of economic
policies.
In the last two years, several reviews have been made of PRSP processes, looking at progress and
lessons learned. These reviews have not only been undertaken by the World Bank and IMF
(WB/IMF 2000; WB/IMF 2002) but also by FAO (2002), EURODAD (2000 and current debate),
Oxfam and several others. These reviews suggest improvements and highlight challenges and
areas for further consideration. This is a clear demonstration of the interest that the international
community has in PRSPs, and the openness of the debate is a positive step towards achieving
poverty alleviation. The general consensus throughout the reviews is that the PRSP process is a
tool with possibilities to (i) help governments of low income countries tackle poverty alleviation
and (ii) help to improve the coordination of development. Particularly positive are the noted
increases in dialogue between governments and civil society, a process that needs to continue.
The Strategic Partnership with Africa (SPA) warns that the current pace of the process is too fast
to allow genuine participation (WB/IMF, 2000), and that where participation turns out as
consultation, ownership is unlikely to take hold. Allowing sufficient time for participation is
therefore essential (Eurodad, 2000; Rowson, 2001).
4.2.3 How can SLA spe cifically give adde d value to PRSPs?
Livelihoods concepts are now beginning to be included in the PRS process. T hin et al. (2001)
looked at how social policy and livelihoods issue s have been addressed in PRSPs and suggest
priorities for increasing their role. At the time of writing his paper, Thin et al found that multiple
livelihood strategies and social impacts were not recognised in poverty reduction approaches, and
that sustainability issues were also weak.
21
Few reviews and studies have been carried out with regards to the potential role of the SLA to the
PRS process. The concepts of the SLA have been elucidated in the previous chapters and will not
be repeated here. From the documents reviewed there appears to be close similarities between the
guiding principles of the PRS process and those of the SLA, including holistic thinking,
sustainability, ownership, partnership, participation and a process approach. The SLA is based on
understanding the livelihoods of the poor and encourages policies affecting these livelihoods to be
looked at from different sectors.
The lessons presented by DFID (2001) and those of other authors (Farrington, 2001; Hendrie,
2001 pers.com; Norton and Foster, 2001; Masefield, 2000 pers.com) suggest that the SLA can be
of use for PRSPs, and in particular that:
• Its most appropriate use is at the conceptual level and based on the SL principles
• The best entry point for the SLA is in poverty assessment and monitoring. It maintains a
people focus and can guide the analyse of target groups, their poverty situation, why they
are poor, livelihoods opportunities and constraints, the equity of asset distribution (beyond
income), etc
• The SLA has the ability to find holes, or omissions in the PRS, such as excluded groups
• It can help with the prioritisation of issues to formulate a strategy and promote the
necessary multi-sectoral dialogue for appropriate policy for cross-cutting issues such as
HIV/AIDS – which is eroding human and social capital with huge impacts on the poor.
Governments needs to understand how susceptibility of communities will change
• It can assist with matching up the top down and bottom up processes (macro – micro
linkages)
• It provides a framework for assessing the impacts of a poverty reduction strategy.
• It promotes more decentralised and locally responsive policy implementation
However, despite the above, the extent to which SL can deliver these contributions to the PRS
process has not yet been demonstrated. Mongolia’s PPA and the Ugandan PEAP (see boxes 2 and
3) are cited as potential pilot countries with strong national ownership and an advance process to
demonstrate the value added by the SLA.
In addition, the SLA is not able to look at power and politics. The analysis of social relations and
power as determinants of inequality and deprivation for example would require one of the
multitude of other perspectives, methods and tools (qualitative and quantitative) that are required
to look at the complexity of poverty reduction, and create appropriate and effective policies.
Examples include economic analyses, rights based analyses, and quantitative information (DFID,
2001; Farrington, 2001; Hendrie, 2001 pers. com.). The complementarily of rights-based
approaches (RBA) to the SLA is given particular attention by Farrington (2001). RBA considers
what are or what should be people’s entitlements, where as SLA looks at the impact of the
presence or absence of these entitlements on livelihoods.
The major elements of the SLA that could be applied to PRSPs highlighted by Norton and Forster
(2001) in their analysis are the diagnosis of poverty and production of a typology of social
groupings with respect to (i) interests, (ii) access to information power, and (iii) the influence of
different groups, as well as helping to consider the consequences of policy change.
22
It should be borne in mind however that the conditions required for an SLA to PRSPs are difficult
even where the political will is evident, such as in Uganda.
Box 2
Contribution of the SL approach in Mongolia

In the case of Mongolia (Mearns, Dula ndary, Shah (2001), the SLA was able to hig hlight the multiple sources
of insecurity and vuln erability and help identify some of the major causes of poverty. These stem from the
high le vel of redundancies follo wing privatisation of the public sector in the 1980s and resulted in the
necessity to diversify livelihood strategies (urban and rural) with increases in migration, reductio n in schoolin g
and high vuln erability to seasonality. The SLA is also highly participatory and enable d those in volved to
express how they felt policies should be prioritised. Education was consid ered important and a focus
requested on how to reduce seasonal vulnerability, how to improve socia l services and enhance access to
information, improving the communities contrib utio n to public spendin g prioritisation. The benefit of SLA here
is in being able to look at and take into account a broader range of policy influencin g factors and the need for
policie s to address the specific issues relevant to the target area.
Box 3
Use of the SLA in the Ugandan PEAP

The Ugandan Poverty Eradication Action Plan is cited as one of the better PRS attempts to date with a hig h
level of national ownership , iterative preparation and used SL based research to derive policy in ferences
relevant to the PEAP (DFID, 2000; Ellis and Baahiigwa, 2001; UPPAP, www.uppap.org.ug). The process was
initiated in 1997 predating the in troduction of PRSPs, although elements of the plan have been accepted by
The Bank/IMF fulfilling Uganda’s commitment to poverty alle viatio n. There are of course contin uin g
challe nges and institutional constraints that need to be overcome.
The SL concepts are evid ent in the PEAP aims. These are to: “eradicate poverty by improving the natural
resource based livelih oods of the rural poor in a sustainable manner” (Carnagie and Gold man, 2001).
Uganda is highly dependent on primary productivity and the environmental goods and services such as Lake
Victoria and forest systems are already under very hig h pressure (DFID, 2000). The SL le ns enable d the
importance of the environment to Uganda’s rural poor to be recognised and in emphasisin g the issue of
sustainability led to the suggestio n oft amendments to the strategy to incorporate these issues.
Ellis and Baahiigwa (2001) examined the links between micro level outcomes and macro level policy changes
in Uganda based on the SL frame. Their main findin gs showed: livelihood diversificatio n is needed to become
better off. This finding can be a useful guid e to policy formulatio n. SL also help ed to identify weak spots in
institutions and problem areas from PRS implementation, for example the issues surroundin g decentralised
tax issues in rural Uganda.
This study was able to provide other policy in ferences inclu din g the need for poverty reduction to be seen as
a process of the poor, and not an activity done by government, and also the need for an enabling environment
which supports pro poor and pro growth activitie s, such as private investment, enterprise, risk taking in an
accountable and transparent manner
23

1. Participation in the PRSP process has broadened and diversified policy, promoting the
development and expectation of collaboration and increased transparency (McGee et al.,
2002) Policies must support the development of participation at all levels (Masefield, pers.
com 2000) and promote multidimensional involvement at the community level as well as in
administrations. Adequate time must be allowed for this process.
2. Policy to achieve poverty reduction must accept the holistic nature of poverty and attempt to
address it. Poverty must be tackled from a number of different angles and sectors (World
Bank, 2000). Existing policies can be built on and developed in a pro-poor manner. The
FAO (2001) recommends analysis of previously neglected poverty and livelihoods factors
(e.g. the role of markets, trade-offs, costing of policy measures, improving poverty
assessment and policy impact).
3. At present, the analysis of poverty tends to desegregate information, but the policies and
strategies relating to poverty reduction do not. T his loses the benefits gained by participation
(T hin et al., 2001).
4. Poverty reduction strategies and policies require a fiscal environment that encourages trade
and investment, enterprise and reduces risk aversion through the provision of short-term
safely nets (e.g. credit). T hese elements are required in addition to social stability and
economic growth to reduce poverty and increase sustainability.
5. Poorly formulated and implemented policies are likely to contribute to poverty rather than
helping to reduce it. Decentralised administration does not necessarily avoid this scenario,
especially where local communities have no say or influence and local government is
recreating a rent seeking enterprise typical of the under-funded public sector, as was
observed in Uganda (Ellis and Baahiigwa, 2001).
6. Social capital takes different forms such as mutual support within the community, or vertical
support systems between different administrative levels (Shankland, 2000). Policy needs to
consider how these different forms of social capital are affected by PRSPs.

1. The impacts (particularly social impacts) of policy on poverty alleviation need to be better
understood.
2. Research is needed to improve participation beyond just consultation, to increase its value
to the PRSP process and to develop relationships between the government and civil society
(McGee, 2002).
3. Does the SL framework really have a poverty bias or is it, as describe d by Norton and
Foster (2001) poverty neutral?
4. The development of linkages is needed between SL concepts and traditional economic
appraisal methods to incorporate behavioural assumptions, risk and vulnerability.
5. How is economic growth really affecting poverty alleviation? Progress is being made by
The Bank and IMF for use in their joint ventures e.g. a Social Impact Assessment was
presented at their March 2002 conference.
6. Development of methods to ground truth approaches is needed to ensure they maintain a
pragmatic perspective and don’t become overwhelmed by rhetoric and remain as
intellectual debates.
7. How effective is the Internet as a transparent means of information dissemination with
regards to PRSPs? This question was raised by the World Bank/IMF 2000 review. How
24
many of the implicated countries have reliable access and does it result in exclusion of
groups within countries, and of countries themselves?
8. More country experiences are required
9. Research is needed to develop and adopt appropriate tools for analyses that compare and
evaluate trade offs between different policies – which policy combinations for example
might be most effective for poverty reduction.
25
5 Common property: cause or remedy of poverty for small-scale

fishers

Geographical spread Theoretical 15, Pacific 7, Asia 8, Africa 5,
Global 4, Caribbean 2, Developed 4
Number of references dealing with fisheries 39
Number of references based on empirical 8 (but only 1 (Heady 1995) actually
research about the causes/impacts of poverty measured or defined poverty in the context of
their studies
Yearly spread Pre 1980 2, 1980–1990 13, 1991–2000 22,
Post 2000 4
5.2 Main findings

Common property resources (cprs) are those to which no individual has exclusive property rights.
They include a wide range of natural environments (and the items that can be collected from
them), and include village pastures, bushland, uncultivable fields, community forests, waste
lands, village ponds, the inter-tidal zone, marine waters, rivers, river-beds, lakes, to name just a
few. T hey also include resources that are gathered from privately owned land (or water) with
access rights negotiated rather than being legally defined (Beck and Nesmith 2001), although
little research appears to have been completed on this latter form of resource.
The literature on common-property resource theory first emerged with the work of Gordon
(1954), who formulated the theory for fisheries to explain the dual problems of low income
among Canadian fishermen and overfishing. T he idea was taken up and developed by Hardin
(1968) in his often referred to article “The tragedy of the commons”, relating to grazing rights for
a hypothetical village commons3 . T he paradigm is based on the important notions/assumptions
that a) individual self-interest will prevail over the best interests of the community as whole, b)
that the environment must be limited, and that c) the resource must be collectively owned and
freely open to any user (Stillman 1975). In the context of fisheries, it is often argued that these
three factors, combine to ensure that if fishing is making more than normal profits then more and
more fishermen will enter the fishery until all resource rents have been dissipated. Each new boat
that a fishermen adds brings him a gain of almost +1, whereas the effects of overfishing will be
shared by all, and his loss will therefore be only a fraction of –1.
Berkes (1985) suggests that Hardin’s paradigm is a tautology. Where the ”tragedy of the
commons” does exist, resource rents are by definition dissipated (and this can be of no benefit to
either the rich or the poor). Where the “tragedy” does not exist, it is because one or more of the
assumptions underlying the paradigm do not exist. Most commonly the fishery is in reality not
open-access (because of either Government or local/community control), and individual interests
are often subservient to the collective interests of a community.
3
It is interesting that Hardin’s paper is principally motivated by the population problem, and that he
actually acknowledges in the article that his concept of the “ tragedy of the commons” was based on ideas
by an amateur mathem atician named Lloyd as pres ented his “Two lectures on the checks to population” in
1833
26
While incomes are likely to be higher when the tragedy of the commons is not present, Copes
(1989) points out that, even in the theoretical case, common property features do not in
themselves result in low incomes because fishermen should be left with at least an opportunity
cost income. He therefore suggests that it becomes important to consider why fishermen’s
opportunity costs appear so often to be below those of other occupations. Reasons include
isolation, the highliner illusion (the possibility of a windfall catch), and the time-lag required to
adjust labour requirements to productivity gains). Bland (1995) supports this hypothesis for the
case of Lake Malawi where the fisheries sector acts as an employer of last resort with low entry
barriers and high exit barriers, to concentrate people with low opportunity costs.
The existence of both self-interest and over-exploitation (assumptions underlying the “tragedy of
the commons”) seem to hold true more for industrial fisheries than for small-scale ones. This is
largely due the greater ability of industrial fisheries to move to other areas once they have
depleted stocks to a level that makes fishing un-economic (Berkes 1985, Copes 1989). Where the
“tragedy” is inclined to occur in small-scale fisheries, it is usually due to vulnerability to a
number of stresses (Berkes 1985):
a) the loss of community control over the resource

b) economic development and commercialization, as opposed to subsistence fishing
(Aswani 1999, Rivers 1999)
c) rapid population growth (Heady et al 1995) without the creation of alternative
employment opportunities (Bailey, 1984)
d) rapid technological change (Bailey, 1984, Aswani, 1999; Kurien, 1992; Berkes, 1987)
It is important at this stage of the discussion to note the difference between a) the “ tragedy of the
commons” which requires open access, and b) common property resources. The latter do not
necessarily have to be open for access to all who wish to exploit them (although may be), and
indeed common property regimes generally refer to situations where property rights accrue to
specified groups or communities of people, to the exclusion of others. The distinction is
important, as in any discussion that mentions the word “ common(s)” one tends to immediately
think of Hardin’s article and dissipation of all resource rents. In fact, evidence suggests that there
are few fish resources that are truly common property and open access (Berkes 1985,
Durrenberger and Palsson 1987). T here is considerable confusion in much of the literature as to
the exact definition and differences between the “tragedy of the commons”, open access, common
property, and common property regimes, and which of these situations refer accurately to
localised conditions. Management regimes range in their degree of control from open access
through unregulated common property regimes (i.e. with exclusion of non-community members,
but community members under no control) and regulated common property regimes (exclusion of
outsiders and regulation of those allowed to fish), to private property regimes (again, with
differing levels of regulation).
Hardin, and others, have suggested that the solution to the “tragedy of the commons” i.e. open
access, was either to regulate the commons through governmental authority or to turn the
commons into private property via enclosure. In relation to regulation of small-scale fisheries
through governmental authority, centrally planned limited entry systems are often inflexible,
costly in terms of monitoring and enforcement, subject to political interference, and subject to a
lack of communication between resource users and managers (FAO 1993). However, agreement
is less than complete on the most effective forms of rights-based fishing e.g. ITQs, lease
payments and royalties, corporate ownership, communal property solutions, T URFs etc (see
Townsend 1995, Keen 1983, Clark and Major 1988, Palsson 1992, Berkes 1987, Copes 1999,
Ferrer 1989 for different views on the merits of different forms of private and communal
27
property), largely due to the different emphases on efficiency, equity and sustainability by the
proponents of different regimes. T he use of property rights in fisheries management has been
recently the subject of a major international conference organized by FAO with the Government
of Western Australia (on community-based fisheries management see in particular the papers by
Christy; Kurien; McCay; Viswanathan; and Willmann in Shotton (ed.), 2000). Many have
suggested that “poor” coastal communities will only be able to maintain access to fish resources
close to the shore through defence of these resources as “ common property” (Copes, 1999), and
the creation and/or formalization of common property regimes. Co-management (the sharing of
power and responsibility between the manager e.g. government and the resource user, e.g. the
community) is also now seen as increasingly important in ensuring that the poor benefit from
resources.
A review of existing studies of common-pool resources by Agrawal (2001) suggests that many
have focused on local institutions to show that common property arrangements (i.e. common
property but not necessarily open access) can result in efficient use, equitable allocation and
sustainable conservation (e.g. works by Robert Wade, Elinor Ostrom, and Jean-Marie Baland and
Jean-Philippe Platteau, and those referred to by Beck and Nesmith (2001), Bavinck, 1996,
Berkes, 1985, Berkes, 1986). This by inference suggests that such institutions can help to
minimise poverty, although there are often trade-offs between efficiency and equity objectives
that may be necessary under different management regimes. The structure, status and motivations
for different community management and associated institutional arrangements are to be
particularly important, not just in deciding who benefits, but in whether they result in sustainable
resource use (important in the long-term to ensure that those using the natural assets can continue
to acquire financial assets) (Hartmann, 1996, Dyer and McGoodwin, 1994).
Despite the enthusiasm in much of the literature for common property management by local
institutions, some studies e.g. Heady et al (1995) on inland fisheries, have questioned the usually
accepted paradigm of equity and/or efficiency, claiming instead that community-managed access
arrangements may serve other purposes such as the maintenance of the existing social order, and
the existing distribution of power and wealth. In fact they sugge st that the primary relationship is
between access and distribution, rather than access and efficiency. This explains why certain
factors e.g. environmental stresses, increasing lease payments, etc, tighten the distributional
constraints and therefore make the impacts of controlling access even more important. It is also
explains why “ external” forces to enhance the allocative functioning of markets, as either an
efficiency objective or as a revenue-raising tactic, can undermine their legitimacy because of
impacts on distributional factors that are not accepted by the communities involved. Other studies
(Aswani 1999) have highlighted the presence of internal regulatory instabilities that affect the
fishery sustainability outcomes of different types of tenure regimes, and that while some groups
may prevent free-riding, their aim is gain for those involved rather than restraint (Ruttan, 1998).
However, Agrawal (2001) points out that few studies on community institutional arrangements
for the management of cprs have focussed in any great detail on how aspects of the resource
system, some aspects of user group membership, and the external social, physical and
institutional environment can affect institutional durability and long-term management. Nor,
given the large number of factors considered to be important (mainly in terms of group
characteristics and institutional arrangements as emphasized by Ostrom (1990) and Dyer and
McGoodwin, 1994), have they developed a full theory of what makes for sustainable common-
pool resource management, or why individuals participate in monitoring and sanctioning efforts.
This is because incomplete model specification and omitted variables mean that studies are
generally relevant to the sample under consideration, rather than being suitable for more general
application.
28
Nevertheless, it is clear that the value of common property resources is significant (e.g. $5 billion
per year to the incomes of poor rural households in India alone (Beck and Nesmith, 2001)). It is
unlikely that many other informal sources of income provide such significant benefits to the poor,
and there is reason to suggest that cprs play a redistributive role, in that they are of greater
importance and relevance to the poor than the non-poor (IFAD, 1995). The use of common
property resources is not just important on a regular basis to contribute to household incomes and
assets, but also as an important coping mechanism. Common property resources are therefore
very important for sustainable livelihoods as described by Beck and Nesmith (2001) in their
excellent review of the literature on common property resources. The importance of the concept
of vulnerability is discussed later in this report.
Unfortunately for the poor, the availability of common property resources, and the existence of
successful common property regimes, has been shown in almost all studies to be steadily
declining (see review of literature by Beck and Nesmith (2001), IFAD, 1995, Marshall, 2001).
And of course, numerous fisheries-related studies have demonstrated the declining status of fish
stocks and catches resulting from a lack of control of access (Butler et al 1993). T his has
implications not just in terms of fish production and catches, but also for land-based common
property resources that are used by fishers (and the use of fisheries by non-fishers). Despite the
assertion by Agrawal (2001) that external reasons for the breakdown of cpr regimes have not been
widely studied, principal reasons, and corresponding reductions in cprs, appear to include
overfishing, State-induced investments in fishing capacity, land reform, liberalisation,
commodification, capitalisation and the introduction of markets, agricultural intensification,
dispossession by elites, increasing population pressure, new forms of management, a lack of
external legitimacy provided by the State for cpr regimes, the increasing importance of
aquaculture, and concepts of Western individualism and migration.
And unfortunately it appears difficult to create new community management regimes. Certainly
factors that stand to impede the successful establishment and sustainability of community-based
management systems include: the lack of competence and capabilities of the fishing communities
in regard to such a role; the difficulties in determining boundaries between different groups or
communities of users (including non-fishers) and potential conflicts that result; the unwillingness
of politicians to divest power; and the already high levels of capitalisation of many fisheries
(FAO, 1993).
The importance of cprs for the poor, means management that prevents the use of cprs can be very
detrimental to their well-being. Sarch M-T . and Allison E. (2001) demonstrate how the
establishment of community-management measures (T URFs) on other lakes constrains the ability
of fishermen on Lake Malawi to migrate, which is a key coping-strategy. They also refer to work
done by Kone (1985) in Mali which shows that introduction of fishing permits for the River Niger
enabled outsiders to enter the fishery and thus broke down traditional management measures,
leading to conflict.

1. Open access/common property does not in itself cause poverty. It does however dissipate
rents (and any subsidie s) making them unavailable for use in poverty reduction
programmes. However, as shown by Wright (1990) fishing incomes can be raised in the
long term by a) increasing the entry opportunity cost of fishermen, b) increasing the
wages for part-time non-fishing employment (e.g. by training programmes to increase the
non-fishing human capital of fishermen, subsidies to employers etc), and c) making
29
fishing less enjoyable (less leisure, rigorous training, onerous side duties etc). In regions
of high unemployment, open access fisheries often act as an employer of last resort.
2. The success of community-management regimes in many small-scale fisheries have
meant that the use of State management, markets, or privatisation is not now
recommended as a matter of course.
3. The importance of cprs for the poor requires policies and management that help with
people’s access to cprs, rather than those that hinder it.
4. Where local alternative non-fishing employment opportunities are limited, and out-
migration is unlikely to reduce poverty for those leaving, the only other alternative is to
reduce levels of effort used to exploit the fishery through various technical measures.
This itself will of course have implications for the earnings of all those involved. Policy
that seeks to assist the poor must be focused on equity, rather than efficiency (Bailey
1984) or technological developments (IFAD 1995). If the key problem in fisheries is seen
as equity (i.e. distributional) rather than efficiency (i.e. rent maximisation) as suggested
by Heady et al (1995), then management measures must focus more on social, economic
and political solutions, to ensure the legitimacy of changes to any distributional
arrangements.

1. There is a need for more work on the quantitative contribution of cprs to poor people’s
households (under open access and common property regimes), both in terms of fishers
exploiting land-based cprs and in terms of non-fishers exploiting fish resources.
2. Better understanding is required on how access to cprs is negotiated and eroded, and who
depends most on cprs (to explore differences between regions, income groups etc).
3. Where cprs are managed locally (both relating to fisheries and non-fisheries cprs), what
are the conflicts associated with cprs between elites and the less powerful? This requires
detailed research into power relations. What are the most effective ways of resolving
conflicts at the local level of common property resource use?
4. Study is required into the social effects of policy implementation, with particular
reference to the poor. For example, what forms of alternative employment opportunities
are most relevant for poor fishermen who may benefit from leaving the fishery.
5. Equally, where opportunities for alternative employment are limited, are there particular
types of technical restrictions that are less harmful to the poorest fishers. Some
regulations are clear in their impact on different wealth groups, e.g. technical measures
that restrict large trawlers rather than gear used by small-scale fishermen. However, it
would be beneficial to have a greater understanding of different gear types, access
arrangements and effort levels used within small-scale fisheries, and how management
measures relating to such issues may have disproportional impacts on the very poor?
(some such research has already been conducted – see Heady et al 1995).
6. The lack of a developed full theory (rather than just a list of useful characteristics of
participants) of what makes for sustainable common-pool resource management
(including motivations for successful monitoring), and the different methodologies
employed to date, points to further research.
30
6 Special characteristics of small-scale fishers’ vulnerability and

coping mechanisms

Geographical spread East Africa 4, West Africa 3, Central Africa 1,
Asia 7, Pacific 1, Theoretical 3, Caribbean 1
Yearly spread Pre 1980 0, 1980–1990 5, 1991–2000 8, Post
2000 4
6.2 Main findings
6.2.1 Vulne rability

T urnover among the poor is often extremely rapid (Baulch and McCulloch 1998, McCulloch and
Calandrino, 2001). This means that it is very important to conceptualize the difference between
vulnerability and poverty, and that one might argue that “vulnerability” is in fact a more
important concept in the Livelihoods Approach than “poverty” per se.
Vulnerability means defencelessness, insecurity, and exposure to risk, shocks and stress, and
perhaps more than poverty is linked with net assets (Chambers, 1989). This perhaps explains why
the five main asset types as identified in the Livelihoods Approach are generally well covered in
the literature on vulnerability and coping mechanisms, if not specifically, then at least by
inference. Some variables can be important correlates of poverty status but have little impact on
entries into (vulnerability) or exits out of (coping mechanisms) poverty (Baulch and McCulloch,
1998). Some factors are important correlates of poverty and of both entry into and exit from
poverty. Other factors may have asymmetric effects on movements in and out of poverty.
While a number of authors agree that dependency ratios, household size and geographic variables
are important correlates of poverty (Baulch and McCulloch, 1998), vulnerability is more closely
linked to the following factors:
1. Ill-health and malnutrition (Evans, 1989; Pryer, 1989 and Corbett, 1989). Of particular
concern are those vulnerable to accidents or poor health because of the knock-on impacts
through delayed treatment, the costs of treatment and loss of earnings. A key asset of
most poor people is their bodies. The poorer people are the more they depend on their
bodies for physical work, and the more vulnerable their bodies are likely to be. Accidents
are a key determinant of impoverishment, but seldom counted. Evidence suggests that the
health and work of the breadwinner is a key factor in preventing poverty.
2. Fluctuations in natural resources e.g. low and uncertain rainfall (Taal, 1989), yearly and
seasonal changes in fish stock levels (Sarch and Allison, 2001), monthly/lunar changes in
the ability to catch fish (Bahiigwa, 2001).
3. Price fluctuations.
4. Variable access to markets (Lewis et al 1996).
31
5. Extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes (Chakalall, 1999) and cyclones (Deb and
Alam, 1994).
6. Household size. There is evidence (Goh et al., 2001) to suggest that larger households are
more protected from shortfalls in consumption (due to income sources being more
diversified, resource-pooling being more effective, and economies of scale in
consumption). Other authors (Baulch and McCulloch, 1998) indicate that large household
size increases the chance of entry into poverty and reduces the likelihood of a rapid exit
7. Theft or loss of fishing gear (Bahiigwa, 2001).
8. Pond security and disease in inland fish farming (Lewis et al., 1996).
9. the extent of patron-client relationships (Lewis et al., 1996).
10. Female-headed households are not found to be more vulnerable (Baulch and McCulloch,
1998; Goh 2001)
Vulnerability lacks a well-developed theory, and accepted indicators and methods of

measurement. As a result it often appears difficult to define who are the most vulnerable until
they have entered poverty. However, most authors are in agreement that vulnerability appears to
be increasing (Chambers, 1989, Swift, 1989; T aal, 1989; Sarch and Allison, 2001; Andersson and
Ngazi, 1998; Geheb and Binns,1997). A number of reasons are suggested and include:
a) greater involvement in market economies and transactions;

b) reduced fish stock levels (from overfishing);
c) a decline in patron-client obligations;
d) declining support from extended family;
e) rising costs of contingencies (dowries, weddings, medical costs);
f) sale or loss of tangible assets means there is no ability to build them up again.
6.2.2 Coping me chanisms

Coping mechanisms can be divided into those that are ex ante risk management measures seeking
to reduce vulnerability and prevent entry into poverty, and those that are ex post coping
mechanisms that attempt to facilitate a move out of poverty. T he variety and number of both ex
ante and ex post coping strategies demonstrated in the literature are considerable, and are
testament to the considerable ingenuity of the poor, and potentially poor, in both fishing and non-
fishing communities. Strategies are shown to be complex and diverse and vary by region,
community, social group, household, gender, age, season and time in history.
Ex ante risk management mechanisms include: the use of different cropping patterns, storage of
food, investment in livestock (particularly important in prevention of entry into poverty,
(Bahiigwa, 2001; Geheb and Binns, 1997)), diversification of assets, early warning systems and
advice on how to prepare vessels and gear for minimum losses e.g. for hurricanes (Chakalall,
1999), development of patron-client relationships which minimise transaction costs in the absence
of insurance, credit and perfect market information (Lewis et al., 1996), remittances by family
members working away from household (ODG, 2001), and better education. Of note is that
people may choose to spend surpluses on assets that appear to be non-productive e.g. housing,
education, health (Heyer, 1989) as such assets may be beneficial from a preventative point of
view in reducing vulnerability to poverty.
Ex post coping mechanisms include: debt/credit/loans (Deb and Alam, 1994; Goh et al., 2001),
additional cultivation, expansion of fishing effort (hours and areas fished, Gehen and Binns,
1997), additional labouring, employment off-farm (for farmers) and off-water (for fishermen) e.g.
switching livelihoods (Sarch and Allison, 2001; Andersson and Ngazi, 1998; Geheb and Binns,
1997), gathering of wild foods, mortgaging and selling assets, begging, theft, illegal fishing
32
activity and non-compliance with gear, area and effort regulations (Bahiigwa 2001), migration
and resettlement (Sarch and Allison, 2001; Haakonsen, 1992; Geheb and Binns, 1997), reduced
consumption (Chambers, 1989; Goh 2001), deferring medical treatment, exploiting common
property resources, mutual support through community and kinship ties, and sale of products into
different markets e.g. analysis of the marketing chain in T anzania showed that traders overcome
seasonal oversupply in the rainy season by sale to markets for poultry feed, and export to Congo
(Gibbon, 1997).
6.3 Policy Implications

The difference between poverty and vulnerability means that programmes that seek to reduce
income poverty should not be the same as those that seek to reduce vulnerability, as there is often
a trade-off. For example, borrowing and investing can reduce income poverty, but such debt may
make households more vulnerable.
The movement of people in an out of poverty mentioned above has important implications for
policy, as highlighted by Baulch and McCulloch (1998). Firstly you may not always be trying to
help the same group of “poor”. Secondly you need to know what the key determinants of
transition are (in and out) so as to focus policy on these areas. Thirdly, if spells in poverty are
short, this may require policy measures which suggest safety nets, credit and insurance schemes,
while extended spells of poverty point to policies such as land reform, education etc that improve
the assets and entitlements of the poor. And fourthly since the correlates of poverty status and
poverty transitions are not the same, policy interventions that help the poor may be dealing with
the symptoms rather than the cause.
Given the wide range of coping mechanisms, their relative successes, and the different reasons for
vulnerability, each group and situation must be treated individually. It is therefore difficult to
generalise about policy between different countries, regions, and even villages. However, it does
seem clear that diversification of assets appears to be very important for reducing vulnerability.
Of particular interest is the fluid movement, in both directions, between those involved in both
fishing and farming, and the switching of livelihoods as an ex post coping mechanism (Sarch and
Allison, 2001; Andersson and Ngazi, 1998; Geheb and Binns, 1997; Bahiigwa, 2001). Switching
of livelihoods suggests that policies to combat vulnerability and poverty should not be sector
specific, and should seek to promote flexibility.
This is important from a conflict perspective, and also from the point of view of fisheries
management, as explained by Sarch and Allison (2001) who suggest that fish stocks in Africa’s
inland waters are climate driven (seasonally and inter-seasonally) and cannot be stabilised by
conventional fisheries management measures. Failure to recognise this can undermine livelihood
strategies (for example if T URFs are promoted for idealised constructs of a “ community” where
livelihoods are based entirely on fishing). Management measures that constrain access to fish in
productive periods constrain incomes that can be saved, and may serve little conservation
purpose. Sarch and Allison show that the establishment of community-management measures on
other lakes constrain the ability of fishermen to use migration as a key coping-strategy. Around
the River Niger, fishing is used for the accumulation of capital and as a safety net, while
cultivation meets subsistence needs. This generates conflict between permanent fishermen and
those seeking to fish in times of drought, and has implications for management of fisheries that
tries to restrict entry and is based on the idea of optimal catch rates.
A number of other key implications for policy are provided by Chambers (1989).
33
1. There is a need to monitor vulnerability more closely and act on asset indicators.
2. Thought should be given to putting floors under the vulnerable e.g. food for work
schemes, guaranteed markets, cheap food.
3. Provision of effective health services, free or at low cost may be particularly effective –
again, this emphasizes the need not to be sector specific.
4. The measures that the vulnerable chose to employ to improve their coping strategies may
be of more use than externally imposed schemes

The generalizability and usefulness of any research depends on how representative the study
sample is, which in turn depends on the initial sampling methods and the sample size. While the
studies reviewed generally appeared to be methodologically sound, the apparent large differences
in vulnerability and coping mechanisms between sectors, countries, regions etc, mean that it is
difficult to claim any generalizable findings in addition to those presented in the text above.
It appears that:
a) very little, if any comparative research has been done to examine the relative
vulnerability of those in the fishing sector compared to those in the farming and other
sectors, that
b) much more work on vulnerability and coping mechanisms has been conducted in sectors
other than fisheries, and that
c) little comparative work exists to understand differences between regions and the reasons
for such differences.
There are a huge number of areas of research that would therefore help with our understanding of
vulnerability and coping mechanisms, and which in turn could have significant policy
implications. A number of potential avenues and ideas for further research are therefore presented
which may be of use. Each one could focus on fisheries, the difference between fisheries and
other sectors, and/or the differences between different regions:
1. Which, and how many, of the numerous coping mechanisms are available to fishers? For
example, coping strategies include the use of common property resources (Beck, 1989).
Does access to common property resources differ for fishers and non-fishers? In addition,
does this imply that farmers can fish if their crop yields are low (e.g. Philippines),
whereas fishermen may find it harder to farm because of a lack of tenure of land, hence
the widespread use of migration in fishing communities? Does the desire of different
groups to invest surpluses in “productive” assets differ, and if so why?
2. Is fishing more “risky” than farming or other sectors. Research could look at both the
extent and frequency of shocks and stress and their impacts on the five key assets as
defined in the SLA. For example:
• Are catches of fish less variable between seasons than agricultural production?
• Are prices more variable and unpredictable?
• Are there more bottlenecks to production in agriculture (e.g. seed, fertiliser, irrigation
water)?
• Is fishing more risky in terms of personal safety and accidents?
• What is the impact for farmers (in terms of assets and the importance of market
prices) of having to sell when the crop is ready, compared to fishers who can fish all
year round?
34
• How does the minimum physical asset base compare e.g. the cost of a boat and gear,
compared to the cost of land and agricultural inputs, and are physical assets more at
risk in fisheries (e.g. cyclones may result in boat loss for fishermen whereas just loss
of crops, not land, for farmers)?
• How does access to markets (and market information) and food security compare for
the two sectors?
• How does access to claims on government, family support and the international aid
agencies differ between sectors e.g. poor people in cities (non-fishers), may be less
vulnerable because they have better access to exercising claims on government for
preferential assistance (Swift J. 1989), but perhaps more vulnerable because of lower
claims on family support and natural assets?
• Are fishermen more vulnerable to certain kinds of shocks e.g. cyclones because of
living in the coastal zone, how often do these shocks occur relative to other ones e.g.
lack of rainfall for farmers, and what is the relative impacts on assets and poverty of
different shocks?
3. How has vulnerability changed over time for fishing and non-fishing activities, and why?
4. Development and testing of vulnerability indicators.
5. Assessment of the modes, costs and benefits of prevention rather than cure i.e. reducing
vulnerability rather than enabling recovery.
6. The effects of civil disorder on vulnerability and coping strategies e.g. on the economic
environment, and household strategies.
7. What policies are most appropriate to support coping mechanisms and strategies to
reduce vulnerability in different sectors and areas.
8. Which of the variety of coping strategies employed are actually the most successful and
why? e.g. Geheb and Binns (1997) demonstrate how plot fragmentation, drought and low
investment have led to poor crop yields for fishermen seeking to farm following reduced
catch levels in Lake Victoria.
9. What is the impact of accidents and ill health occurring to the main breadwinner on the
household as a whole. In particular, what are going to be the likely impacts of HIV/AIDS
on the vulnerability of fishing households. As of the end of 2000, there were a total of
36.1 million people living with HIV/AIDS in the world and in that year alone 5.3 million
people were infected. As suggested at a symposium as part of the Sixth Asian Fisheries
Forum, November 2001 (ICLARM 2002), epidemiological studies on HIV/AIDS by
occupation show that fishermen are among the group most prone to infection. In
T anzania in Africa, fishers were five times more likely to die from AIDS than agricultural
workers.
35
7 Impacts of technological change on efficiency, equity and poverty in

small-scale fisheries
7.1 Summary table

Geographical spread Asia 17 (Bangladesh 9), Africa 9, Pacific 6,
Theoretical 2, Americas 3, Middle East 1
Number of references based on empirical 15 (all in terms of affects of technology on
research about the causes/impacts of poverty income)
Post 2000 3
7.2 Main findings
7.2.1 What are main types of te chnological change and why do they happen?
T echnological developments that have occurred in small-scale fisheries over recent decades can
be divided into those that affect three main groups:
• the catching sector (e.g. fibreglass and plywood canoes replacing dug-outs, outboard
engines, new gear types and synthetic materials, radios and electronics, use of ice);
• post harvest marketing and processing sectors (e.g. use of ice and insulation, fish
smoking and salting technology, other forms of product processing and value-added,
improvements in national transport systems and developments in international
transport opening up new markets);
• those engaged in rural aquaculture (e.g. hatchery production techniques,
transportation of fry, disease mitigation, feed developments).
T echnological change is usually a gradual process (Kurien 1995, Cunningham et al 1985), but
why does technological change come about? At the micro-economic level, improvements in
technology can be the result of the search for efficiency by individual operators seeking to
increase profitability, which if successful then spreads through the community. Key macro-
economic conditions may also bring about changes in the use of technology. These macro-level
conditions include factors such as the expansion of international and domestic markets for
seafood products (Bort, 1987; Geheb and Binns, 1997; Ahmed, 1992), exposure to international
practices and greater communication and knowledge of other areas of the world and liberal
import policies on outboard motors (Kurien, 1995). All of these might be termed “enabling”
conditions.
They may also be the result of necessity, supporting the adage that “necessity is the mother of
invention”. Examples include a) the need to introduce gillnets and engines to fish further from
home as a result of declining catches, due to competition with industrial trawlers (Kurien, 1995,
Bort, 1987), b) a shortage of suitable large tress for dug-out canoes as in West Africa and India
(Kurien,1995) which required the development of new boatbuilding technology, and c) the
requirement for cash income as a result of the introduction of taxation (Geheb and Binns, 1997;
Okwe, 1989).
36
Finally, it is clear that international and bilateral aid agencies, national and local governments,
and local and international NGOs, have all contributed to technological developments (Ahmed,
1992; Tvedten and Hersoug, 1991; Kurien, 1995; Bailey, 1985; Bakouy, 1993; Donaldson, 1980,
O’Riodan, 1994), largely in their attempts to improve productivity and incomes, to increase food
availability for domestic consumers, and where possible to produce a surplus for export.
7.2.2 Efficiency
What is meant by efficiency? Economic efficiency is concerned with, on one hand, productivity
at the firm level (e.g. individual vessel or fishing company) and, on the other hand, productivity at
the level of the entire fishery exploiting one or several fish stocks. Variations in productivity and
profitability among different fishing firms can be exclusively attributed to differences in fishing
and managerial skills and fishing technologies (e.g. technological efficiency). Changes in
productivity and profitability at the level of the entire fishery are in addition caused by the
aggregate and age-class specific level of fishing effort expended on the fish stock(s) and the
latter’s abundance, distribution across space, and reproductive capacity.
It is useful to examine why micro-economic benefits and technical efficiency in the form of
higher catch rates and profits can be expected at the level of the individual boat owner in the
short-run, and when taken in isolation. T his of course assumes that the factors of production are
such that a change to using a new engine, for example, will result in greater net profits (e.g.
Jinadu 1998). However, there are examples that suggest that technical efficiency may not be more
economically efficient. For example, the introduction of diesel outboard engines in West Africa
has been largely unsuccessful due to operational, practical and maintenance considerations, even
though in technical terms engines should last longer and be more reliable. De Camargo and
Petrere (2001) showed that river fishers in Brazil had greater incomes if they were not
mechanised due to the high cost of fuel.
At the aggregate level, and in the long-run however, technological change does not always result
in higher output or profitability for groups of boat owners (or the “ average” fishermen) if they are
exploiting the same, unregulated, resource, and technology can therefore result in both economic
and biological inefficiency.
The explanation in Cunningham et al. (1985) is a useful analysis of why. T echnological

improvement allows any given quantity of fish to be caught at lower unit costs (i.e. the long run
average cost curve shifts downwards), and this encourages others into the fishery depleting stocks
further, thereby encouraging still greater improvements in technological efficiency etc. The result
in an open-access situation is that price and average cost will always be brought into equality.
Furthermore, the sustainable yield of a fishery can be expected to increase as a result of
technological change until the MSY is reached, so that at low levels of fishing effort, greater
catchability does raise productivity. However, at levels of effort above the MSY, further
technological improvements will result in overexploitation and cause the sustainable yield to fall,
output to fall and prices to rise. Equally important is that in the absence of regulation the effect is
not self-correcting. So, whether technological development raises or lowers output and
productivity (i.e. whether it is efficient or not) depends, inter alia, on the level of fishing effort,
and the degree of control of access.
7.2.3 Equity and pove rty

T echnological advances (i.e. catchability) in industrial and semi-industrial fisheries have been
even more pronounced than in artisanal fisheries and have had a huge impact on small-scale
fisheries, because of both competition (e.g. for the same resources) and conflict (e.g. in terms of
37
gear losses). The move towards larger vessels, and the use of trawling and seining in particular,
has been stimulated largely by the development of international markets. Previous technological
developments within small-scale fisheries may not have significantly affected the overall
structure of production and marketing which remained small-scale and internally orientated (Bort,
1987). However, the same cannot be said of technological developments that have facilitated the
expansion of domestic semi-industrial and industrial fleets, and allowed access to foreign vessels
(with ever-improved technology).
Furthermore, traditional fishing technologies in general evolved to suit the particular ecological
context, in particular because of the species selectivity and passive nature of many of them
(Kurien, 1992; RAPA/FAO, 1987). The introduction of new technologies and “ modernization”,
have made significant contributions to overfishing, with certain impacts on poverty when tied to
ineffective management which has done little to limit effort and thus resulted in smaller profits
being shared out between greater numbers. Even though one might suppose that the knowledge
and experience required to fish is some form of barrier to entry, the literature supports the
theoretical discussion above about the lack of positive impacts of technological development on
incomes in the context of open-access or ineffective regulation (Kurien, 1992; Geheb K. and
Binns T ., 1997, Ali and Fisher, 1995; Ahmed 1992; RAPA/FAO, 1987; Bailey, 1985).
These developments have therefore had equity and poverty implications. T here are countless
examples of small-scale fisheries losing the battle for fish with larger operators with greater
technological sophistication (and by implication, greater wealth) that are competing for the same
resource (Wiratno and Mudiantono, 1995; Tvedten and Hersoug, 1991; Bailey, 1985; Betke,
1988). T he large, technologically advanced fishing operations also compete in terms of credit,
institutional support and market arrangements.
However, implications are also felt within small-scale fisheries in terms of altered structural
changes in fishing and marketing. Whereas historically most catches would have been sold
locally, access to international markets has resulted in a new supply chain including processors
and middlemen. This has had four main results:
a) demand for catches has increased causing greater pressure to over-exploit stocks (as
explained in the theoretical section on efficiency above), as many international
markets appear insatiable and inelastic to price;
b) many fishermen have become increasingly specialized, increasing their vulnerability
to price fluctuations and other factors outside their control;
c) the emphasis on external markets has had significant implications on the poor in
terms of food security and availability of protein from locally caught fish;
d) individual fishermen are often forced to enter patron-client arrangements, either as
insurance against periods of poor fishing, or because they require significant amounts
of the capital to obtain fishing equipment that will ensure they are not disadvantaged
compared to others using new technologies. Such arrangements can be
disadvantageous for the poor in terms of interest rates, catch shares, obligations to
sell catches at reduced prices etc. This initiates a system of dependency where
fishermen can be denied any meaningful profits (Bort, 1987; de Silva, 1977; Betke,
1988), whereas in the past fishermen where on a more equal footing with small-scale
fish buyers. Furthermore, the poorer in the community may suffer from a negative
discrimination with respect to access to loanable funds, especially from formal
sources, due to a lack of securities (Platteau et al 1985; Ahmed, 1992; Bakouy,
1993).
38
These points are at the heart of the debate surrounding the impacts of capitalisation, and the
concentration of the factors of production associated with the “ blue revolution”. Not everyone has
had access to new technology, and capital requirements have increasingly meant that boat owners
may not actually be fishermen, but just those involved in rent seeking behaviour (Platteau et al,
1985; Ahmed, 1992; Betke, 1988; Okwe, 1989). Indeed, some projects have specifically not
selected traditional fishermen as beneficiaries when seeking to introduce motorized vessels (de
Silva 1977). T his has had severe social impacts in terms of societal structure and organization in
many communities. “Traditional” fishermen may be prevented from acquiring engines, for
example, due to high capital requirements (Deb A. and Alam K, 1994, Okwe, 1989). However,
given the requirements of technology, ecological conditions and locational factors are also of
great importance, and therefore themselves create distributional effects (Platteau et al, 1985).
Some areas develop quickly that can access international markets, credit etc, while in others
development can be blocked with a corresponding stagnation, or decline, of incomes.
Equity considerations may also relate to gender imbalances as suggested by Andersson and Ngazi
(1998) who showed that women who collected inter-tidal products were severely disadvantaged
when men with snorkelling gear (i.e. a new technology) started to dive for the same products
(octopus, sea-cucumber). However, as widely documented (Dehy, 1992), women are more
usually employed in the post-harvest links in the supply chain, and the growing importance of
international markets must therefore have had detrimental effects on their ability to contribute to
sustainable livelihoods from fish marketing.
However, the role of technology can certainly provide significant benefits to the poor. Chakalall
(1999) showed how early warning systems and hurricane preparedness plans have reduced
vulnerability to loss of life from hurricanes in the Caribbean, and how development assistance has
provided advice on how to prepare vessels and gear for minimum losses. VHF radio networks in
many countries have showed how technical measures can reduce vulnerability (a key determinant
of why people enter poverty) to factors such as cyclones (Calvert, 1998), engine breakdown etc.
Radios have also been used by small-scale fishers to control illegal fishing in their waters
(Davies, 2001/02).
There is also a large body of literature that discusse s how developments and dissemination of
aquaculture technology4 have impacted on the poor in inland, small-scale fisheries (pond, cage
and flood-plain). In such fisheries, access may be more regulated than in marine fisheries and
therefore less susceptible to dissipation of benefits over time. Certainly aquaculture would appear
to offer great potential for households to provide additional food security and diversification of
livelihood strategies in the face of overfishing of wild stocks (FAO, 1999). Some references
suggest clear benefits to the poor in terms of a) food security from increased production, b)
employment, and c) profits to the poor actually engaged in fishing/production and marketing
(Edwards, 2000, Ahmad et al, 1997; BCAS/Macfadyen/Aeron-Thomas, 2001; FAO, 1999).
However, many studies are more circumspect, especially about the distributional benefits within
the production and marketing sectors (Ahmad et al, 1995; T hompson and Hossain, 1997; Kremer,
1994; O’Riordan, 1994), especially where intensive aquaculture practices are prevalent. These
studies tend to show that benefits may be skewed in favour of the more wealthy sections of the
community including leaseholders, pond owners and fishers with efficient/expensive gears, and
suggest that equity and poverty are greatly determined by mediating institutions.
What is clear however, is that there is little documentary evidence on the effects of aquaculture in
helping to reduce poverty (Gupta et al, 1999; FAO, 1999; Edwards, 2000), especially given the
4
Note that Asia produces more than 90% of global products by volume
39
large amount of literature on the impacts of technology on poverty in small-scale marine capture
fishers. T his, it has been suggested (FAO, 1999), is due to the small-scale and geographically
scattered nature of aquaculture by poor farming households, the fact that much produce is
consumed locally or sold in local markets and is not recorded in government statistics, and the
fact that the poor have rarely been explicitly targeted for assistance through projects or
programmes, although some projects (e.g. the DFID 3 rd and 4 th Fisheries Projects in Bangladesh)
have specifically targeted the poor, albeit with mixed success as shown above.
It is evident from all of the discussion above that for technological developments to be effective,
they must be based on “ appropriate technology” (RAPA/FAO, 1987; Donaldson, 1980) and not
imposed from above, both for successful poverty reduction, but also to ensure that small-scale
fishers take up new technologies. Defining what constitutes “ appropriate technology” is of course
the great challenge, but must include a consideration of factors such as working capital
requirements, skill levels and managerial capacity, the intensity of rural aquaculture, the informal
financing system, the fit with current social structures, and integration with livelihood strategies
and other sectors. From the literature, it appears that for technology to benefit the poor, the poor
must have: familiarity with appropriate technology and opportunity to observe concrete examples;
access to land or water bodies and availability of seed (in the case of aquaculture); access to credit
on fair/favourable terms; profitable technology; extension and training; technology that suits local
conditions; market demand for products and the ability to access such markets; and institutional
support – conditions which are often lacking.

1. A key policy implication appears to be that for technology to be of any benefit to poor
marine capture fishers, access must be controlled to limit increasing numbers of small-scale
fishermen, and the interests of the poor must be protected against the negative impacts of
industrial and semi-industrial activities on small-scale fisheries.
2. Where inland stocking programmes are employed, cancellation of leases does not
necessarily ensure access to water bodies by landless fishers and other disadvantaged
groups due to power structures, and NGO involvement and local organization may be
necessary to reduce problems with the distribution of benefits.
3. Social, economic and institutional factors are important constraints to greater contributions
by aquaculture to rural development, as generic technologies are already available.
4. Licence fees should be charged in relation to the benefits received by different gear users in
capture fisheries, so those with more efficient gear making more money, should pay more.
5. Appropriate policies need to be implemented to provide the poor with better access to
credit, to solve the problem that “ a man who can afford a trawler boat is already a rich
man” (Platteau et al 1985). This requires the organised credit sector to extend more loans.
6. Conventional top-down, technology driven approaches have only marginal positive impacts
on the poor in most countries. T his applies to technology in the wild capture fisheries
sector, and to rural aquaculture.
7. Extension may be a key bottleneck in technological dissemination, but care should be taken
not to force the uptake of unsuitable and undesired technological innovations, and to use
appropriate and innovative extension techniques.
8. The poor are often not early adopters of technology (due to their marginal circumstances
and attitudes to risk (FAO, 1999; Donaldson, 1980)), and so programmes targeting poverty
must specifically assist the poor to ensure that benefits do not accrue just to those that are
better off.
9. T arget group selection must be done through stakeholder consultation to clearly define and
identify the poor.
40

1. Greater research is required, ex ante and ex post development assistance, to ascertain which
forms of technological intervention are most appropriate to improve livelihoods for the
poor. See Gupta et al (1999) for a useful framework.
2. More understanding is needed about the attitudes of the poor to technology (e.g.
Muhammad and Susilo, 1995, Jul-Larsen, 1991, Donaldson, 1980), current constraints, and
ways to ensure rapid uptake of appropriate technology e.g. extension, programmes that are
flexible and focus on institutional conditions etc.
3. More research is needed to assess the impacts of aquaculture development on the poor, and
how to maximise benefits. This should focus on meeting local objectives rather than
maximising biological yield, on low-cost food fish rather than high-value species, and on
communities rather than commodities (Edwards, 2000).
4. Better understanding is required on the trade-offs between the capture of wild fish and
culture of farmed fish.
41
8 Fishworker’s organizations: a voice for the poor
8.1 Summary table

Geographical spread Asia 10, Africa 5, Global 5, Pacific 10,
Americas 9, Developed 5
Post 2000 3, ? 4
8.2 Main findings
8.2.1 Ge neral
The literature suggests that fishworker’s organizations can be formally and legally incorporated,
or develop as a result of the informal groupings of fishermen organizing together for some
common purpose. It is also appears that they can be categorized based on three main types of
purposes and aims.
1. those which are concerned with local fisheries management or local fishing/social issues
in small-scale communities (e.g. fisher councils, village-based organizations with the
power to regulate fishing activity, or groupings of those with similar interests);
2. those which focus on credit, marketing, support for new business initiatives, and
provision of capital inputs (e.g. cooperatives, associations, local savings groups);
3. those which concentrate on political negotiation or lobbying to deliver policy changes at
the regional or national level, and resulting benefits for their members or those they claim
to represent (e.g. artisanal fishermen’s organizations, labour unions).
While some organizations are obviously multipurpose and involved in supporting more than one
of the aims presented above (e.g. cooperatives may be involved in local management as well as
the supply of capital inputs), the division is nevertheless felt useful in summarising the literature.
Successful fisher’s organizations have the potential to provide significant assets to fishing
households and communities. It has been suggested that in countries where small-scale producers
are grouped into locally accountable membership organizations, rural development as measured
by composite indicators of productivity, welfare and income distribution proceeds at a much more
rapid pace than in countries where this is not the case (RAPA/FAO 1987). But what is the
empirical evidence for such a claim in the literature?
8.2.2 Management and social organizations

There are many thousands of local management organizations throughout the world e.g. more
than 1 300 in Japan alone (FAO, 1993), and increasing interest in their establishment and support
as a method of effecting community management and co-management (Brown, 1998; McConney,
1998; Ahmed et al, 1995; Dyer and Leard, 1994; Satia et al, 2001; and others in Dyer and
McGoodwin eds, 1994). At the local level, Bort (1987) provides a good example of how
42
fishermen at Charco in Panama agreed through informal discussions to ban the use of trawl nets
soon after they evidenced the impacts of their use on shrimp catches. Shrimp catches began to
recover soon after the cessation of trawling. Bavinck (1996) also describes the evolution of such
an initiative by a string of fisher councils along the Coromandel coast in India who decided to ban
the use of “ snail nets”. It was perceived that the nets would benefit a small number of people in
the short-term, but would bring about the decline of other fish stocks, and the ban was thus
motivated by beliefs about ecological interdependence and social justice. Lenselink (2002)
provides examples of groups of owners regulating fishing activity (to keep market prices high)
and of local committees engaged in surveillance. A clear lesson is that if fishworker’s
organizations are to succeed in alleviating poverty it appears important that they must evolve
from the needs and aspirations of fishermen themselves.
The section of this report relating to common property resources and poverty, has already
considered the literature that claims that community management organizations and community
arrangements can reduce poverty and increase equity and sustainability. Further examples include
those presented by Jentoft (1989), and those in Dyer and McGoodwin eds. (1994). However, it is
noted that in the fisheries sector, many of these studies focus on the apparent success of local-
level restraint on fishing effort and on preventing the “tragedy of the commons”, rather than on
the impacts on poverty using any empirical evidence. While sustainability in itself is likely to be
of benefit to the poor, it tells us nothing about the distribution of benefits, and it is clear that such
organizations often benefit influential people in the community more than the vulnerable
(Lenselink, 2002; Foell et al, 1999). The literature on common property also includes many
conditions deemed to be important for successful involvement of community organizations in
management (see also FAO Technical Paper 384/1, McGoodwin, 1994).
Locally based organizations also provide social benefits (e.g. rescue at sea, financial assistance
during ill-health etc) that contribute to human and social assets, and thus assist with poverty
reduction. In many small-scale fishing communities, social, religious, caste and cultural groups
e.g. youth groups, women’s groups, religious groupings etc, while not necessarily made up
entirely of fishers or fish traders/processors, may nevertheless provide significant social benefits
to those involved with fishing or related activities. T he importance of such organizations is
thought to be considerable (Lenselink, 2002; Archari, 1994).
8.2.3 Economic organiz ations (coope ratives, associations, and savings and cre dit
organizations)
The literature suggests that there has been a relatively high failure rate of cooperatives in
development projects (Poggie et al., 1988; Lenselink, 2002; Canizares et al, 1992), even though
many projects have supported them, especially in the late 1970’s and 1980’s. Failure has often
been due to a lack of identification by fishermen with the aims and motivations of these
organizations, which have been created from above (RAPA/FAO, 1987). Furthermore, the
emphasis on such organizations as conduits of inputs for increased production raises obvious
questions about resulting overfishing and the impacts on the poor.
However, studies suggest that where cooperatives and/or savings and credit organizations are
based on traditional savings groups, or supported by small-scale NGOs working at a local level
and with proper consultation, such organizations are likely to be most successful, and the
literature does provide some encouraging evidence for success (Vivekanandan, 1995; Meynell,
1990; T ao and Colyn, 1998). This is particularly so for women’s organizations (generally
involved with port-harvest marketing activities). However, we have found only one study that
provides evidence for the effect of such organizations on poverty (Meynell, 1990). Other
“ successes” in the literature are usually defined in terms of continued functioning, levels of
43
repayments, or membership levels, and not in terms of the impacts on poverty per se. An
additional point of importance is that judging success or failure at any fixed point in time is
problematic, as organizations go through periods of relative successes and strengths.
The useful work by Meynell (1990) was base d on case studies of organizations (almost all
cooperatives) around the world, as reported by in-country authors who were asked to select one
organization deemed a success, and one deemed a failure. Although predating the Sustainable
Livelihoods Approach, the methodology employed the use of a Well-being Index, which was
used to assess the change in well-being of members since the formation of the organization.
“ Different aspects of the physical, social, economic and political well-being were judge d by the
[contributing] authors”. In addition, the authors in each country were asked to assess whether
organizations were successful or not in terms of the organization’s three main objectives. These
included a wide range of aims broadly grouped into: socio-economic well-being of fishermen;
fisheries development (including marketing and infrastructure development, access to credit,
equipment provision etc); group action; community and social welfare; and involvement with
Government.
While not actually based on quantitative empirical evidence as the methodology used more
qualitative questionnaires, the activities that seemed to be most successful were marketing, credit,
supply of fuel/gear/spares, and specialised activities such as boat-building and cold storage. Some
of the numerous factors considered important for success (i.e. in terms of well-being, and in
fulfilling the main aims of the organizations) include:
• the initiative for forming the organization coming from the fishers, who must have a
strong motivation for joining;
• popular participation and the influence of members in decision-making;
• good quality of leadership, election of key directors and managers, and a lack of
corruption (usually through members vigilance);
• adequate working capital and good quality of financial management;
• a lack of Government control over decision-making, but support for training;
• being less isolated from main lines of communication than failing organizations;
• adequate facilities, services and equipment;
• provision of a unique, efficient service in a manner that is profitable;
• freedom in pricing agreements for marketing, and a tendency to purchase all their
members’ fish with a prohibition of sales by members outside the organization;
• membership being confined to boat owners and crew, rather than traders, processors, etc.
These findings support the more qualitative views expressed in other literature. Cooperative
facilities, management (especially the quality and integrity of leadership) and social solidarity are
all found to be especially important to ensure cooperative success (RAPA/FAO, 1987). For
example, Geheb and Binns (1997) found that fishermen on Lake Victoria had low savings levels,
partly because of perceived corruption by those involved with cooperative management. Betke
(1988) suggested that continued State involvement serves to ensure that cooperatives are more to
do with coopting the rural elites than cooperatives for the poor.
8.2.4 “Political” organizations

A variety of forms of organizations have evolved in an attempt to deal with the fact that fishers
are often at the margin of society – geographically, economically, socio-culturally, and politically
(Kurien,1992). Some are made up of fishers themselves, while others claim merely to represent
their interests. It is not within the scope of this report to consider in any detail the impact of
44
organizations representing the interests of fishers, where the organization's membership/workers

are not comprised of fishers themselves. Examples include NGOs and social activists operating at
the local (Ahmed et al, 1995), national and international level, religious groups (Kurien, 1992)
etc. However the potential impact of such organizations on poverty is considerable and should not
be forgotten, especially given their potential not just to lobby and work with fisher’s
organizations, but also to assist with the creation of organizations whose representatives are
fishers. NGOs can mobilize political support for small-scale fishers, and have even resorted to
political violence to protect their interests against larger-scale industrial vessels (Bailey, 1985).
In terms of “political” organizations comprised of fishers themselves, there are a number of

common aims such as:
• recognition or preservation of historical access rights to in-shore resources;

• a ban on some harvesting technologies that compete with small-scale fishers;
• more appropriate technology;
• fairer prices for catches;
• more participation in the formulation of fisheries development and management
practices;
• increased wages and improved working conditions (by labour unions);
• regulation of non-fishing activities impacting on the fisheries sector (e.g. environmental
degradation from pollution, siltation, use or river water for irrigation).
The literature presents some interesting examples of such organizations, such as the Fishworkers’
Union of Senegal ( Gaye, 1995), which is attempting to make changes in EU policy and practice
on fishing agreements, the All-Indonesia Association of Fishermen in Indonesia, which was
successful in pressurizing the government to impose a ban on trawling, and the Pakistan
Fisherfolk Forum which is lobbying to make changes which will increase fisheries productivity in
the Indus Delta.
Consideration of one example presented by Kurien (1992) in a little more detail is illustrative of
some key themes. Kurien described how during the 1980s the Kerala Independent Fishworkers
Federation mobilized against trawling by using fasts, roadblocks and large demonstrations.
However, political forces throughout the 1980s undermined the Federation, and even though their
activities resulted in the Kerala Marine Fisheries Regulation Act in the early 1980s, the use of
artificial reefs that interfered with trawling, and the introduction of a monsoon ban on trawling in
1988, the impacts on poverty are questionable. The Fisheries Regulation Act was not well
enforced, motorisation of the artisanal fleet during the 1980s drastically increased fishing effort
dissipating rents, and following the three-month monsoon ban on trawling it is “ unlikely that [the
increased] harvest had a commensurate positive effect on incomes of fishermen” because
increased landings resulted in depressed shore prices, although it did reduce the cost of fish for
poor people and therefore assisted with food security.
The example supports other literature, which illustrates how politicians and policy makers have
had to deal with the numerical political clout of some large organizations. However, while
fisher’s organizations might be vocal in their claims for support from Government (and even of
their successes in reducing poverty) and may be successful to the extent of some policy changes,
this does not necessarily imply that their actions are of great benefit in reducing poverty. This is
not to say that they never are, but on the one hand a large number of forces often conspire against
them so that effecting change is very difficult, and on the other, even if changes are made, other
factors (e.g. lack of control on access by small-scale fishermen, or motorisation and increasing
45
effort) may negate the benefits of any policy changes. Furthermore, we have found no evidence in
the literature for the causal benefits from fishers organizations on poverty that have been backed
up by empirical study.
The existence of national or even international groupings of small-scale fishers, bringing together
small fisher organizations under one umbrella for the purpose of political lobbying is also
interesting. Examples include the National Fishworkers’ Forum (India) and the International
Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF).
There is also little written in the literature we have reviewed on the effectiveness of unions
operating in small-scale fisheries to bring about higher wages and improved working conditions.
This is because most small-scale fishermen are either self-employed and have their own boats, or
are crew on boats owned by other individuals. The existence of single owners with large numbers
of small boats is rare, due the management time and complexity involved with overseeing small-
scale fishing operations. T here is therefore little or no potential for unions of small-scale
fishermen to become involved in collective bargaining. Unions are therefore more involved in
some of the activities described above e.g. supply of inputs. The role of unions to bring about
changes in wages and working conditions may be more relevant in large-scale industrial fisheries.
Based on the consultants’ own experience, and whilst not presented in any literature, the T rawler
and Line Fishermen’s Union in South Africa has had a long history of meaningful negotiation
with the large demersal trawling companies that has certainly made a concrete difference to both
wages and employment conditions for poor “ black” and “ coloured” workers on South African
vessels. However, such examples, being in industrial fisheries, are not strictly relevant to this
study.

1. The importance of strong leadership for the success of all fisher’s organizations, points to
policy that aims to contribute to institutional strengthening through support for key
individuals.
2. Support to locally-based organizations should not ignore or under-estimate the impacts of
wider social, economic and political factors which can serve to undermine both
organizations sustainability, but also the benefits to the poor created by such
organizations.
3. Policy that aims to support organizations as a way of alleviating poverty must ensure that
such organizations evolve from the needs and aspirations of fishers themselves.
4. State support must be appropriate but not restrictive.

1. There are few studies that actually measure the impact of fisher’s organizations on
poverty and the poor. This needs to be urgently rectified to substantiate claims that
organizations can be of benefit, and that they require support and institutional
strengthening.
2. Studies concentrating on the impacts of fisher organizations on poverty are needed to
develop generalizable characteristics of those organizations that are of most benefit. Such
generalizable characteristics may be related to the type of organisation itself, or the
factors associated with its structure, management etc. For example, are organizations
involved in political lobbying intrinsically more beneficial to the poor than cooperatives,
and what methodology can be employed to measure the relative successes of different
types of organizations on poverty reduction. Such studies will need to be carefully
designed to identify the most important wider social, economic and political factors
46
which can serve to undermine both organizations sustainability and the benefits to the
poor. Such studies are essential to inform policy as to which organizations most warrant
support.
3. Organizations by definition seek to generate benefits for their members. Greater research
is therefore required into the inclusion criteria for organizations, and whether the poorest
of the poor are disadvantaged or precluded in any way from membership of fisher
organizations.
47
9 Critical factors for small-scale fishers to get out of poverty
9.1 Summary table

Geographical spread Africa 24, Pacific 10, Asia 21, Global 14,
Theoretical 8, Americas 3
Post 2000 19, ? 4
9.2 Main findings

Completing this section of the terms of reference presents perhaps the greatest challenge – to
present an analysis of the literature on solving the development problem for small-scale fishers in
the space of 4–5 pages! As would be expected, there are a large number of references dealing
generally with fisheries and poverty in addition to those covered in the preceding sections of this
report. As a result, the format of this section is rather different. We have attempted to group the
literature into references relating to a number of key areas seen as important for poverty
reduction. We have not gone into any detail in terms of the views and opinions within each topic,
although the emphasis is generally self-evident. It is hoped that this will enable the reader to
quickly identify the literature relating to factors that they are interested in, and which other
authors have considered. T his approach also serves to demonstrate the need for an integrated
approached to poverty reduction due to the large number of factors covered in the literature which
are thought to be important.
We have attempted to suggest which factors lie most comfortably within the realm of possible
donor assisted support to the fisheries sector by indicating which ones lie just within the fisheries
sector, and which ones require interactions between fisheries and other sectors. As with previous
sections, only a few references support their hypotheses using any empirical evidence of the
impacts of different factors on poverty, and these we have placed in bold in the text below, along
with one or two other references thought to be of special interest.
It should also be noted that this section is of course informed by the preceding ones in terms of
the importance for reducing poverty by: adopting a SLA and lessons learned from previous
sustainable livelihood studies, managing common property resources, using appropriate
technology, decreasing vulnerability, and maintaining effective fisher organizations. References
relating to these topics (and related ones covered such as community-management) are therefore
not considered again or included below but are all crucial in the battle to reduce poverty in small-
scale fisheries.
While most references motivate for one factor as being especially important, some attempt to
present an overall summary of different factors thought to be important for poverty reduction. The
World Bank’s World De velopment Re port 2000 proposes a framework of actions to build up
the assets of the poor based on increasing opportunity (principally through growth, market reform
and increasing people’s assets), empowerment (through better governance and increased
participation) and security (through risk management and safety nets). Shaffe r (2001) echoes the
48
emphasis of the World Development Report and considers how the concept of poverty has been
broadened and the analysis of the causal structure and dynamics of poverty deepened to focus on
how and why individuals fall into and get out of poverty. These require correspondingly broader
approaches to strategies aimed at identifying critical factors in poverty alleviation, and a greater
concentration on vulnerability. He also outlines rules for success in poverty alleviation through
public works and credit provision.
Smith (1979) is an example of more fisheries-specific work. He identified four sets of factors that
affect the standard of living of fishers: 1) resource availability, 2) vessels and gear, 3) market
power, and 4) inflation. He also presents a useful table first developed by Hamlisch (1967)
dividing important factors influencing development into sociological, cultural and psychological,
economic, and institutional. In summary he concludes that if one simple generalization regarding
traditional fishermen had to be made, it would be “ too many fishermen, not enough fish (Bardach
1977)”, and this, sadly, is perhaps as true (if not truer) today as it was in the late 1970s. T his leads
to a number of key policy and research implications:
• Production technology is not the answer.
• Subsidies will lead to increased fishing pressure.
• Legislating for inefficiency to maintain employment will cause stagnation.
• Improvements in marketing and post-harvest technology will not necessarily result in
increased prices received by fishermen due to market power of intermediaries and
elasticities of supply and demand.
• Cooperative and organizational development, if successful is likely to encourage more
people to enter the fishery.
• Alternative employment opportunities represent the only long-term solution that offers
any real chance of raising the standards of living of those that remain in the traditional
fishery.
• Given that fisheries are often an activity of last resort, doing nothing and hoping for a
natural transformation is politically unacceptable and won’t work.
Jomo (1991) and Neiland et al. (1997) also present a useful analysis of the many factors
affecting poverty in Malaysian and Nigerian fisheries respectively. Their conclusions are very
similar to those of Smith (1979 in that they emphasize the lack of control over fishing, the power
of middlemen in the marketing of fish, the lack of access to resources and inputs by the poor, the
failure of subsidies, and the need for alternative employment opportunities.
Other references relating to particular factors thought to be important in poverty reduction, are
presented below:
1. Creating alternative employment opportunities: Non-fisheries sector. Bland 1995; Smith

1979; Pantin 1999 (tourism); Munthali, 1997 (ornamental fish); Neiland et al, 1997,
Ashley et al, 2001 (tourism); Panayotou, 1980. But may be difficult: World Bank, 1999
(attempts unsuccessful in Pacific), Pollnac et al, 2001 (on job satisfaction).
2. Effective control of industrial fishing in the inshore-zone: Fisheries sector. Section 7 on
technology, Pye-Smith, 1997; Silvestre and Pauly, 1997, Bailey 1997, RAPA/FAO 1987.
3. Credit provision: Fisheries sector. FAO 1996, Tan 1995, Jolis 1996, Pinstrup-Andersen
and Pandya-Lorch, 1999; Tietze and Shresta, 1996; RAPA/FAO, 1987; Platteau et al,
1985.
49
4. Reduction of control over marketing by middlemen: Fisheries sector. Jomo, 1991; Abila,
2000; Tvedten, 1987; Guard and Masaiganah, 1997.
5. Sustainable development and exploitation, and enhanced environmental management:
Fisheries sector and non-fisheries sectors. Acheampong, 1996; Barbier, 1991;
Markandya, 1998; Lefebvre, 2001; Campbell, 1992; Reed?, Broad, 1994; Heady, 2000;
Pantin, 1999, Munthali 1997, Markandya, 2001, Agbayani et al 1998, Pye-Smith 1997,
Guard and Masaiganah 1997, Doulman 2001, DFID/EC/UNDP /WB 2002, Bailey 1997 (note:
the literature suggests a causality in both directions with poverty leading to
environmental degradation, and environmental degradation leading to poverty).
6. Integrated coastal management: Fisheries and non-fisheries sectors. White et al, 1997,
Johnstone and Linden, 1999, Ngoile and Linden 1997, Courtey and White 2000.
7. Improved conflict management: Fisheries sector and non-fisheries sectors. Bennet,
Neiland et al, 2001.
8. Use of participatory approaches: Fisheries sector. FAO 2000, Doulman 2001.
9. Special support for women in development: Fisheries sector. Tan 1995, Kibria and
Arooy, 2000.
10. Improved entitlements and governance (e.g. ensuring the poor have access,
comanagement): Fisheries and non-fisheries. Bene 2001, Bene et al, 2001, Neiland 2001,
Shaffer 2001, Pomeroy and Berks, 1997.
11. Improved food security (through less export and less industrial fishing): Fisheries sector.
Abila, 2000, Ahmed 1997, FAO 2000, Kent, 1997.
12. Legislation to require foreign fleet operators to invest in onshore infrastructure, thus
creating jobs and hard currency revenues: Fisheries sector. Kaczynski and Looney 2000.
13. Using local and traditional knowledge, and local species (aquaculture), in improving
sustainable livelihoods: Fisheries. FAO 2000, Edwards 2000, Thilsted et al, 1997, Jallow
2001, Ruddle 1993, Lewis et al , 1996.
14. Improving health and support for livelihood strategies dealing with HIV/AIDS: Fisheries
and non-fisheries sectors. Appleton, 2000.
15. Favourable macroeconomic conditions: Non-fisheries sector. Neiland et al, 2001,
McCulloch et al, 2000, Pinstrup-Andersen and Pandya-Lorch 1999.

The extent to which the range of factors presented contribute to poverty reduction, and a
comparative perspective on which are more important/effective than others, is not known. It is
therefore not possible to prioritise them, but a useful methodology for comparing different
development initiatives (although not empirically-based) is provided in Neiland’s 2001 paper
“ Fisheries development, poverty alleviation and small-scale fisheries: a review of policy and
performance in developing countries since 1950.” The further development and refinement of
such an approach based around the SLA would appear to be critical for ex post evaluation and
comparison of the success of development programmes.
All of the factors listed above are actions that could/can help with poverty alleviation. However, it
seems likely that the approach that one takes to tackling the poverty problem is at least as
important. Some important conclusions from Neiland’s (2001) work that seem particularly
relevant, are that:
50
• Poverty is complex, and cannot be easily addressed using simple technology transfer and
capital investments through a sectoral approach.
• The correct diagnosis of poverty is a crucial first starting point for any development
assistance, and must consider the overall economic, social and political system.
• Poverty and politics/institutions are closely related, and fisheries development can often be
constrained by ineffective government, inappropriate institutional arrangements, and control
by elites.
• So it is necessary to think carefully in each context about what are the chances and effective
mechanisms for making changes that will reduce poverty while satisfying the rich and
powerful at the same time e.g. a win-win situation.
Furthermore, assessing both the scale of the problem and nature of the poverty are essential if
interventions are to be successful (T horpe, 2001). These conclusions suggest that attempting to
identify “the critical factors for small-scale fishers to get out of poverty” may be seeking an
illusive goal. The history of development interventions has been informed by narrowly defined
paradigms as to the “ critical” factors for reducing poverty (e.g. production technology, credit
provision, the environment, the incorporation of women into development initiatives, etc). The
use of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, should be just that, an approach. It may not be
especially helpful to try to develop generalizable conditions and factors for alleviating poverty.
That is not to say that some factors listed above are not important or likely to be more important
that others, and that lessons cannot be learned. Sustainable resource use for example (as enshrined
in the SLA) is likely to be a prerequisite for poverty reduction (or at least to prevent increases in
poverty), and poverty reduction strategies are likely to require cross-sectoral approaches.
But given the complexity of the poverty problem, the multi-dimensional nature of its causes, and
the unique circumstances of every location/community, it is likely to be impossible to develop a
blue-print which can be easily applied across different contexts. T his conclusion is not
particularly encouraging for development agencies, as it necessitates greater time and effort in
both research and the design of interventions. However, its acceptance might help to ensure that
interventions are based on the individual needs of each context, rather than on the paradigm of the
day, and that they will be more likely to succeed as a result.
51
10 Conclusions and recommendations
10.1 Summary of the literature

Many of sections/topics in this report are linked, although for ease of comprehension we have
tried to keep them distinct as suggested in the terms of reference. Section 9, for example, on the
critical factors for small-scale fishers to get out of poverty is necessarily informed by all sections;
the need to manage common property, use of appropriate technology, decreased vulnerability, and
effective fisher organizations (i.e. Sections 5–8 inclusive). It is also apparent in the literature that
to break the poverty cycle, the causes and characteristics of poverty must be understood in all its
dimensions and this must be reflected in policy and interventions (Sections 1–3).
This review presents a snap-shot of the literature only, and does not claim to be comprehensive.
Each of the Sections in this report could be the topic of a full FAO T echnical Paper, or even a
PhD, and to do justice to the range of topics covered in just one month has been a considerable
challenge. Nevertheless, some important themes have emerged. It is certainly clear from the
literature reviewed that there are very few studies in Sections 5–9 which examine the impacts of
different issues on poverty in an empirical way, and which actually define and measure poverty.
Furthermore, those that do, generally only measure changes in income. Much of the older
literature refers to income [poverty], and not the broader concept of poverty as proposed in the
SLA. As is now realised, poor people have many criteria of well-being and deprivation (Jodha N.
surveyed two villages in Gujarat 20 years apart (Chambers R., 1989) and found that the
households whose real per caput incomes had declined by more than 5% were, on average, better
off on 37 of their own 38 criteria of well-being).
Nearly 300 published and Internet documents were reviewed. Figure 2a (overleaf) illustrates the
total number of references from different regions, disaggregated according to the points/topics of
the terms of reference. Figure 2b shows a series of pie charts that describe the geographical
distribution of the material for each of the four main sections of the terms of reference. More
general and theoretical references account for over a quarter of the references, with the main bulk
of the research and context-specific articles resulting from work in South Asia, Southeast Asia
and East and West Africa, perhaps reflecting the focus of the development agencies. Bangladesh,
India and the Philippines are the countries that have been the focus of most work.
The pie charts (Figure 2b) clearly illustrate the move away from theoretical to more contextual
material as a subject matures. Although not statistically tested, the impression is that the
geographical diversity of the final sections of the report (T OR 4) on more general fisheries issues
is much greater than that of newer concepts relating to multi-dimensional poverty assessment,
livelihoods and their involvement in the PRS processes (T ORs 1–3). Overall there is a rather
academic focus surrounding sustainable livelihoods, as can be seen from this review, and the
amount of theoretical literature is large for something that is designed to aid appropriate
implementation. There is still a lot to be learned from field experiences, and this experience can
be expected to improve the SLA’s potential as a useful asset to poverty alleviation.
Figure 2. Distribution of literature reviewed, considering geographical region and the volume of theoretical information
2a. Bar chart to illustrate where the distribution across the four main sections of the TORs
70
60
Number of references
50
40
30
52
20
10
0
Carribb ean
L atin America
Pacific
Asia/Pacific
Asia
Sou th Asia
Sou th East Asia
In do -Pacific
Africa/A sia
Mid dle East
Africa
Sub Sah aran Africa
No rth Africa
West Africa
Cen tral Africa
E ast Africa
Sou th er n Africa
Dev elop ed
T heory
Glob al
Region
T OR 4 T OR 3 T OR 2 T OR 1
53
2b. Pie charts for the geographical coverage of material contributing to each of the TORs
TO R 1 TOR 3
Latin Amer ica
6%
Glo bal Global Asia
10 % Pacif ic 7% 4% Sub Sah ar an Afr ica
6% 11 %
So uth Asia
6% West Africa
7%
Sout h East Asia

T heo ry 10 %
3 2% T heor y
4 4%
East Africa
West Africa 2 6%
1 3%
South er n Af rica
East Africa
3%
1 3%
TOR 2 TO R 4
Latin Amer ica
Lat in America Glo bal Carribbean 3%
Global Pacific
7% 10 % 4%
12% 1% Asia/Pacif ic
South Asia
3%
9% T heor y
Sout h East Asia Asia
3% 1 3%
3%
Th eory
17 % Afr ica/Asia
3% South Asia
Develop ed 19 %
7%
Dev elo ped West Africa
2% 16 %
East Af rica
South ern Africa 7%
9% Cen tral Afr ica Centr al Af rica
2% 1% South East Asia
East Af rica West Afr ica Afr ica/Asia 14%
21 % 1 1% Africa
1%
2%
54
Figure 3. Diagram to show the proportion of fisheries documents reviewed. T he blue shaded area
indicates the percentage of documents that relate to small-scale fisheries.
Poverty assesment methodologies

100
Critical factors to get small-scale fishers 80
Lessons learned from SLA applicati on
out of poverty
60
40
20
Fish workers organisations as a voice for
0 SLA and PRSPs
the poor
Common property: cause or remedy of

Impacts of technology change
poverty
Fishers' vulnerabili ty
It is evident from Figure 3 that the amount of fisheries specific information available for SL,
policy and poverty assessment methodologies is rather low. However conversation with experts
currently working in these fields, and evidence from the current web sites indicate that there is a
large amount of ongoing work in this area, the results of which will be available soon and which
are expected to greatly contribute to the learning process.
10.2 Main findings and themes

1. A realization is dawning that fishers may not necessarily be the poorest of the poor, as is
often claimed. Until recently there has been a common assumption that (i) small-scale
fishers are poor and that (ii) development initiatives in small-scale fisheries set in place
by governments, donors and NGOs would contribute to the reduction of this poverty. The
issue of poverty was not, however directly addressed.
2. Poverty in fisheries has largely been defined in terms of incomes until very recently.
3. The whole concept of poverty has been broadened in recent years. Recognising that it is
multi-dimensional, dynamic and very complex radically affects how it is measured, what
approaches are used to tackle it, and its determinants etc. A key realization is that simple
sectoral approaches are unlikely to be successful. T he broader concept of poverty means
that it is very difficult and time-consuming to measure, define and understand the causes
of poverty, but efforts to do so are essential if interventions and policy initiatives are to be
successful.
4. Poverty is not a homogeneous phenomenon, but varies between individuals, households
and communities, over time, as well as according to people’s definition of what poverty
is.
5. Trying to identify “poor communities” is often an invalid question, as there is rapid
movement in and out of poverty within communities, and usually great differentiation of
wealth within any particular group. T his makes defining the poor, and whom you are
trying to help, rather difficult.
6. Long– and short-term poverty require very different approaches in terms of alleviation
strategies.
55
7. The poor are generally more risk averse than the non-poor, and therefore more difficult to
help. A key factor in encouraging them to take risk, diversify and accumulate assets, is
likely to be the presence of safety nets.
8. Diversity and mobility are critical livelihood strategies (and coping mechanisms to reduce
vulnerability), and should be supported by policy that is cross-sectoral e.g. farmers are
fishers and fishers are farmers, fishers migrate seasonally
9. Livestock appears to be especially important as a livelihood strategy by both fishers and
non-fishers as a method of banking assets for security.
10. Despite the short period of implementation of SL approaches and rather intellectual focus
of the literature, many lessons have been learned which feed back in to the iterative SL
development. The overwhelming impression from the literature is that SL approaches are
an improvement on conventional sectoral efforts, facilitate the incorporation of inherent
complexities, and are applicable in all sectors and with different groups of people in
different countries, cultures and at different levels.
11. The fact that the SLA is such a new approach to our understanding of poverty means that
most of lessons learned are more to do with design and implementation of approaches
and interventions, rather than with the results of such programmes in terms of factors to
help people out of poverty, key determinants of poverty, etc.
12. Explicit references and definitions of poverty seem to be avoided in the majority of SL-
influenced work despite being the implicit focus of the approach. How one should
measure poverty and how SL approaches can contribute to poverty alleviation appears to
be a stumbling block. In many documents it seems that poverty is taken for granted as
being the main focus.
13. Application of SLAs to guide interventions and policy must be adaptive and flexible,
which increases time and costs. It also means that comparisons between different contexts
is problematic, and that it may not be possible to develop a generalizable theory of
poverty using the SLA.
14. An important outcome of the SL process is the stimulation of continual critical analysis,
challenging ideas and practices that develop the debate. It is hoped that this momentum
will help towards the increased dynamism and flexibility of policies, institutions and
processes that is required to tackle the dynamic nature of development.
15. PRSPs have so far made little explicit reference to livelihoods in small-scale fisheries.
While the SLA is thought to offer great potential to contribute to improving the relevance
of PRSPs, there is some concern over the extent to which SL principles are currently
incorporated in PRSPs.
16. Health (e.g. HIV/AIDS) is thought to be especially important to livelihoods, and relates
to vulnerability in particular.
17. Vulnerability seems to be at least as important as poverty, and while related, is distinct
from poverty. Policy must focus on preventing people from falling into poverty as much
as helping them to get out of it.
18. Vulnerability appears to be increasing in small-scale fisheries, and lacks a well-developed
theory and accepted indicators and methods of measurement. There do not appear to be
many obvious generalizable findings in the literature about vulnerability and coping
mechanisms.
19. Coping mechanisms in fisheries can be divided into ex-ante risk management measures
seeking to reduce vulnerability, and ex-post management mechanisms seeking to deal
with shocks and stresses. Coping mechanisms and strategies are surprisingly diverse.
20. Open access/unregulated common property is likely to lead to poverty, although it tells us
nothing about equity, and nothing definitive about incomes, only that resource rents will
be dissipated. Incomes are determined in part by the opportunity cost of labour. But even
56
where reasonable alternative employment opportunities for fishers may be available,

fishers may choose to stay in fishing.
21. Regulated common property resource regimes can result in equity, efficiency and
sustainability, but do not necessarily always do so. T he availability of common property
resources, which are of such importance to the poor, are declining and the establishment
of successful common property resources management regimes leaves much to be
desired. Management and policy that restrict access to common property resources can be
to be the benefit of poor fishers who have access/use rights but detrimental to the interest
of other poor people.
22. T echnical efficiency in fish harvesting does not usually relate to economic efficiency at
the aggregate level of the entire fishery. T echnological improvements in the absence of
control over access may cause increased overfishing and reduce catches, incomes and
profits. Even at the level of the individual fisher, the initial gain by adopting an improved
harvesting technology may be quickly wiped out as other fishers adopt it too.
23. T echnology has been shown to have had significant equity and poverty implications, both
in terms of small-scale fishers loosing out to industrial vessels, but also within the small-
scale fisheries sector through increasing debt to middlemen etc, and increased
vulnerability. For technology to assist with poverty reduction (whether it be aquaculture,
marketing or production technology), it must be “appropriate” and not “top-down”; this
has too often failed to be the case. Some simple technology can have great benefits to the
poor e.g. use of VHF radios for surveillance, safety, etc
24. The poor are usually not early adopters of technology due to their marginal circumstances
and attitudes to risk, so programmes incorporating the use of technology must specifically
assist the poor to ensure that the benefits do not accrue to the better off.
25. We have found few empirical studies on the impacts of political fisher’s organizations on
poverty and the poor, even through they have certainly affected policy changes in a
number of countries.
26. Studies on economic organizations such as cooperatives, show that they are often of
limited benefit, except where such organizations are locally based with a strong
identification by fishers with the aims and motivations of the organizations concerned,
good leadership and appropriate facilities. Almost all the literature examining the
“ success” of economic organizations defines success in terms of functioning, repayments
and membership levels, and not on the impacts on poverty.
27. Support for any form of fisher organization can easily be undermined by wider social,
economic and political factors.
28. The literature includes a huge range of factors which various authors view as being
particularly important in getting small-scale fishers out of poverty. Few are backed up by
hard empirical study, and those that are, focus almost exclusively on income poverty.
29. It is not possible to prioritise between the various factors claimed as important for
reducing poverty in small-scale fisheries, but control over access, reduced power of
middlemen, sustainable exploitation, protection from industrial vessels, and alternative
employment opportunities are perhaps the most widely supported.
30. Given that poverty is so complex and context specific, identifying one or more generic
“key factors” to help with reducing poverty is likely to be futile. The SLA provides the
potential to get away from development paradigms (e.g. production technology) to a
more measured and realistic approach to what is achievable in each context. Planning
appropriate interventions is likely to be more time consuming using such an approach,
but the chances of success far greater.
57

Each section of this report has outlined a number of research implications. In this concluding
section, we highlight just a few research requirements that are thought to be of particular
importance.
1. Research is urgently needed into the type and prevalence of poverty in fishing
communities, and its main determinants. What is the relationship between assets, and
how can changes in poverty be best assessed using the SLA? In addition, how does
poverty in small-scale fisheries actually equate to poverty in other sectors.
2. More work is necessary on whether fishers are really the poorest of the poor, and how
poverty in small-scale fishing compares to other sectors and those not able to fish.
3. How can cross-sectoral responses be improved (e.g. health and fisheries)?
4. What are the means by which barriers (for example breaching sectoral limitations) to the
adoption of the SLA at institutional level can be removed?
5. More work is required on how to increase participation in SLAs and PRSPs so that it
goes beyond consultation.
6. While a theoretical emphasis on SLA is understandable given the recent formalisation of
the approach, much greater field-based research is now required.
7. Vulnerability, such a key factor in livelihoods, is very little understood in the fisheries
sector. In addition, little is known as to how the vulnerability of fishers compares to those
in other sectors, and between countries/regions, what are the main determinants and
coping mechanisms, how has vulnerability changed over time, what are the most
effective ways of reducing it, etc.
8. Research is needed on the contribution of common property resources to livelihood
strategies, a better understanding of how access is negotiated and eroded (through power
relations), and who depends most on them.
9. A better understanding is required of the impacts of technology on the poor in more than
just income terms. Which forms of technology are most pro-poor, and what are the
attitudes of the poor to technology?
10. If fisher organizations are to be supported through programme interventions, a much
better understanding is required a bout the actual impacts of such organizations on the
poor, on which types of organizations are likely to have the greatest benefit, and on which
groups are excluded from particular organizations (i.e. are they the poorest of the poor).
11. How does economic growth in the economy as a whole affect poverty in fishing
communities, and how important generally are macroeconomic factors in comparison to
microeconomic ones?
12. While the references we have reviewed are of course not a random sample reflective of
the overall body of relevant work completed, and reflect the biases in our search strategy,
it would nevertheless be interesting to compare the geographical distribution of (poor)
artisanal fishermen throughout the world, with the analysis of where most research
appears to have been conducted to consider any mismatch?
13. Although there are specificities of the fisheries sector that should of course be borne in
mind in any research, given the broad scope of the SLA it should not be forgotten that the
fisheries sector can learn a great deal from other fields of academic research as well as
from more general models of development.
58
Annex 1 – Terms of Reference
The literature review will encompass the following:
1. A summary (1– 2 pages each) of the applied methodology and findings of studies that
have been carried out to analyse poverty in fishing communities.
2. A synthesis of the findings of lessons-learned studies on applying the SLA to fisheries

and rural development (especially in South Asia and West Africa).
3. A synthesis of reviews of using the SLA in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP).
4. A synthesis of studies on small-scale fisheries on:
a) The “commons” nature of fisheries: cause or remedy of poverty? (a comparison

with areas where fishing rights exist, as found in many inland water bodies, may
be desirable).
b) The special characteristics of small-scale fishers’ vulnerability and coping

mechanisms.
c) The impact of technological change on efficiency, equity and poverty – does it

matter whether fishing rights exist.
d) The role of fishworkers’ organizations: a voice for the poor.
e) The critical factors for artisanal/small-scale fishers to get out of poverty:

evidences and inferences.
Such synthesis should highlight the key issues treated by the literature under each thematic area
indicated above, the geographical coverage and the relevance to poverty reduction efforts
(including lessons learned).
The work should be limited to published literature and documents available on the Internet. It
should not attempt, except for special cases, to review the large body of “ grey literature.”
The work will be undertaken primarily from the UK bases of the consultants but will involve
travel in UK and a 2 day data collecting mission to FAO Rome. FAO Rome will grant access to
its libraries to the consultants.
The final report should not exceed 25 000 words (40 pages).
59
Annex 2 – Project Concept Paper

FISHERIES AND PO VERTY
Promoting the Contribution of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and the Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fishe ries in Pove rty Alle viation
Introduction
Combating and eradicating poverty is one of the principal priorities of the international
community. The 1995 UN World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen 6–12 March
1995) expressed the commitment to this goal as an ethical, social, political and economic
imperative of humankind. The UN Millennium Declaration adopted by the fifty-fourth session of
the General Assembly, New York, September 2000, contains the commitment to halve, by the
year 2015, the proportion of the world’s population whose income is less than one dollar a day
and the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. The 1996 Rome Declaration on World
Food Security pledged political will and common and national commitment by governments to
achieving food security for all and to reducing the number of undernourished people to half their
present level no later than 2015.
The measurement of poverty, the identification of the poor and their characteristics, and the best
policies and actions to alleviate poverty have also received wide aca demic research interest in
recent years and have been the main thematic subject of the latest World Development Report
(World Bank, 2000).
Currently, the normative areas of work by the Fisheries Department (FI) do not explicitly address
poverty in fisheries. Poor people are addressed implicitly in the Code of Conduct of Responsible
Fisheries as members of small-scale fishing communities or artisanal fishers who should be
rendered with special protection and assistance. Article 6.18 on General Principles, for example,
recognizes the important contributions of artisanal and small-scale fisheries to employment,
income and food security and calls on States to “appropriately protect the rights of fishers and
fishworkers, particularly those engaged in subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fisheries, to a
secure and just livelihood, as well as preferential access, where appropriate, to traditional
fishing grounds and resources in the waters under their national jurisdiction.” Similarly, Article
9.1.4 on Aquaculture Development calls on States to “ensure that the livelihoods of local
communities and their access to fishing grounds are not negatively affected by aquaculture
developments”. In the same vein, Article 10.13 on Integration of Fisheries into Coastal Area
Management asks States, when governing access to coastal resources, to take into account “the
rights of coastal fishing communities and their customary practices to the extent compatible with
sustainable development.”
As regards FI’s field programme activities, the UK-financed five-year, US$34 million.
Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme (SFLP) targets approximately 5 million people in
the 25 participating countries of Sub- Saharan Africa who are directly employed in artisanal
fisheries. SFLP seeks to promote the sustainable use of fisheries resources and the importance of
fisheries for poor, artisanal fishers, fish-processors and traders, most of whom are women. Many
of the target groups of the SFLP are believed to be poor but there are few in-depth studies on the
nature, extent and causes of poverty in the fishing communities of West Africa.
60
The dearth of in-depth studies on poverty in fisheries was also noted by FAO’s Advisory
Committee on Fisheries Research (ACFR) which suggested at its 3 rd Session (Rome,
5–8 December 2000) that research was necessary to obtain a more detailed, nuanced
understanding of the various types and shapes of poverty in fisheries.
Recently, in cooperation with CEMARE and FAO HQs, SFLP has conducted a regional
workshop with the following objectives:
• to provide an overview of current understanding of poverty and poverty alleviation in rural

Africa with particular reference to the SLA;
• to highlight the relationship between fisheries management and poverty in fisheries, and the
role of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries;
• to identify the possibility of poverty alleviation in fisheries through policy action at different
levels of society including institutional development, appropriate stakeholder participation
and the designation of property rights and responsibilities;
• to contribute to the work of the SFLP through the identification of opportunities and possible
policy interventions for poverty alleviation in West Africa.
Some of the key findings of this workshop include the following:
• poverty in small-scale fishing communities is a multi-dimensional phenomenon and cannot

be exclusively, or even primarily, be attributed to endogenous factors within the fisheries
sector such as overfishing or excess fishing capacity;
• in comparison to rural agriculture and urban poverty, there are few detailed assessments of
the nature, extent and causes of poverty in fishing communities in most countries of the
region;
• policies for the alleviation of poverty in fishing communities need to be multi-facetted and
the SLA provides a good entry point to identifying the critical causes of poverty and
measures to alleviate poverty;
• the better integration of the fisheries sector within national poverty reduction strategies is
indispensable;
• the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, properly adapted to the specific
characteristics of West African fisheries, provides a good basis for addressing endogenous
causes of poverty in fishing communities, and for enhancing the contribution of the fisheries
sector to national poverty alleviation.
O bje ctives
The project seeks to achieve three principal objectives as follows:
1. to strengthen FAO’s normative work programme in support of member countries’ efforts to

alleviate poverty in fishing communities and to enhance the contribution of the fisheries
sector in national poverty reduction strategies and programmes;
2. to strengthen FAO’s field programme’s impact on poverty alleviation in small-scale fisheries

by increasing the understanding of the nature, extent and causes of poverty in fishing
61
communities, developing and adapting appropriate poverty assessment and profiling

methodologies, elaborating guidance for the better integration of small-scale and artisanal
fisheries in national poverty reduction strategies, promoting the SLA in fisheries sector and
national policy-making, and disseminating related experiences from pilot studies and
projects;
3. to increase global awareness on poverty in small-scale and artisanal fisheries and on poverty
alleviation strategies and measures.
Expe cte d Outputs
The three immediate outputs expected from the project are:
1. as part of FAO’s guidelines series, technical guidelines on the contribution of the Code of
Conduct of Responsible Fisheries to poverty alleviation;
2. as part of FAO’s technical paper series, a Fisheries Technical Paper on Fisheries and Poverty:
Combating Poverty in Fishing Communities and Enhancing the Role of Fisheries in National
Poverty Reduction Strategies and Programmes;
3. two seminars on the topic to exchange experiences and raise awareness within FAO.
The indirect outputs expected from the project are the dissemination and promotion of the use of
the guidelines and technical paper in awareness raising and educational workshops, consultation
and conferences, by government agencies and NGOs, and in the normative and field work of
FAO and other multilateral and bilateral agencies including development banks.
Inputs and Work Plan
The project will draw widely on expertise and experience of poverty-related work in small-scale
and artisanal fishing communities of developing countries, and including inland water fisheries as
well as broader studies on poverty in rural areas. Special attention will be given to work
undertaken within the framework of the sustainable livelihoods approach, in particular by the
SFLP but drawing also upon work in other regions including South and Southeast Asia, East
Africa and South America. The project will be implemented in close collaboration between SFLP
and various units of FAO HQs.
The contribution of FAO HQs will include in-kind staff contribution and part of the printing and
translation costs of the two immediate outputs. FAO HQs will also contribute towards the
compilation of experiences from other regions. SFLP will contribute in-kind staff time as well as
cover costs of consultants and field studies as well as part of the publication and translation costs.
A core working group will be established to oversee and provide guidance in project
implementation. It will comprise staff of PCU, RCU and FIP, and progressively of other FAO
units.
The total project period will be 3 years. The envisaged outputs are expected to be produced
according to the following time plan:
62
Guidelines
End of first year: Detailed annotated outline of Code guidelines
Middle of second year: Publishing of Code guidelines in English
End of second year: Publishing of Code guidelines in French and Spanish.
Seminars T wo seminars will be organized at FAO HQs at the end

of the first and second project year to raise awareness,
exchange experiences and expertise, and provide critical
reviews of intermediate project outputs. The seminar
participants will comprise FAO staff, core working
group members and selected resource persons.
Fisheries T echnical Paper

End of first year: Background studies initiated and/or completed on:
(1) analyses of whether, why, and to what extent the
fisheries sector was considered in the development of
poverty reduction strategies in selected countries; (2)
adaptation and testing of poverty assessment and
profiling methodologies to small-scale fisheries; (3)
compiling and analysing the experience with the SLA as
entry point for poverty alleviation both in rural sectors.
Middle of second year: Detailed annotated outline of Fisheries T echnical Paper
End of second year: Completion of all background studies.
Middle of third year: First draft of Fisheries Technical Paper ready for peer
review.
End of third year: Publishing of Fisheries T echnical Paper in English

(followed by the French and Spanish versions in
subsequent months).
Project progress will be reviewed and assessed as part of the joint annual reviews and mid-term
review of SFLP.
Annex 3 – Useful Internet sites
SITE ADDRESS TYPE O F INFORMATION

Bradford University Centre for http://www.brad.ac.uk/library/dppc/index.html Development collection online searchable University Library
International Development Catalogue
CARE International http://www.careinternational.org.uk/ dedicated to working together with local communities to end
poverty
Centre for the Economics and www.pbs.port.ac.uk/econ/cemare Information on current and finished work, searchable lists of
Management of Aquatic Resources publications, excellent links page
(CEMARE) – University of
P ortsmouth
Chr. Michelsen Institute www.cmi.no
College of Social Sciences and http://web.kssp.upd.edu.ph/publication/index.html
P hilosophy, University of the
P hilippines.
Database of FAO literature on http://www.fao.org/participation/bibdb/retrieval/index_en.htm On line search facility for FAO literature on a given subject (in
participation in development SL)
Department for International www.livelihoods.org Livelihoods support information, up to date online debates,
Development / Institute for current issues, papers and experiences
63
Development Studies -
Livelihoods connect
DFID home page www.dfid.gov.uk Information relating to all divisions in the Department,
including current and archive publications database
Eldis http://www.eldis.org/ online database hosting service – latest information on
development issues, Links information sources, incl. online
documents, organization's WWW sites, databases, library
catalogues, bibliographies, and email discussion lists, research
project information, map and newspaper collections. the
availability of databases, CDRoms, etc. is given
Eurodad: the European network on www.eurodad.org “ a network of European non-governmental organizations,
debt and development working together for a more equitable and just world”
Useful P RSP information
FAO Fisheries www.fao.org/fi Fisheries home page with links to fisheries oriented sites
(Onefish, SFLP , Fisheries Atlas); linked to Fisheries and main
FAO library. Separate fisheries online publication lists. Online
access to some bibliographic databases
FAO Sustainable Livelihoods www.fao.org/ Search the site based on key words and themes
Dimensions
FAO website www.fao.org Virtual Library resources open to external users
Google www.google.com Will bring up papers giving the title as a search string
GTZ participatory approaches site www.gtz.de/participation Current GTZ documents – full text downloads available
IDS Narsis www.ids.ac.uk/narsis/ DFID project information
Institute for Development studies www.ids.ac.uk Well developed home page with up to date information, links
homepage and publications – some available online others not (see
Bookshop link)
Inter-agency Experiences and http://www.fao.org/docrep/x7749e/x7749e00.htm Inter agency experiences and lessons on SLA on line
Lessons from the forum on
operationalizing sustainable
livelihoods approaches, P ontignano
(Siena) 7–11 March 2000
International Association for the www.IASCP .org
Study of Common P roperty
International Collective in Support http://icsf.net/jsp/index.jsp Home page with on line publications including SAMUDRA
of Fishworkers
International Institute for http://www.iisd.org/default.asp Excellent research library with links to other online libraries, on
Sustainable Development (IISD) line journals, thematic bibliographies, P DF IISD files
International Institute of Fisheries http://www.orst.edu/Dept/IIFET/html/institut.html Development links and University online libraries, IIFET
Economics and Trade publications and conference information
International Monetary Fund http://www.imf.org/external/np/prsp/prsp.asp#o P RSP information – progress and all available P RSP /IP RSPs.
Links to world bank and other related sites. Online full text
64
publications available
International Oceans Institute www.ioinst.org P romoting sustainable use of ocean and coastal resources.
P ublication lists and research activities – extensive links
Khanya managing rural change http://www.khanya-mrc.co.za/ Information on company activities, links to Internet resources,
publications to download on line
LADDER stands for Livelihoods http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/odg/ladder/welcome.htm Overview of the project, its methods activities, publications,
and Diversification Directions links to livelihoods connect and contact points
Explored by Research
Onefish www.onefish.org Internet based fisheries research portal

Overseas Development Institute www.odi.org.uk Home page – Library search available and some documents
found on line
Oxfa m – GB homepage www.oxfa m.org.uk Home page – use search to find useful information
P ANRUSA P overty and Natural http://www.shef.ac.uk/panrusa/contactpanrusa.html P roject related information and documents available on line
Resource Use in Southern Africa
P overtyNet http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/ World Bank site focused on poverty issues, includes lots of
recent information on P RSP s, and provides free email
newsletter subscription, links and articles
Sustainable Development Institute www.susdev.org
(SDI)
Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods www.sflp.org SL programme home page, programme outputs on line – site
P rogramme in West Africa under development
The development gateway www.developmentgateway.org
The Global Site www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/ “ A critical gateway to world politics, society and culture.
Includes links to some key online SL/ Sustainable development
publications and other sites
The World Wide Web Virtual http://www.ulb.ac.be/ceese/meta/sustvl.html A comprehensive list of Internet sites dealing with sustainable
Library – sustainable development development, including organisations, projects and activities,
electronic journals, libraries, references and documents,
databases, directories or metadata bases
Uganda P articipatory P overty www.uppap.org.ug UPPAP documents and reports, information on the rationale
Assessment P roject (UPPAP ) and experiences, including Uganda National Poverty Forum
UNDP sustainable Livelihoods http://www.undp.org/sl/index.htm Comprehensive links, UNDP SL programmes and associated
P rogramme activities
Virtual Library on International http://w3.acdi-cida.gc.ca/virtual.nsf/pages/index_e.htm Online development orientated library
Development
Voices of the poor http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/voices/index.htm Includes full text report and surrounding analysis
Voices of the village http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/eap/eap.nsf/f2de2a7d692dfab1852567c900 A comparative study of coastal resource management in the
77d4cf/874f402e64feaf36852567f1004f5cd4?OpenDocument P acific Islands
Development Initiatives http://www.devinit.org/aid.htm#Background
65
Organisation for economic http://www.oecd.org/EN/home
cooperation and development
World Development Report www.worldbank.org/poverty/wdrpoverty/report Full text online report available
Othe r resources use d:
FAO. 2001. World Fisheries and Aquaculture Atlas CD-ROM.

BOBP 1978 – 2001. Bay of Bengal Programme Archives, Vol 1 and 2 CD-ROM
DFIF-SEA – 2002. ST REAM (Support to Regional Aquatic Resource Management) Ver 1.0 CD-ROM
Annex 4 – Bibliography
Section 2: Methodology and findings of studies to analyse poverty in fishing communities

Author Date Title Source Country Hard Location Info type
data?
Baulch, B., 1998 Being poor and becoming IDS Working P aper 79. 22p P akistan Yes IDS website Online text
McCulloch, poor: Poverty status and
N. transitions in Rural P akistan
Bebbington, 1999 Capitals and Capabilities: A World Development, Vol.27, No.12, Latin No FAO Search Hard Copy
Anthony fra mework for analysing pp2021–2044 America
peasant viability, rural
livelihoods and poverty
Bellamy, 1995 Women and the environment Our planet, Vol 7 No.4, pp7–8 Theory No FAO Library Hard Copy
Carol
Béné, C., 2000 Evaluating livelihood IIFET 2000 Proceedings, 15p Cameroon Yes CEMARE Electronic/Hard
Mindjimba, strategies and the role of copy
K., Belal, E., inland fisheries in rural
Jolley, T. development and poverty
66
alleviation : The case of the
Yaéré Floodplain in North
Cameroon
Carnegie, 2001 Improving livelihoods Forestry Sector Coordination Uganda Yes Fabio Pittaluga Hard Copy
James., Ian through f orestry: Secretariat, Uganda. 50p
G oldman Methodology for exploring
(eds) opportunities and services
Chambers, 1989 Editorial Introduction: IDS Bulletin, Vol 20 no.2, pp1–8, Theory No FAO search Hard Copy
Robert Vulnerability, coping and Institute of Development Studies, Sussex
policy
Corcoran, E. 2001 P rofile of Marine Artisanal GCP/INT/735/UK, SFLP working Guinea Yes SFLP Regional Support Unit, Electronic/Hard
Fisheries Communities, document, mimeo. Benin copy
Republic of Guinea
Corcoran, E., 2002 Etude pilote pour GCP/INT/735/UK, SFLP working Benin Yes SFLP Regional Support Unit, Electronic/Hard
Johnson, B., l’ estabilssement du profil de document, mimeo Benin copy
Senahoun, J., la pauvreté dans les
Theielun, C. communautés de pêche
continentale du sud Bénin
Cox, A., 1998 Reaching the poor? ODI Working Paper No.112, 30p Theory No Eldis Gateway Full text online
Farrington, Developing a poverty
J., G illing, J. screen for agricultural
research proposals
Davis, 2002 Is it possible to avoid a FAO – Draft, 31p Theory No Rolf Willmann – personal Electronic copy
Benjamin lemon? Reflections on contact
choosing a poverty mapping
DFID- 2002 A process and practice for DFID STREAM ver 1.0 Support to SE Asia No Rolf Willmann Electronic - CD
STREAM understanding the livelihoods Regional Aquatic Resource Management ROM
of fishers and farmers
DIFD-SEA 2000 An analysis of poverty and Aquatic Resource Management Cambodia Yes Rolf Willmann Hard copy
Aquatic aquatic resource use – P rogramme, 47p
Resource focusing especially on the
Management livelihoods of the poor in
P rogramme Cambodia
DIFD-SEA 2000 P overty and aquatic Aquatic Resource Management Vietnam Yes Rolf Willmann Hard copy
Aquatic resources in Vietnam: an P rogramme, 36p
Resource assessment of the role and
Management potential of aquatic resource
P rogramme management in poor people’ s
livelihoods
DIFD-SEA 2002 Hand book for Livelihoods DFID STREAM ver 1.0 Support to Theory No Rolf Willmann Electronic -CD
Aquatic analysis (LHA) and Regional Aquatic Resource ROM
67
Resource P articipatory Rural Appraisal Management, A process and practice for
Management understanding the livelihoods of fishers
P rogramme, and farmers
Research
Institute for
Aquaculture,
Ministry of
Fisheries
Integrated 2001 ILM B aseline Summaries ILM Technical Report Uganda Yes Fabio Pittaluga Hard Copy
Lake (Livelihoods and Poverty (ILM/TECHREP/2001), Integrated
Management B aseline) Lake Management Project, Uganda
24p
Kar, Basanta 2001 Equity and Livelihood India Yes Fabio Pittaluga – FAO HQ Hard copy
Kumar Security
Khanya 2002 Khanya managing rural http://www.khanya-mrc.co.za/ South No Online
change Africa
McG ee, R. 2000 Analysis of Participatory Mission Report f or the Uganda Uganda Yes UPPAP.org.ug Online text
Poverty Assessment (PPA) Participatory Poverty Assessment
and Household Survey Project (www.uppap.org.ug)
findings on poverty trends
in Uganda
Moser, 1998 The asset vulnerability World Development, Vol.26, No.1, Global yes FAO search Hard Copy
Caroline fra mework: Reassessing pp1–19
O.N. urban poverty reduction
strategies
World bank Hard copy/
Narayan, 2000 Voices of the Poor: Crying New York, N Y: Published for the G lobal Yes
online text
D., R. Out f or Change World B ank, Oxford University Press
Chambers,
M., Kaul
Shah, P.
Petesch
ODG, Univ 2001 Investigating the Livelihoods Annex 3, Sustainable livelihoods from Theory No P ersonal contact, ODG, UEA Electronic copy
of East of Artisanal Fishing fluctuating fisheries (Fisheries
Anglia Households in Low Income Management Science P rogramme ,
countries: Methods manual DFID), Overseas Development Group,
for fieldwork University of East Anglia
P ittaluga, F., 2001 P overty profiles of artisanal Workshop for small-scale fisheries, Guatemala, No Conference paper Electronic/online
Corcoran, E., fisheries: methods based on poverty and the Code of Conduct for Benin, abstract
Senahoun, J. the SLA model Responsible Fisheries (CEMARE/ FAO- Guinea
DFID SFLP ), Cotonou, Benin 12–22
68
November 2001, 19p
Reardon, 1995 Links between rural poverty World Development, Vol.23, No.9, Theory No FAO search Hard Copy
Thomas, and the environment in pp1495–1506
Vosti, developing countries: asset
Stephen A. categories and investment
poverty
Sporton, D. 1998 P overty and sustainable Draft document in relation to Theory No Theglobesite.ac.uk/development Online text
livelihoods P ANSUSA project briefing to DFID and P ANRUSA site
Thorpe, A. 2001 The nature and causes of Workshop for small-scale fisheries, theory No Conference paper Hard copy/
poverty poverty and the Code of Conduct for electronic not on
Responsible Fisheries (CEMARE/ FAO- line
November 2001, 27p
UPPAP 2002 Uganda P articipatory Poverty www.uppap.org.ug Uganda Yes Internet online
Assessment P roject (UPPAP )
Willmann 2001 P overty in coastal fishing Workshop for small-scale fisheries, Theory No Conference paper Hard and
communities poverty and the Code of Conduct for electronic copy
Responsible Fisheries (CEMARE/ FAO-
November 2001, 27p
World Bank 1999 Voices from the Village: A P acific Island Discussion P aper Series P acific Yes World Bank Online
comparative study of coastal No.9A, East Asia and P acific Region,
resource management in the P apua New Guinea and P acific Islands
P acific Islands Country Management Unit
World Bank 2002 P overty Net The world Bank Global No Online
http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/
Gillett, R. 2002 Personal Communication
Preston, G. 2002 Personal Communication
Section 3: Lessons learned from applying the SLA to fisheries and rural communities
data
Allison, 2001 The livelihoods Marine Policy 25 (2001) 377–388 Theory No CEMARE library Hard copy
E.H., Ellis, approach and
F. management of small-
scale fisheries
Ashley, C 2000b Applying livelihood ODI Working P aper 134 Namibia/ Yes Eldis Gateway Full text on line
approaches to natural Kenya
resource management
69
initiatives: Experiences
in Namibia and Kenya
Ashley, C. 2000 The impacts of tourism Working P aper 128: ODI, London, 31p Namibia Yes FAO Search Hard copy
on rural livelihoods,
Namibia’s experience
Ashley, C., 2000 Developing Overseas Development Institute, East Africa Yes Eldis Gateway Full Text on line
Hussein, K. methodologies for
livelihood impact
assessment: Experience
of the African Wildlife
Foundation in East
Africa
Awel Aman 1998 on Community energy – DFID Livelihoods Connect, 8p Wales Yes Livelihoods Connect Full document on line
Tawe project Experiences from a
South Wales wind farm
project (Awel Aman
Tawe)
Barr, J. and 2000 Experience of applying 19p Bangladesh Yes P ersonal electronic
Haylor, G. the sustainable
livelihoods framework
on Bangladesh flood
plains
Baumann, P ., 2001 Linking development Natural Resource P erspectives No.68, 4p India No ODI website Full text on line
Sinha, S. with democratic
processes in India:
P olitical capital and
sustainable livelihoods
analysis
Béné, C., 2000 Evaluating livelihood IIFET 2000 Proceedings, 15p Cameroon Yes CEMARE Electronic/Hard copy
Mindjimba, strategies and the role of
K., Belal, E., inland fisheries in rural
Jolley, T. development and
poverty alleviation : The
case of the Yaéré
Floodplain in North
Cameroon
Bingen, Jim 2000 Institutions and Michigan State University, 29p Theory No
Boyd, C., 1999 Reconciling interests ODI Natural Resource P erspectives, No.45, Eastern No ODI home page Full text on line
Blench, R., among wildlife, 8p Africa
Bourn, D., livestock and people in
70
Drake, L., Eastern Africa: A
Stevenson, P . sustainable livelihoods
approach
Brock, Karen 1998 Implementing a IDS Working P aper 90, 23p Mali No IDS website Online text
fra mework for policy
directed research:
reflections from practice
in Mali
Carnegie, 2001 Improving livelihoods Forestry Sector Coordination Secretariat, Uganda Yes Fabio Pittaluga Hard Copy
James., Ian through forestry: Uganda. 50p
Goldman Methodology for
(eds) exploring opportunities
and services
Carney, D. 1999 Approaches to ODI P overty Briefing, 7p Theory No Eldis Gateway Full text On line at
sustainable livelihoods odi.org
for the rural poor
Carswell, G. 1997 Agricultural IDS Working P aper 64, 30p Africa/Asia No IDS website Online text
intensification and rural examples
sustainable livelihoods:
a think piece
Corcoran, E., 2002 Etude pilote pour GCP/INT/735/UK, SFLP working Benin Yes SFLP Regional Support Electronic/Hard copy
Johnson, B., l’ estabilssement du document, mimeo Unit, Benin
Senahoun, J., profil de la pauvreté
Theielun, C. dans les communautés
de pêche continentale
du sud Bénin
DFID 2000 Better Livelihoods for P roceedings of a workshop held 9–11 May South No Livelihoods Connect Full document on line
P oor P eople 2000, South Africa Africa
DFID 2001 SL Approaches in SL Guidance Sheets section 7 Global No Livelihoods connect Hard copy/ electronic/
practice examples on line
DFID 2002 Lessons learned from DFID, Accra, 31p Ghana No P ersonal, via SFLP Electronic
the application of SLA
to fisheries and rural
development (S.Asia
and W.Africa
DFID 2002b List of current NARSIS search results Global No NARSIS site On line information
sustainable livelihoods (http://nt1.ids.ac.uk/cgi-bin/)
projects with selected
summaries
DFID/IDS On Livelihoods Connect www.livelihoods.org Global No P ublic website Online
71
going
DIFD-SEA 2000 Draf t f inal report: Proceedings of the e-mail conf erence on SE Asia No Rolf Willmann Hard copy
Aquatic Aquatic resource aquatic resource management for
Resource management of sustainable livelihoods of poor people in
Management sustainable livelihoods SE Asia, June 2000 (G raham Haylor,
Programme of poor people Ed.) 148p
Ditchburn, 1999 Sustainable livelihoods DFID Natural Resources Advisers Latin No Livelihoods Connect Abstract – hard copy
L., approach in Latin conference America on request
Armstrong, America: Bolivia,
G., Wheatley, Brazil, Mexico and
J. Central America
Failler, P . forth- Approach for Workshop for small-scale fisheries, poverty Senegal Yes Conference paper Hard copy/ electronic
coming sustainable livelihoods and the Code of Conduct for Responsible available
and improvement of the Fisheries (CEMARE/ FAO-DFID SFLP ),
living conditions of Cotonou, Benin 12–22 November 2001,
fishing communities: 19p
relevance, applicability
and applications
FAO 2000 Using local and Advisory Committee on Fisheries Theory No FAO search Web document
traditional knowledge in Research, Third Session, Rome, Italy, 5–8
improving sustainable December 2000
livelihoods in fishing
communities
FAO/DFID 2000 Inter-agency From the Forum on Operationalizing G lobal No FAO website Full text on line
experiences and Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches,
lessons learned in Pontignano (Siena) 7–11 March 2000
applying the SLA
Farrington, J., 1999 Sustainable livelihoods ODI Natural Resource P erspectives, No.42, Global No Eldis Gateway Full text on line at
Carney, D., in practice: early 12p examples odi.org
Ashley, C., applications of concepts
Turton, C. in rural areas
Goldman, I., 2000 Institutional support for ODI Natural Resource P erspectives, No.49, Southern No
Carnegie, J., sustainable rural 4p Africa
Marumo, M., livelihoods in southern
Maromo, D., Africa: fra mework and
Kela, E., methodology
Ntonga, S.,
Mwale, E.
Hussein, K., 1998 Sustainable Livelihoods IDS Working P aper 69, 32p Africa/Asia No IDS website Online text
Nelson, J. and livelihood
diversification
72
International 2002 Sustainable Livelihoods www.ioinst.org/ioisa/research.htm South No Website Electronic
Oceans research Africa
Institute
Inter-regional 2000 Sustainable Livelihoods Case study of the field component in Bolivia Yes FAO search Hard Copy
P roject for and participatory and Bolivia (GCP /INT/542/ITA), Interagency
P articipatory integrated watershed forum operationalizing participatory ways
Upland management in the of applying sustainable livelihoods
Conservation Upper Piraí approaches (BOL-PUBL-035). 58p
and
Development
Johnson, C. 1997 Rules, norms, and the IDS Working P aper 52, 37p Theory No Theglobesite.ac.uk/ IDS Online text
pursuit of sustainable website
livelihoods
Kristin 1998 Local know-how, the Choices, The Human Development Malawi No FAO search Hard copy
Helmore right stuff Magazine, July 1998, pp6–11
Lenselink, 2002 Roles in artisanal FAO-DFID SFLP , GCP/INT/735/UK West Africa No P ersonal – FAO electronic
N., Cacaud fisheries management
and interactions
between fisheries
management and
fishers’ livelihoods. A
synthesis and cases
from Mauritania,
Senegal, Guinea and
Ghana
Lewins, forth- The Sustainable A paper presented at the workshop “ Small- Theory No Conference paper Electronic, hard copy
Roger coming Livelihoods Approach: scale fisheries, poverty and the CCRF,
the importance of organised by CEMARE as part of the
policies, institutions and DFID/FAO SFLP , Cotonou, Benin, 12–22
processes Nov, 2001.
Magnusson, 2001 Sustainable Rural Minor Field Studies No.162, Swedish Nicaragua Yes FAO Search Hard Copy
Daniel Livelihoods for Small- University of Agricultural Sciences,
scale Farmers, P roblems Uppsala. Pp2–47
and P ossibilities. A
study from Matagalpa,
Nicaragua
McDowell, 1997 Migration and IDS Working P aper 65, 29p Bangladesh, No IDS website Online text
C., de Hann, sustainable livelihoods: Mali,
A. a critical review of the Ethiopia
literature
Neiland, A. 2001 Small-scale fisheries, FAO/DFID SFLP Liaison Bulletin, No.6 West Africa No SFLP Hard Copy
73
poverty and the CCRF Dec 2001, p6–9
Nicol, Alan 2000 Adopting a sustainable ODI Working P aper 133, 31p Theory No ODI website Text online
livelihoods approach to
water projects:
Implications for policy
and practice
Orr, Alastair; 2001 Adapting to adjustment: World Development, Vol.29, No.8, Malawi Yes FAO Search Hard Copy
Mwale, Smallholder livelihood pp1325–1343
Blessings strategies in southern
Malawi
Overseas 2002 Livelihoods and ODG, University of East Anglia Eastern Yes ODG website Electronic documents
Development Diversification www.uea.ac.uk/dev/odg/ladder Africa available
Group Directions Explored by
Research (LADDER)
Ritchie, M., 2000 Learning and Natural Resources Institute Malawi Yes Livelihoods Connect Hard copy on request
Orr, A., Livelihoods: the
Mwale, B. experience of the
FSIP M project in
Southern Malawi
Sarch, M.T., 2000 Fluctuating fisheries in www.orst.edu/dept/IIFET/2000/ papers, E. Af rica Yes Orstom website Online text
Allison, E.A Af rica’s inland 11p G reat
waters : well adapted Lakes/
livelihoods, Lake Chad
maladapted
management
Scoones, I. 1998 Sustainable rural IDS Working P aper 72, 22p Theory No IDS website Online text
livelihoods, a
fra mework for analysis
SFLP Ongoing Sustainable Fisheries www.sflp.org West Africa No P ublic Website Online
Livelihoods P rogramme
Society for 2000 Building new coalitions SID-UNEP International workshop, Mexico, No Rolf Willmann Electronic copy
International around the Sustainable February 23–25, 2000, Rome 33p India Cases
Development Livelihoods Approach
Sporton, D. 1998 Poverty and Draf t document in relation to PANSUSA Theory No Theglobesite.ac.uk/devel Online text
sustainable livelihoods project brief ing to DFID opment and PANRUSA
site
Townsley, 1998 Aquatic Resources and In: Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, What Theory No FAO search/ personal Hard Copy
P hilip. Sustainable Rural contribution can we make? Carney, D. (ed)
Livelihoods Department for International Development,
Russell P ress Ltd Nottingham, pp139–153
Turton, 2000 127: Watersheds and The Sustainable Livelihoods Working India No FAO Search Hard copy/ Internet
74
Cathryn rural livelihoods in P aper Series, ODI, 27p
India
Turton, 2000b 130: The sustainable The Sustainable Livelihoods Working Cambodia No FAO Search Hard copy/ Internet
Cathryn livelihoods approach P aper Series, ODI, 27p
and programme
development in
Cambodia
UNDP 1999 UNDP -SL Current http://www.undp.org/sl/current_programme Global No P ublic website online
P rogrammes s/
Wanmali S. 1999 Sustainable DFID, Livelihoods Connect, 8p Global No Internet, electronic
and Singh, N. Livelihoods: Lessons www.livelihoods.org
learned from global
experience
Wanmali.S 1999 Sustainable Livelihoods UNDP Malawi Yes UNDP sustain-able Full text on line
in Malawi: A case study Livelihoods website
Section 4: Review of using the SLA in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
data
Carnegie, 2001 Improving livelihoods through forestry: Forestry Sector Coordination Uganda Yes Fabio Hard Copy
James., Ian Methodology for exploring opportunities Secretariat, Uganda. 50p P ittaluga
Goldman and services
(eds)
Cleaver, K. 1997 Rural development strategies for poverty Directions in Development series, Sub Saharan No World Bank Hard Copy
reduction and environmental protection World Bank Africa Website order/ online
in Sub-Saharan Africa
DFID 2000 Integrating sustainability into P RSP s: DFID Sustainable Development Unit Uganda No Livelihoods Online
The case of Uganda Key Sheet Issue 4 Connect
DFID 2001 Comparing development approaches SL Guidance Sheets section 6 Theory No Livelihoods Hard copy/
connect electronic/
online
Ellis, F., 2001 Livelihoods and Rural Poverty LADDER Working Paper No.5, Uganda Yes LADDER, Online
B ahiigwa, Reduction in Uganda http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/odg/ladder/ UEA, UK
G. welcome.htm website
75
EURODAD On- European network on debt and www.eurodad.org Theory No P ublic Online
going development Website
Eurodad 2000 P RSP – the story so far….September www.eurodad.org/2poverty/analysis/ge Theory No Internet site On line
2000 neral/prspthestorysofar.htm 2pp
FAO 2002 A review of food security, agricultural FAO, 55pp Theory No Diego Colatei, Electronic
and rural development issues in P RSP s FAO
(FAO)
FAO. 2001 The PRSP Approach: a preliminary 12pp Theory No Diego Electronic
assessment by FAO Colatei, FAO
Farrington, 2001 Sustainable livelihoods, rights and the ODI Natural Resource Perspectives Theory No CEMARE Hard
John new architecture of aid No. 69, 4p library copy/on line
Hendrie, B 2001 Contribution to SL-P RSP discussion P ersonal communication – Livelihoods Theory No Livelihoods On line
P ost–it board – connect
www.livelihoods.org/post
IMF Ongoing International Monetary Fund www.imf.org Theory No P ublic Online
Website
IMF 2002 “ Financing for Development (FfD) and www.imf.org/external/np/pdr/FfD/2002 Theory No P ublic Online
the IMF an International Conference on / Website
Financing and Development“ held in
Mexico, 18–22 March 2002
Ireland, C. 2000 Integrating Sustainability into P RSPs: Livelihoods Connect – Uganda No Livelihoods online
the case of Uganda www.livelihoods.org Connect
Masefield, 2000 Getting livelihoods inside the P RSP? P ersonal communication Contribution Ethiopia No Livelihoods online
A. to SL-P RSP discussion – Livelihoods Connect
P ost–it board –
www.livelihoods.org/post
McGee, R., 2002 Synthesis Note 3: Assessing http://insight/prspproject/synthesis/parti Sub Saharan No Rolf Electronic
Levene, J., participation in P RSPs in sub-Saharan cipation.doc Africa Willmann copy
Hughes, A. Africa (FAO)/Interne
t
Mearns, R., 2001 Mongolia: P articipatory Living Summary report prepared for Donor Mongolia Yes Livelihoods online
Dulamdary, Standards Assessment 2000 Consultative Group Meeting, P aris May Connect
E., Shah 15–16 2001 –National Statistical Office
M.K. of Mongolia
World Bank
Norton, 2001 The potential of using sustainable ODI Working Paper 148, ODI, Theory No Rolf electronic
Andy; livelihood approaches in poverty London. 44p Willmann
Foster, reduction strategy papers (FAO) /ODI
Mick
SFLP Ongoing Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods www.sflp.org West Africa No P ublic Online
P rogramme Website
76
Shankland, 2000 Analysing policy for sustainable IDS Research Report 49 Ethiopia/ Mali Yes Livelihoods Online
Alex livelihoods Connect
Thin, N., 2001 Sub-Saharan Af rica’s Poverty Report f or DFID, Oxf ord Policy Sub Saharan No Eldis On line
Underwood, Reduction Strategy Papers f rom Management, England, 21p Af rica gateway,
M., G illing, Social Policy and Sustainable Internet
J. Livelihoods Perspectives
UPPAP Ongoing Ugandan P articipatory P overty UPPAP, www.uppap.org.ug Uganda Yes P ublic Online
Assessment P rogramme Website
WB /IMF 2000 IMF and IDA, P overty Reduction International Monetary Fund and Theory No Via Rolf electronic
(approved – Strategy P apers – P rogress in International Development Association, Willmann
Masood Implementation 38p (FAO)
Ahmed and
Kemal
Dervis)
World Bank Ongoing World Bank – P RSP page www.worldbank.org Theory No P ublic Online
Website
World Bank 2000 P artners in transforming development: www.imf.org Global No World Bank Online text
Group New approaches to developing country-
owned poverty reduction strategies
World Bank/ 2002 Review of the P RSP Experience An issue paper for the Conference on Global No IMF website Online
IMF P overty Reduction Strategies, January
14–17 2002, Washington D.C., USA.
www.imf.org
Section 5: Common property: cause or remedy of poverty for small-scale fishers
Author Date Title Source Country/ Empirical Location

Region evidence
Agrawal A. 2001 Common property institutions and sustainable World Development Vol 29, No. 10 pp 1649–1672 Theoretical No, Personal
governance of resources literature
review
Anderson L. 1980 Necessary components of economic surplus in Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Theoretical No Cemare
fisheries economics 37, 858–870
Aswani S. 1999 Common property models of sea tenure: A case Human Ecology, September Solomon No ?
study Islands
Bailey C. 1984 Small-scale fisheries of San Miguel Bay, ICLARM Technical Reports 10 P hilippines Yes FAO lib
P hilippines: occupational and geographic
mobility
Bavernick M. 1996 Fisher regulations along the Coromandel coast Marine P olicy 20(6) 475–482 India No Cemare
B eck T. and 2001 B uilding on poor people’s capacities: the case World Development Vol 29, No. 1 pp 119–133 India / West No, Personal
77
Nesmith C. of common property resources in India and Af rica literature
West Af rica review
B erkes F. 1985 Fishermen and the tragedy of the commons. Environmental Conservation 12: 199–206 G lobal No Cemare
Berkes F. 1986 Local level management and the commons Marine P olicy, July Turkey No Cemare
problem
Berkes F. 1987 The common property resource problem the Environmental Management 11: 225–235 Barbados & No Cemare
fisheries of Barbados and Jamaica Jamaica
Bland S., 1995 Common property and poverty: fisheries co- 5 th Annual conference of the International Malawi ? IASCP
Donda S. management in Malawi (abstract) Association for the Study of Common P roperty website
Butler, J. et al 1993 The Bermuda fisheries: a tragedy of the commons Environment 35:7–24 Bermuda Yes Cemare
averted.
Clark I., 1988 Development and Implementation of New Marine Resource Economics Vol 5, 325–349 New Zealand Yes Cemare
Major P . Zealand’s ITQ system
Copes P . 1989 Why are fishing incomes often low? A critical 89–1, Burnaby, Canada: Institute of Fisheries Theoretical No Cemare
review of the conventional wisdom. Analysis, Simon Fraser University, Discussion P aper
21
Copes P . 1999 Equity and the rights basis of fishing in Iceland Common P roperty Resources Digest Iceland, No FAO lib
and Canada Canada
Copes P . 1999 Coastal resources for whom? Samudra September Theoretical No FAO lib
Cunningham 1985 Fisheries Economics: an introduction Mansell P ublishing Ltd. London Theoretical No P ersonal
S., Dunn M.,
and
Whitmarsh D.
Dnes A. 1985 Rent seeking behaviour and open access fishing Scottish Journal of P olitical Economy. Vol 32, No.2 Theoretical No Cemare
June
Durrenburger 1987 Ownership at sea: fishing territories and access to American Ethnologist, 14(3): 508–522 Global No Cemare
E., and sea resources
P alsson G.
Dyer C. and 1994 Folk management in the world’s fisheries: Ed. University Press of Colorado G lobal No Personal
McG oodwin lessons for modern fisheries management
J.
FAO 1993 Exclusive use rights systems: advantages, FAO/Japan Expert consultation on the development Asia/ Yes FAO lib
difficulties and mechanisms of community-based coastal fisheries management P acific
systems for Asia and the P acific. FAO Fisheries
Report 474
Ferrer E. 1989 P rospects for Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries p. 157–162 In G. Silvestre, E. Towards sustainable P hilippines No FAO lib
in the Lingayen Gulf Area development of the coastal resources of Lingayen
Gulf. ICLARM Conference P roceedings 17
Folke C., 1995 Resilience and the co-evolution of ecosystems IASCP 5 th Conference, 1995, Re-inventing the Theoretical No Cemare
Berkes F and institutions Commons
78
G ordon H. 1954 The economic theory of a common property J. Political Economy, 62, pp124–142 Theoretical No Cemare
resource: the f ishery
Hardin G . 1968 The tragedy of the commons Science Vol 162 Theoretical No Cemare
Hartmann W. 1996 Kerala reservoir fisheries: resource development 6 th Annual conference of the International India ? IASCP
or welfare programme? A case of commons and Association for the Study of Common P roperty website
technical co-operation (abstract)
Heady et al 1995 End of project report, ODA Project Research ODA/DFID/Centre for Development Studies, B angladesh, Yes ?
G rant R4791 University of Bath Thailand,
Indonesia
IFAD 1995 Common P roperty Resources and the Rural Poor Sub-Saharan No FAO lib
in Sub-Saharan Africa Africa
Keen E. 1983 Common property in fisheries: is sole ownership Marine P olicy 7(3) 197–211 Theoretical No Cemare
and option?
Kurien J. 1999 Can we empathize with Vladimir Johannesson? Common P roperty Resources Digest India FAO lib
Kurien J. 1992 Ruining the commons and responses of Ghai D., and Vivian J. (ed) Grassroots environmental India Yes Cemare
commoners action
Marshall J. 2001 Landlords, leaseholders & sweat equity: changing Marine P olicy 25 : 335–352 Canada No Cemare
property regimes in aquaculture
Olomola A. 1998 Sources and resolution of conflicts in Nigerian Society and Natural Resources, 11:121–135 Nigeria Yes Cemare
artisanal fisheries
Olson F. 1991 Scare common flow resources: who benefits? 2 nd Annual conference of the International Theoretical No IASCP
Who does society want to benefit? (abstract) Association for the Study of Common P roperty website
Ostrom E. 1990 Governing the commons: the evolution of Cambridge University P ress Global Yes P ersonal
institutions for collective action
P alsson G. 1992 From commons to quotas: inequality in the 3 rd Annual conference of the International Iceland ? IASCP
Icelandic fishery (abstract) Association for the Study of Common P roperty website
P omeroy R. 1994 Common property regimes Naga, The ICLARM quarterly Theoretical No FAO lib
Rivers J. 1999 Common property: can customary law adapt to ID21 website P NG Yes Internet
the free market?
Ruttan L. 1998 Closing the commons: cooperation for gain or Human Ecology 26 (1) Indonesia Yes Cemare
restraint
Sarch M-T. 2001 Fluctuating fisheries in Africa’ s inland waters: Overseas Development Group, University of East Central Africa Not itself ODG
and Allison well adapted livelihoods, maladapted Anglia, staff publication but refers website
E. management to those
that do
Shotton, R. 2000 Use of property rights in fisheries management. P roceedings of the FishRights99 Conference, Global No FAO lib
(ed.) FAO Fish. Tech. P ap. No 404/1 and 404/2 Freemantle, Western Australia, 11–19 November
1999
Thompson P . 1997 Social and distributional issues in open-water Inland fishery enhancements,, FAO Technical P aper Bangladesh - FAO lib
fisheries management in Bangladesh 374 Ed P etr T.
79
Townsend R. 1995 P reserving community interests under fisheries IASCP , 5th common property conference May 1995 Theoretical No Cemare
enclosure
Wright C. S. 1990 Is poverty in fishing communities a matter of Biennial Conference of the International Theoretical No Cemare
tragedy or choice? Institute for Fisheries Economics and Trade,
Santiago, Chile. Mimeo
Wright C.S. 1990 Is poverty in fishing communities attributable to In A. Guimarase Rodrigues (ed), Operations Theoretical No FAO lib
the tragedy of the commons? Research and Management in Fishing, 315–325
Section 6: Special characteristics of small-scale fishers’ vulnerability and coping mechanisms

Author Date Title Source Country / Empirical Location
Region evidence
Andersson J., 1998 Coastal communities’ production choices, risk Ambio Vol 27, No. 8 December Tanzania Yes FAO lib
Ngazi Z. diversification, and subsistence behaviour:
responses in periods of transition
Anon 2001 P roject Completion Report ODG, Sustainable livelihoods from fluctuating Africa, Yes P ersonal
fishery resources Indonesia
Bahiigwa G. 2001 Village Report No.4, Uganda ODG, LADDER project Uganda Yes ODG web
Baulch B., 1998 Being Poor and becoming Poor: Poverty status and Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, IDS P akistan Yes and Internet
and poverty transitions in rural P akistan. Working P aper 79. theoretical
McCulloch
N.
Beck T. 1989 Survival strategies and power amongst the IDS Bulletin Vol 20(2) pp.23–32 India Yes IDC
poorest in a west Bengal village.
Chambers 1989 Introduction: Vulnerability, coping and policy. IDS B ulletin Vol 20 (2) Theoretical/ Summary IDS
R. IDS B ulletin Vol 20 (2) India, of articles
B angladesh, that are
G uinea
Chakalall B. 1999 Hurricane warning Samudra September Caribbean ? FAO lib
Deb A., 1994 Aftermath of cyclonic disaster on the socio- In Wells P . and Ricketts P . ed Coastal Zone Canada Bangladesh Yes FAO lib
Alam K economics of coastal fishing community of 94 ‘ Cooperation in the Coastal Zone’ : Conference
Bangladesh: saga of sorrows and worst poverty P roceedings Vol 1
scenario
Geheb K., 1997 ‘ Fishing farmers’ or ‘ Farming fishermen’? The African Affairs, 96, 73–93 Kenya Yes FAO lib
Binns T. quest for household income and nutritional security
on the Kenyan shores of Lake Victoria
Gibbon P . 1997 Of saviours and punks: the political economy of the Centre for Development Research Copenhagen Tanzania Yes ODG lib
Nile perch marketing chain in Tanzania Working P aper 97(3)
80
Goh C et al. 2001 Identification of vulnerable groups and coping ? Korea and Yes Internet
strategies in Korea theoretical
Haakonsen J. 1992 Artisanal fisheries and fishermen's migrations in Maritime Anthropological Studies 5, 75–87 Liberia ? Cemare
M Liberia..
Heyer J. 1989 Landless agricultural labourer’s asset strategies IDS Bulletin Vol 20 (2) pp 33–40 India Yes IDS
ICLARM 2002 Where are the women in fisheries? P ress release on global symposium, `Women in Global No P ersonal
Fisheries: Towards a Global Overview’ , held in
Kaohsiung, Taiwan on 29 November 2001
Lewis D. et 1996 Trading the silver seed: local knowledge and (ed.) Intermediate Technology Publications B angladesh Yes ITDG
al market moralities in aquacultural development
McCulloch 2001 In and out of destitution: poverty dynamics and P overty dynamics in rural Sichuan between 1991 and China Yes ID21
N., vulnerability in China 1995, IDS
Calandrino
M.
Sarch M-T. 2001 Fluctuating fisheries in Af rica’s inland waters: Overseas Development G roup, University of East Central Not itself ODG
and Allison well adapted livelihoods, maladapted Anglia, staff publication Af rica but ref ers website
E. management to those
that do
Swift J. 1989 Why are rural people vulnerable to famine. IDS Bulletin Vol 20 (2) pp8–15 Theoretical Yes IDS
Taal H. 1989 How farmers cope and risk and stress in rural IDS Bulletin Vol 20(2) p 16–22. The Gambia Yes IDS
Gambia.
Section 7: Impacts of technological change on efficiency, equity and poverty in small-scale fisheries
Author Date Title Source Country Empirical Location
evidence
Andersson J., 1998 Coastal communities’ production choices, risk Ambio Vol 27, No. 8 December Tanzania Yes FAO lib
Ngazi Z. diversification, and subsistence behaviour:
responses in periods of transition
Ahmad I. et 1997 Open water stocking in Bangladesh: Inland fishery enhancements,, FAO Technical B angladesh Yes FAO lib
al experiences f rom the Third Fisheries Project Paper 374 Ed Petr T.
Ahmed S. 1992 Impact of new technology on traditional fishing 3 rd Annual conference of the International Association Bangladesh Yes IASCP
communities in Bangladesh for the Study of Common P roperty website
Ali L., Fisher 1997 P otential constraints and strategies for BOBP National Workshop on Fisheries Resources Bangladesh Yes FAO lib
K. conservation and management of inland open Development and Management, Oct/Nov 1995
water fisheries in Bangladesh
Bailey C. 1985 The Blue Revolution: The impact of The Rural Sociologist, Vol 5 Number 4 P hilippines No FAO lib
technological innovation on third-world
fisheries
Bakouy J. 1993 The artisanal fisheries in Cameroon: a sector in IDAF newsletter No.17 Cameroon No Cemare
full bloom
81
B CAS, 2001 The costs and benefits of shrimp farming in DFID Report B angladesh Yes Personal
Macfadyen, B angladesh: a livelihoods, f inancial and
Aeron- economic assessment
Thomas
Betke F. 1988 Aspects of a Blue Revolution in Indonesian University of Bielefeld dissertation Indonesia Yes FAO lib
fisheries: a bureaucratic dream or grim reality
Bort J. 1987 The impact of development on P anama’ s small- Human Organization Vol 46 No.3 P anama FAO lib
scale fishermen
Calvert P . 1998 Training in sea safety development programmes FAO Technical Cooperation P rogramme, Bangkok No FAO lib
Chakalall B. 1999 Hurricane warning Samudra September Caribbean ? FAO lib
Conroy C., 1995 Development and dissemination of NRI Socio-economic series 8 Theoretical No FAO lib
Gordon A., agroprocessing technologies
Marter A.
Cunningham 1985 Fisheries Economics: an introduction Mansell P ublishing Ltd. London Theoretical No P ersonal
S., Dunn M.,
and
Whitmarsh D.
Davies L. 2001/2 Networking In Oxfa m news, Winter 2001/02 P hilippines No Oxfa m
Deb A., Alam 1994 Aftermath of cyclonic disaster on the socio- In Wells P . and Ricketts P . ed Coastal Zone Canada 94 Bangladesh Yes FAO lib
K economics of coastal fishing community of ‘ Cooperation in the Coastal Zone’: Conference
Bangladesh: saga of sorrows and worst poverty P roceedings Vol 1
scenario
De Camargo 2001 Social and financial aspects of the artisanal Fisheries Management and Ecology, 8, 163–171 Brazil Yes FAO lib
S. and P etrere fisheries of Middle Sao Fransisco River, Minas
M. Gerais, Brazil
De Silva A. 1977 Structural change in a coastal fishing Marga Q uarterly Journal, Vol 4, No. 2 Sri Lanka No FAO lib
community in Southern Sri Lanka
Dehy A. 1992 A new impetus is given to women activities in IDAF newsletter December No. 16 Benin No Cemare
Ayiguinnou
Donaldson 1980 Enterprise and innovation in an indigenous Development and Change, Vol 11, 479–495 Oman No Cemare
W. fishery: the case of the Sultanate of Oman
Edwards P . 2000 Aquaculture, poverty impacts and livelihoods ODI Natural Resource P erspectives June, No. 56 Africa/Asia No Cemare
FAO 1999 Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts in Rural FAO Fisheries Report No. 610 Asia/P acific No FAO lib
Aquaculture, Asia-P acific Fishery Commission
Geheb K., 1997 ‘ Fishing farmers’ or ‘ Farming fishermen’? The African Affairs, 96, 73–93 Kenya Yes FAO lib
Binns T. quest for household income and nutritional
security on the Kenyan shores of Lake Victoria
Gupta M., 1999? A fra mework for assessing the impact of small- FAO Aquaculture newsletter Asia / No FAO lib
Dey M. scale rural aquaculture projects on poverty Theoretical
alleviation and food security
82
Jinadu J. 1998 P hD Thesis University of Ibadan Nigeria Yes P ersonal
Jul-Larsen E. 1991? Attitudes towards modernisation in African Tvedten I., Hersoug B. (ed) Fishing for Development: Africa FAO lib
small-scale fisheries small-scale fisheries in Africa
Kremer A. 1994 The impact upon income distribution of an Centre for Development Studies, Occasional P aper Bangladesh No FAO lib
intensification of inland fisheries in developing 01/94
countries: three theorems
Kurien J. 1992 Ruining the commons and responses of Ghai D., and Vivian J. (ed) Grassroots environmental India Yes Cemare
commoners action
Kurien J. 1995 P lywood boats in South India Appropriate Technology Vol 22 No. 2 India No ITDG
Muhammad 1998 East Java fishermen’s attitudes towards new P roceedings of the Socio-economics, innovation and Indonesia No Cemare
S. and Susilo fishing technologies management of the Java Sea pelagic fisheries
E. Seminar, EC p 291–296
O’ Riodran B. 1994 Strategies towards benefiting the poor. NGOs in Bangladesh fishculture workshop, ITDG Bangladesh No P ersonal
Okwe A. 1989 Capital and conditions of fisher-labourers of CBR publications No.3 E. Africa Yes P ersonal
lakes Kyoga and Victoria canoe fisheries
P latteau J-P ., 1985 Technology, credit and indebtedness in marine Hindustan P ublishing Corporation (India) India Yes P ersonal
Murickan J., fishing: a case study of three villages in south
Delbar E. Kerala
RAPA/FAO 1987 Agrarian reform and rural development Report of the 5 th Government consultation for Asia Asia /P acific No FAO lib
and the P acific Region
Rashid M. 1999 Share system of distributing earnings from Economic Affairs, Vol. 44 Qr 1, March Bangladesh Yes FAO lib
small-scale marine fishing in south east coastal
area of Bangladesh
Thompson P . 1997 Social and distributional issues in open-water Inland fishery enhancements, FAO Technical P aper Bangladesh - FAO lib
fisheries management in Bangladesh 374 Ed P etr T.
Tvedten I and 1991? (ed) Fishing for Development: small-scale - Africa No FAO lib
Hersoug B fisheries in Africa
Wiratno and 1995 Cost and returns analysis of gillnets and purse- IIFET Taiwan Conference proceedings, 1995 Indonesia Yes FAO lib
Mudiantono seiners in central Java, Indonesia
Section 8: Fishworker’s organizations: a voice for the poor

Author Date Title Source Country Hard Location
evidence
Ahmed M. et 1995 Fisheries co-management in Bangladesh – IASCP 5 th Conference, Norway, May 1995 Bangladesh No Cemare
al experiences with GO-NGO-Fisher partnership
models
Alexander P . 1977 Sea Tenure in Southern Sri Lanka Ethnology Vol 16, pp231–251 Sri Lanka No Cemare
Anon 2002 Seminar on Indus Delta P akistan Fisherfolk Forum, 16 th Feb 2002 at Katti P akistan No P ersonal
83
Bandar Sindh, P akistan
Archari T. 1994 A study of fisherfolk organizations in Kerala P roceeding on the IP FC Symposium November 1993 India No FAO lib
on socio-economic issues in coastal fisheries
management, p223–
Bailey C. 1985 The Blue Revolution: The impact of The Rural Sociologist, Vol 5 Number 4 P hilippines No FAO lib
technological innovation on third-world fisheries
Bavernick M. 1996 Fisher regulations along the Coromandel coast Marine P olicy 20(6) 475–482 India No Cemare
Betke F. 1988 Aspects of a Blue Revolution in Indonesian University of Bielefeld dissertation Indonesia No FAO lib
fisheries: a bureaucratic dream or grim reality
Bort J. 1987 The impact of development on P anama’s small- Human Organization Vol 46 No.3 P anama No FAO lib
scale fishermen
Brown D. 1998 Creating social institutions for fisheries co- 7 th Annual conference of the International Association Caribbean ? IASCP
management in the CARICOM region (abstract) for the Study of Common P roperty website
Canizares B., 1992 The ordeal of veteran muro-ami fishermen Ofremeo, Rene E. (ed), Trade Unions and P hilippines No FAO lib
Jose F., organizations of fisherfolk, ILO
Olofson H.
Diegues A. 1995 Rethinking and rebuilding common property 5 th Annual conference of the International Association Brazil ? IASCP
systems in Brazil (abstract) for the Study of Common P roperty website
Dyer C., 1994 Folk management in the oyster fishery of the SU In Dyer C. and McGoodwin J (ed) Folk management USA No P ersonal
Leard R. Gulf of Mexico in the world’ s fisheries
FAO 1993 The role of community organizations in fishery FAO/Japan Expert consultation on the development of Asia /P acific No FAO lib
management community-based coastal fisheries management
systems for Asia and the P acific. FAO Fisheries
Report 474
FAO 1999 Management guidelines for Asian floodplain FAO Fisheries Technical P aper 384/1 Asia No FAO lib
river fisheries
FAO 1998 Annex 3: Credit. Gambia Fisheries Sector P ers. Comm. P roject preparation document on behalf Gambia No P ersonal
Investment Development P roject of AfDB and the Government of Gambia
Centre
Foell J., 1999 Managing the coast in Sri Lanka: can P articipatory approaches to natural resource Sri Lanka No Id21
Harrison E., participation work? management. AFRAS, University of Sussex and
Stirrat J. DFID
Gaye D. 1995 Senegalese fishworkers at the negotiating table FAO DEEP , October 1995, Responsible Fisheries Senegal No P ersonal
Hannesson R. 1988 Fishermen’s organizations and their role in FAO Fisheries Technical P aper 300, Studies on the New Zealand, No FAO lib
fisheries management: theoretical considerations role of fishermen’s organizations in fisheries Australia,
and experiences from industrialised countries management Iceland
Hotta M. 1996 Strategic plan for community development and In main report of the 2 nd DA-BFAR/FAO National P hilippines No FAO lib
management Fisheries Workshop on policy planning and industry
development, Philippines, February
ICSF 1994 The Struggles of fishworkers: new concerns for P roceedings of the ICSF Cebu Conference, June 1994 Global P ersonal
84
support
Jansen E. et 2000 Constraints and opportunities for community - E. Africa No FAO lib
al participation in the management of Lake Victoria
fisheries
Jentoft S., 1995 User P articipation in Fisheries Management. Marine P olicy Vol. 19(3):227–236. Developed No Cemare
and McCay Lessons drawn from international experiences. countries
B.,
Jentoft S. 1989 Fisheries co-management: delegating government Marine P olicy vol 13 no. 2 April Global No FAO lib
responsibility to fishermen’ s organizations
Kurien J. 1988 The role of fishermen’ s organizations in fisheries FAO Fisheries Technical P aper 300, Studies on the Indo-pacific No FAO lib
management of developing countries role of fishermen’s organizations in fisheries region
management
Kurien J. 1992 Ruining the commons and responses of G hai D., and Vivian J. (ed) G rassroots India No Cemare
commoners environmental action
Lenselink N. 2002 Roles in artisanal f isheries management and FAO-DFID Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods West Af rica Yes? Personal
interaction between fisheries management and Programme, West Af rica
fisher’s livelihoods
Lewins R. 2001 Consensus building and natural resource Cemare Research P aper 157 Global No Cemare
management: a review
Lozada A. 1996 Strategic plan for fishery cooperative In main report of the 2 nd DA-BFAR/FAO National P hilippines No FAO lib
development Fisheries Workshop on policy planning and industry
development, Philippines, February
McConney, 1998 "Climate for Co-Management." P resented at the 7th annual conference of the Barbados No Internet
P. International Association for the Study of Common
P roperty, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, June
10–14, 1998
McGoodwin 1994 “ Nowadays, nobody has any respect”: the demise In Dyer C. and McGoodwin J (ed) Folk management Mexico No P ersonal
J. of folk management in a rural Mexican fishery in the world’ s fisheries
Meynell P 1990 Success and f ailure in fishermen’s FAO Fisheries Circular no. 819 G lobal Yes FAO lib
organizations
Meynell P . 1985 Fishery co-operatives in developing countries P lunkett Development Series 8 Global No FAO lib
P ido M. et al 1995 Initiatives towards co-management of marine IASCP 5 th Conference, Norway, May 1995 P hilippines No Cemare
fisheries and other coastal resources in an island
environment: the case of P alawan, Philippines
P omeroy C. 1994 Obstacles to institutional development in the In Dyer C. and McGoodwin J (ed) Folk management Mexico No P ersonal
fishery of Lake Chapala, Mexico in the world’ s fisheries
P ooggie J., 1988 Factors influencing the success of fishermen’ s co- Marine Resource Economics Vol 5 231–242 Ecuador No FAO lib
P ollnac R operatives in Ecuador
Satia B et al 2001 Fisheries co-management and poverty alleviation In, Neiland, A.E. & C. Bene (eds). Forthcoming. Côte d’ Ivoire P ersonal
in the context of the Sustainable Livelihoods P roceedings of the CEMARE/DFID/FAO-SFLP
85
Approach Workshop on small-scale fisheries, poverty and the
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Cotonou,
Benin, November 2001
Stoffle B., et 1994 Folk management and conservation ethics among In Dyer C. and McGoodwin J (ed) Folk management Dominican No P ersonal
al small-scale fishers of Buen Hombre, Dominican in the world’ s fisheries Republic
Republic
Streiffeler F. 1996 Abandonment of traditional fishing technology: ? Zaire No FAO lib
conflicts between generations and exhaustion of
resources
Tao N., 1998 A saga of success Samudra December Japan No FAO lib
Colyn J.
Torres J. ? Issues and problems in organising fisherfolks In Trade Unions and Organizations of Fisherfolks, - No FAO lib
ILO
Valerio A. 1992 The Kilusan and the Tawi-Tawi muslim Ofremeo, Rene E. (ed), Trade Unions and P hilippines No FAO lib
fishermen association organizations of fisherfolk, ILO
Vivekananda 1995 Reservoirs of hope: fishermen take the FAO DEEP, October 1995, Responsible Fisheries India No Personal
n V. initiative in central India
Willmann R. 1987 The role of fishermen’ s organizations in fisheries FAO document Norway, No P ersonal
management and development Canada, USA,
Japan
Section 9: Critical factors for artisanal/small-scale fishers to get out of poverty

Author Date Title Source Country Hard Location
evidence
Abila R. 2000 The development of the Lake Victoria fishery: a IUCN paper / Kenya Marine and Fisheries E. Af rica No FAO lib
boon or bane for f ood security Research Institute
Acheampon 1996 Conserving the environment to tackle poverty and EC Fisheries Bulletin, March, Vol 9 No. 1 Global No FAO lib
g A. hunger
Agbayani 2000 Community fishery resources management on Coastal Management 28: 19–27 P hilippines No FAO lib
R., et al Malalison Island, Philippines: R&D fra mework,
interventions, and policy implications
Ahmed M. 1997 Fish for the poor under a rising global demand and Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly, 20: 3–4, 73–76 Asia/ No FAO lib
changing fishery regime Theoretical
Amar E. et 1996 Small-scale fisheries for coral reefs and the need for Fisheries Research 25 p 265–277 P hilippines No FAO lib
al community-based resource management in Malalison
Island, Philippines
Andrew T. 2000 Can small-scale fisheries contribute to poverty African Journal of Aquatic Science, 25: 49–55 South No FAO lib
et al alleviation in traditionally non-fishing communities in Africa
South Africa
86
Appleton J. 2000 At my age I should be sitting under that tree: the impact Gender and development Vol 8, No. 2 July, 19–27 Tanzania No FAO lib
of AIDS on Tanzanian lakeshore communities
Ashley C., 2001 P ro-poor tourism strategies: making tourism work for P ro-poor tourism report No. 1, ODI Global No Id21
et al the poor
Bailey, C. 1997 Lessons from Indonesia’s 1980 Trawler Ban.. Marine P olicy 21(3): 225–235 Indonesia Yes Cemare
Barbier E. 1991 Environmental management and development in the UNCED Sustainable Development: from concept to Nigeria/ No FAO lib
South: prerequisites for sustainable development action Theoretical
Baulch B., 1998 Being Poor and becoming Poor: Poverty status and Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, IDS P akistan No P ersonal
and poverty transitions in rural P akistan. Working P aper 79.
McCulloch
N.
Bene C. 2001 P overty in small-scale fisheries – a review and some In, Neiland, A.E. & C. Bene (eds). Forthcoming. West Africa No P ersonal
further thoughts P roceedings of the CEMARE/DFID/FAO-SFLP
Workshop on small-scale fisheries, poverty and the
B ene C., 2001 The challenge of managing small-scale fisheries In, Neiland, A.E. & C. B ene (eds). Forthcoming. West No Personal
B ennett E., with ref erence to poverty alleviation Proceedings of the CEMARE/DFID/FAO-SFLP Af rica
Neiland A. Workshop on small-scale fisheries, poverty and
the Code of Conduct f or Responsible Fisheries,
Cotonou, B enin, November 2001
Broad R. 1994 The poor and the environment: friends or foes World Development Vol 22, No. 6 pp811–822 P hilippines No FAO lib
Campbell J. 1992 P rivate sector growth: poverty focus and environmental Courier, September Theoretical No Cemare
perspectives
Courtney 2000 Integrated coastal management in the Philippines: Coastal Management, 28: 39–53 P hilippines No FAO lib
C., White testing new paradigms
A.
DFID/EC/U 2002 Linking poverty reduction and environmental Discussion document, consultation draft. Global No ?
NDP /WB management: policy challenges and opportunities Contribution to the world summit on sustainable
development process
Doulman 2001 Fisheries management, poverty alleviation and the In, Neiland, A.E. & C. Bene (eds). Forthcoming. West Africa No P ersonal
D. implementation of the Code of Conduct for P roceedings of the CEMARE/DFID/FAO-SFLP
Responsible Fisheries Workshop on small-scale fisheries, poverty and the
Edwards P . 1997 Aquaculture, poverty impacts and livelihoods ODI Natural Resource P erspectives No. 56 Africa/Asia No Id21
Edwards P . 2000 Traditional culture of indigenous common carp in rice World Aquaculture, December pp34–40 Vietnam No FAO lib
et al; fields in northern Vietnam
FAO 2000 Advisory Committee on fisheries research FAO Fisheries Report No 639 Global No FAO lib
FAO 2000 Report of the workshop on participatory approaches in FAO Fisheries Report No. 630 Global No FAO lib
aquaculture
87
Guard M., 1997 Dynamite fishing in southern Tanzania, geographical Marine P ollution Bulletin, Vol 34 No. 10 pp758–762 Tanzania No FAO lib
Masaiganah variation, intensity of use and possible solutions
M.
Haakonsen ? Industrial vs Artisanal fisheries in West Africa: the Tvedten I., Hersoug B. (ed) Fishing for Africa No FAO lib
J. lessons to be learnt Development: small-scale fisheries in Africa
Habteyonas 2002 An economic analysis of constraints facing artisanal Unpublished thesis Eritrea Yes P ersonal
M. fisheries in developing countries: Eritrean case study
Heady C. 1998 Natural resource management and poverty reduction Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Note de Livaoro: Bangladesh Yes Cemare
63/98, September
Horemans 2001 The work of the Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods In, Neiland, A.E. & C. Bene (eds). Forthcoming. West Africa No P ersonal
B. P rogramme (SFLP ) in West Africa P roceedings of the CEMARE/DFID/FAO-SFLP
Jallow A. 2001 Socio-economic impact of different fisheries In, Neiland, A.E. & C. Bene (eds). Forthcoming. The Gambia Yes P ersonal
management strategies at the local level P roceedings of the CEMARE/DFID/FAO-SFLP
Johnstone 1999 Coastal zone management in Eastern Africa: a race Agriculture and Rural Development, Vol 6, No.1, E. Africa No FAO lib
R., Linden against time April
O.
Jolis A. 1996 The good banker Independent on Sunday Bangladesh No Cemare
Jolley T. et 2001 Lake Chad Basin fisheries: policy formation and policy EC Bulletin December Vol 14, No. 1–4 Africa No P ersonal
al formation mechanisms for sustainable development
Jomo S. 1991 Fishing for trouble: Malaysian fisheries, sustainable Eds, Institute of advanced studies, University of Malaysia Yes FAO lib
development and inequality Malaya
Kaczynski 2000 Coastal resources as an engine of economic growth and Coastal Management, 28: 235–248 West Africa No FAO lib
V, Looney reduction of poverty in West Africa: policy
S. considerations
Kent G . 1997 Fisheries, food security, and the poor Food Policy, Vol 22, No.5 pp 393–404 G lobal No FAO lib
Kirbiria G., 2000 Aquaculture in oxbow lakes with emphasis on FAO Aquaculture Newsletter No. 26 Bangladesh Yes FAO lib
Van women’ s participation: a case from Bangladesh
Anrooy R.
Krishnan 1996 Multi-objective approach for evaluation of far ming J. Aqua. Trop., 11 pp205–213 India No FAO lib
M., Sharma systems in Kuttanad region of Kerala State, India: A
B. model for decision-making
Lefebvre F. 2001 The environment: a tool to combat poverty Courier, December Theoretical No Cemare
Lewis et al 1996 Trading the silver seed: local knowledge and Intermediate Technology publications B angladesh Yes ITDG
88
market moralities in aquacultural development
Markandya 2001 P overty alleviation and sustainable development: International Institute for Sustainable Development Global No P ersonal
A. implications for the management of natural capital workshop on P overty and Sustainable Development,
Ottawa January 2001
Markandy 1998 Poverty, income distribution and policy making Environmental and Resource Economics, 11 (304), Theoretical No FAO lib
a A. pp 459–472
McCulloch 2000 G rowth, inequality and poverty in Mauritania Final report to the Poverty Dynamics in Af rica Mauritania Yes Id21
N. et al 1987–1996 project, World B ank
Momoh S. 1995 Socio-economic conditions of coastal fishermen in Agriculturas Tropica et Subtropica, Univeritas Nigeria No FAO lib
Lagos State, Nigeria Agriculturae P raga, Vol 28 pp23–28
Munthali S. 1997 Dwindling food-fish species and fishers’ preference: Biodiversity and Conservation 6, pp253–261 Malawi No FAO lib
problems of conserving Lake Malawi’s biodiversity
Neiland A. 2001 Fisheries development, poverty alleviation and In, Neiland, A.E. & C. B ene (eds). Forthcoming. G lobal No Personal
small-scale f isheries: a review of policy and Proceedings of the CEMARE/DFID/FAO-SFLP
performance in developing countries since 1950 Workshop on small-scale fisheries, poverty and
the Code of Conduct f or Responsible Fisheries,
Cotonou, B enin, November 2001
Neiland A. 2001 Towards a better understanding of conflict management Marine P olicy 25/5 Ghana, No Cemare
and Bennett in tropical fisheries: evidence from Ghana, Bangladesh Bangladesh,
E. and the Caribbean Caribbean
Neiland A., 1997 Fishing income, poverty and f isheries management Appendix 6, Final Report: Traditional Nigeria Yes Cemare
Jaff ry S., in North-East Nigeria management of artisanal fisheries in NE Nigeria.
Kudaisi K. DFID Research Project R5471, CEMARE
Report No. R43
Ngolie M., 1998 Lessons learned from Eastern Africa: the development Ocean and Coastal Management Vol 37 No. 3 E. Africa No FAO lib
Linden O. of policy on ICZM at national and regional levels pp295–318
Nickerson- 2000 Community-based management for sustainable Coastal Management, 28: 65–74 Thailand No FAO lib
Tietze D. fisheries resources in P hang-nga Bay, Thailand
P anayotou 1980 Economic conditions and prospects of small-scale Marine P olicy 4(2), 142–146. Thailand No Cemare
T. fishermen in Thailand.
P antin D. 1999 The challenge of sustainable development in small Natural Resources Forum 23 pp221–233 Caribbean No FAO lib
island developing states: a case study on tourism in the
Caribbean
P instrup- 1999 Achieving food security for all: key policy issues for M. Ahmed, C. Delgado, S. Sverdrup-Jensen and R. Global No FAO lib
Andersen P , developing countries Santos (eds) Fisheries policy research in developing
P andya- countries: issues, priorities and needs. ICLARM Conf
Lorch R. P roc 60 pp13–19
P ittaluga F 2001 P overty profiles of artisanal fishers: methods based on In, Neiland, A.E. & C. Bene (eds). Forthcoming. Benin and Yes P ersonal
et al the SLA model P roceedings of the CEMARE/DFID/FAO-SFLP Guatemala
89
P ollnac et 2001 Fishery policy and job satisfaction in three southeast Ocean and Coastal Management, 44 pp531–544 P hilippines, Yes P ersonal
al Asian fisheries Indonesia
and
Vietnam
P omeroy 1997 Two to Tango: The role of Government in fisheries co- Marine P olicy 21(5), 465–480 No No Cemare
R., and management
Berkes F
P ye-Smith 1997 The P hilippines: in search of justice Oxfa m UK and Ireland P hilippines No FAO lib
C.
Reed D. ? The rural poor and their natural resources Courier Theoretical No Cemare
Ruddle K. 1993 External forces and change in traditional community- Maritime Anthropological Studies 6(1–2), 1–37. Asia / No Cemare
based fishery management systems in the Asia-P acific P acific
Region.
Satia B et 2001 Fisheries co-management and poverty alleviation in the In, Neiland, A.E. & C. Bene (eds). Forthcoming. Cote Yes P ersonal
al context of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach P roceedings of the CEMARE/DFID/FAO-SFLP d’ Ivoire
Shaffer P. 2001 New thinking on poverty: implications for poverty UNDESA Expert G roup Meeting on globalisation G lobal No Internet
reduction strategies and rural poverty, November
Silvestre 1997 Management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia: an In G. Silvestre and D. P auly (eds) Status and Asia No FAO lib
G., P auly overview of key challenges and opportunities management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia.
D. ICLARM Conf P roc 53, 208p
Smith I. 1979 A research f ramework f or traditional f isheries ICLARM studies and reviews No. 2 Asia / No Personal
Theoretical
Tan F. 1995 Some recent strategies on women in development Asia-Pacif ic Journal of Rural Development Vol V, Philippines Yes FAO lib
and poverty in the Philippines No. 2
Thilsated S. 1997 The role of small indigenous fish species in food and Naga, the ICLARM quarterly, July-December Bangladesh No FAO lib
et al nutrition security in Bangladesh
Thorpe A. 2001 The nature and causes of poverty In, Neiland, A.E. & C. Bene (eds). Forthcoming. Global No P ersonal
P roceedings of the CEMARE/DFID/FAO-SFLP
Tietze U. 1996 Report of the regional consultation on industrial credit FAO Fisheries Report No. 540 Asia/P acific No FAO lib
and Shresta for sustainable fish marketing, capture and management
B. in Asia and the P acific
Tvedten I. 1987 SIDA’ s strategy for rural development and small-scale Development Studies Unit, Stockholm University Global No FAO lib
90
fisheries
Veitayaki J. 1997 Social considerations in the sustainable development of Marine Studies, Technical Report, P apers presented Theoretical No FOA lib
inshore fisheries resources at the symposium, VIIth P acific Science Inter-
Congress
White A. et 1997 Using integrated coastal management and economics to Ambio Vol 26 No.6 September p335–343 Sri Lanka No FAO lib
al conserve coastal tourism resources in Sri Lanka
Willmann 2001 P overty in coastal fishing communities In, Neiland, A.E. & C. Bene (eds). Forthcoming. Global No P ersonal
R. P roceedings of the CEMARE/DFID/FAO-SFLP
World 2000 World Development Report World Bank Global No P ersonal
Bank
World 2000 Voices from the village: comparative studies of coastal World Bank publications P acific No P ersonal
Bank resource management in the P acific islands
91
Annex 5 – Additional references of interest, not reviewed during this

study
Alexander, P. 1989, Lessons for the Pacific technology transfer and fishing communities: the Sri
Lankan experience: p63–73 in Couper: Development and Social changes in the Pacific
Islands: Ocean Management and Policy Series.
Anon.1998. Institutions and natural resource management. Annual Report, Chr. Michelsen
Institute, Department of Social Science and Development No.1997 pp12–15.
Asowa-Okwe. 1989. Capital and Conditions of Fisher-Labourers of Lakes Kyoga and Victoria
Canoe Fisheries. Labour Studies Project Paper Number 2. CBR Working Paper.
Kampala: Centre for Basic Research; 1989 Oct; 3.
Baulch, B. 1996. T he new poverty agenda: a disputed consensus. IDS Bulletin 27(1) 1–10,
Brighton, University of Sussex: IDS.
Capistrano, A.D. & Hosssain, M. 1997. Poverty alleviation, empowerment and sustainable
resource use: experience in inland fisheries management in Bangladesh. Environmental
Sustainability: practical global implications Boca Raton, Fla (USA) St.Lucie Press.
Clemett, A.; Chadwick, M.T ., & Barr, J.F.F. 2000. People's Livelihoods at the Land-Water
Interface: emerging perspectives on interactions between people and the floodplain
environment. Dhaka: University of Leeds, University of Newcastle; 2000 Jan.
Davies S. & Hossain N. 1997. Livelihood adaptation, public action and civil society: a review of
the literature. 57, Brighton: University of Sussex Institute of Development Studies.
Davies, S. 1996. Adaptable Livelihoods: coping with food insecurity in the Malian Sahel .New
York, London, Pages xxii; 335.
Davis, A. & Bailey C., 1996. Common in Custom, Uncommon in advantage: common property,
local elites, and alternative approach to fisheries management. Society and Natural
Resources 9, 251–265.
Devereux S. 2001. Can social safety nets reduce chronic poverty? Paper presented at the
birmingham University's research Seminar on Chronic Poverty, School of Public Policy,
6 February 2001.
Devereux, S. Making Less Last Longer. Informal Safety Nets in Malawi. IDS Discussion Paper
373; 1999 Oct(1).
DFID – 2001–2004 – Catchment management and poverty alleviation: the role of economic
instruments and compensation mechanisms in water resource and forest management .
DFID. 2001. Regional Livelihoods workshop, May 2001, Bangladesh.
DFID. 2001. Regional Livelihoods workshop: reaching the poor, Ranjendupur, Bangladesh.
FAO. 2000. Finding Out Who The Food Insecure Are, Where They Are Located, and the causes
of their food insecurity, by Huddleston B. and F. Pittaluga. Rome.
Feeny, D. et al, 1996 Questioning the assumption of the tragedy of the commons’ model of
fisheries.
Grafton, R. et al, 1996. Private property rights and crises in world fisheries: turning the tide,
1996, Contemporary Economic Policy 14(4) pp 90–99.
92
Gum, W. 2000b. Inland Aquatic Resources and livelihoods in Cambodia. A beginners guide to
the literature, legislation , institutional framework and recommendations, Oxfam GB
(draft).
Gum, W. 2000a. All our livelihoods are dead: a case study on landless and Aquatic resources.
Consultancy for Cambodia land project, Oxfam GB (draft).
Haug, R. 1999. From Integrated rural development to Sustainable Livelihoods: what is the role of
food and agriculture. Forum for Development Studies No.2, pp181–201; 55 ref.
Haylor, G. 2000. Poverty and Aquatic Resources in Vietnam, Bangkok DFID-SEA-ARMP.
Joseph, S. 1995. Coping with seasonality. Implications for fisheries community development.
Social Action 45 (4) Oct-Dec pp 431–442.
Khor, G.L. & T ee, E.S. 1997. Nutritional assessment of rural villages and estates in Peninsula
Malaysia I and II. Malaysian Journal of Nutrition Vol.3 (1) p1–19, 21–47.
Mantjoro, E. 1997. Management of traditional common fishing grounds: the experience of the
Para community, Indonesia. Oceanographic Literature Review 44(4), 383–383.
Masae, A., McGregor J. & King V. 1998. Sustainability of a fishery in southern T hailand,
Environmental challenges in South East Asia, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, Man and
Nature in Asia. No. 2. p283–304.
Matthew, E., Veitayaki J., & Bidesi V.R. 1998. Fijian villagers adapt to changes to local fisheries
– the problems of alternatives. Ocean and Coastal Management 38(3), 207–224.
Mukherjee, N., Hardjono, J. & Carriere, E. 2000. People, poverty and Livelihoods. Links for
sustainable poverty reduction in Indonesia. DFID UK.
Mullen, J..1999. Rural poverty, empowerment and sustainable livelihoods. Pp 35–51, 59–79,
103–127. Ashgate Publishers Ltd. UK.
Murickan, J. 1987. Storm on the seashore. The fisherman’s struggle in Kerala. Struggle Justice
Series, New Delhi, Indian Social Institute, No.4, 20 pp; 18 ref.
Nishimura, H. 1997. The role of inland fisheries in rural development, a case study in
Bangladesh. Mem-Fac-Agric-Kinki Univ No.30 pp57–71.
Njaya, F. & Chimatiro, S. 1999. T echnology Strategies for the Fisheries and Fish Farming
Sustainable Livelihood Systems in Malawi. Mala wi Industrial Research and Technology
Development Centre (MIRT DC) as part of UNDP Sustainable Livelihoods Programme.
Norton A., Aryeetey E., Korboe D., & Dodge T . 1995. Poverty Assessment in Ghana using
participatory and qualitative methods. World Bank PSP Discussion Paper Series.
Pomeroy R.S., 1995. Community-based and co-management institutions for sustainable coastal
fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Ocean and Coastal management 27(3), 143–162.
Pomeroy R.S. (ed.) 1994. Community management and common property of coastal fisheries in
Asia and the Pacific: ICLARM.
Pomeroy, R.S. & Carlos, M.B. 1997. Community-based Coastal Resource Management in the
Philippines: A Review and Evaluation of Programs and Projects, 1984–1994. Marine
Policy 21(5): 445–464.
Ramachandra, V.K., 1997. On Kerala’s Development Achievements. In Dreze, J. and Sen
Armartya (eds). Indian Development. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
93
RIA1., DFID SEA-ARMP 2001a. Proceedings of the workshop on analysing livelihoods of

fishers and farmers in Indonesia, DFID UK.
RIA1., DFID SEA-ARMP 2001b. Proceedings of the workshop on understanding fisher and
farmer livelihoods for planning support (Thai Nguyen, Viet Nam).
Roy, M.K. & Nuruzzaman.1999. Generating employment and income of the rural poor: a micro
level study in Bangladesh. Journal of Rural Development and Administration Vol.31,
No.3 pp 19–46, 27 refs.
Smith, I., 1981. Improving fishing incomes when resources are over fished. Marine Policy 5(1),
17–22.
Sutherland, A. 1986. Economic success in a Belizean fishing village. Boulder: Westview.
Thomas David, H.L., 1996. Fisheries, tenure, and mobility in a West African Floodplain.
Geography 353(81), 35–40.
Thomson, J.T ., Feeny D. & Oakerson R.J. 1992. Institutional dynamics: the evolution and
dissolution of common property resource management. In Browley Daniel editor, Making
the Commons work: theory, practice, and policy. San Francisco: Institute for
Contemporary Studies, 129–160.
Ushijima, I. & Zayas, C. 1995. Fishers of the Visayas (Visayas Maritime Anthropological Studies
1). ed. Source University of Philippines (cssppub@kssp.upd.edu.ph).
Verstralen, K. 1998. Study on the Savings and Credit Cooperative of Hann (MECH), Senegal:
Structure, performance, and opportunities for strengthening its operations. FAO,
Programme for Integrated Development of Artisanal Fisheries in West Africa (IDAF),
T echnical Report No. 123. 27 pp.
This report presents the findings of a literature review on various aspects of poverty
in fisheries and on lessons learned of poverty alleviation measures including the
Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA). The review was conducted on behalf of
the DFID/FAO SFLP. The principal findings indicate that there are few studies and
analyses on the extent and causes of poverty in fishing communities and on the
contribution of the fisheries sector to poverty alleviation and food security. There is
also limited understanding on the impact on poverty of technological change,
community and fishers’ organizations, and alternative fisheries management regimes.
On the policy side, the review found that while government but especially donor-
supported programmes often seek to reduce poverty in fishing communities, they are
rarely targeted on the poor. While empirical evidence is still very limited, the SLA is
an improvement over conventional sectoral approaches for combating poverty in
fishing communities.

FAO Fisheries Circular No. 979 FIPP/C979: ISSN .

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAO Fisheries Circular No. 979 FIPP/C979: ISSN .

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAO Fisheries Circular No. 979 FIPP/C979: ISSN .

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAO Fisheries Circular No.

LITERATURE REVIEW OF S TUDIES ON POVERTY IN FIS HING

LITERATURE REVIEW OF STUDI ES ON POVERTY IN FISHI NG

Emily Corcoran (Consultant)

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

The designations employ ed and the presentation of the material in

All rights reserv ed. Reproduction and dissemination of material

PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT

Macfadyen, G.; Corcoran, E.

1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY....................................................................... 1

9 CRITICAL FACTORS FOR SMALL-SCALE FISHERS TO GET OUT OF POVERTY....... 47

ANNEX 2 – PROJECT CONCEPT PAPER............................................................................. 59

ANNEX 3 – USEFUL INTERNET SITES ................................................................................ 63

1 Introduction and methodology

- databases of journal abstracts (Agricola 1992–2001/2, CAB International Abstracts

1.3 Presentation of results

2 Methodology and findings of studies to analyse poverty in fishing

2.1 Summary of references

2.2 Main findings

Multi dimensionality of indicators

1. Poverty is multidimensional and complex.

Trying to define poverty – examples based on participatory experiences

2.2.2 Applie d me thods use d in rural de velopment

Wealth Ranking is used as part of a participatory or livelihoods analysis (Khanya www,

2.2.3 Examples of me thodologies and findings of studies in small-scale fishing

2.3 Policy implications

2.4 Research implications

3 Lessons learned from applying the SLA to fisheries and rural

3.1 Summary of references

3.2 Main findings

3.2.1 Aims and Uses of the SLA

3.2.2 Practical lessons

3.2.4 Shortfalls in the SLAs, note d from expe rience :

3.3 Policy implications

5. SL requires an enabling political climate. Recommendations arising from analysis might be

3.4 Research implications

4. Research is required to help improve cross-sectoral responses to the diverse livelihood

4 Reviews of using the SLA in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

4.1 Summary of references

4.2 Main findings

4.2.1 History of PRSPs

4.2.2 Summary of PRSP re vie ws to date

Contribution of the SL approach in Mongolia

Use of the SLA in the Ugandan PEAP

4.3 Policy implications

4.4 Research implications

5 Common property: cause or remedy of poverty for small-scale

5.1 Summary of references

5.2 Main findings

a) the loss of community control over the resource

5.3 Policy implications

5.4 Research implications

6 Special characteristics of small-scale fishers’ vulnerability and

6.1 Summary of references

6.2 Main findings

6.2.1 Vulne rability

Vulnerability lacks a well-developed theory, and accepted indicators and methods of

a) greater involvement in market economies and transactions;

6.2.2 Coping me chanisms