APPENDIX C

Case Study Synthesis

INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGESBETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTYAND GROWTH:

A SUMMARY AND SYNTHESIS OFEIGHT NATIONAL CASE-STUDIESINCLUDING MOROCCO, INDIA,BANGLADESH, THAILAND,MALAWI, PACIFIC ISLANDS,MAURITANIA AND CANADA

A report prepared for the

Department for International Development (DFID)Project: ‘The Role of Fisheries in Poverty Alleviationand Growth: Past, Present and Future’

DFID/PASS Contract: AG0213June 2005

STUDY TEAM

Dr. Stephen CunninghamDr. Arthur E. Neiland

IDDRA LtdPortsmouth TechnopoleKingston CrescentPortsmouthHants PO2 8FA

Tel: +44 (0)2392 658232Fax: +44 (0)2392 658201E-mail: cunningham@iddra.org, neiland@iddra.org

CONTENTSPageno.

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. KEY FINDINGS – A SUMMARY OF NATIONAL CASE-STUDIES2.1. Introduction 52.2. Bangladesh 52.3. Canada 72.4. India 92.5. Malawi 112.6. Mauritania 132.7. Morocco 152.8. Pacific Islands (FFA) 172.9. Thailand 19

3. DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDINGS 21

C-4

1. INTRODUCTION

This report is an output of the DFID/PASS Project ‘The Role of Fisheries in PovertyAlleviation and Growth: Past, Present and Future’ Phase III.

The conceptual framework and methodology which were developed for the projectoverall are given in an earlier report (Cunningham and Neiland, 2005), which isincluded as Appendix D of the Final Project Report. This report should be readwithin the context and approach developed in the methodology report.

In addition to the conceptual and methodological report, this report is based upon andunderpinned by eight national case-studies which looked at the role of fisheries inpoverty alleviation and growth in the following countries:

• Bangladesh (Appendix E)• Canada (Appendix F)• India (Appendix G)• Malawi (Appendix H)• Mauritania (Appendix I)• Morocco (Appendix J)• Pacific Islands (FFA) (Appendix K)• Thailand (Appendix L)

The study methodology included a template for the national case-studies, based on areview of relevant key issues from the international literature, and in consultationwith national experts and authors, and other experts from DFID and variousinternational organisations.

The subsequent development and work on each national case-study by local author-experts, using the template for guidance, led to the production of eight very detailedreports, including appendices of primary and secondary data, and supportingbibliographic references. These are included in the Final Project Report (AppendicesE-L).

The current report has two primary objectives:

- to summarise the key findings of each of the national case-studies;- to synthesise the key findings of the national case-studies within the overall

context of the objectives of the project.

In order to achieve these objectives, the framework provided by the case-studytemplate has been used to structure the information which was generated by the workundertaken at national level.

C-5

2. KEY FINDINGS – A SUMMARY OF NATIONAL CASE-STUDIES

2.1. Introduction

In this section, the findings of the detailed national case-studies are summarised inorder to highlight specific and particular issues which contribute to the overallobjectives of the project. The basic framework provided by the case-study template(cf. Appendix D) has been used to structure the summary for each country.

2.2. BANGLADESH

A profile for Bangladesh (fisheries and poverty) based on the findings of the nationalcase-study (Appendix E) is given in Box 1 below.

Box 1: BANGLADESH Case-study (F. Alam, 2005)Overview and background- a country of 148,000 sq.km, with a pop. of 135.2 million; Independent in 1971;- agriculture employs 69% labour force (23% GDP); 77% pop. in rural areas;- Low GDP and GNI per capita (US$421 and US$444);- Service sector contributes 49% GDP; Overall ranked 138th HDI (value of 0.509);Poverty- poverty is a major problem (measured using Direct Caloric Intake, DCI; & Cost of Basic

Needs, CBN methods); DCI (44% pop. absolute poverty); CBN (33.7%); although poverty isrecorded as showing a marked decline over past 10 years;

- Poverty highest in households involved in agriculture, forestry and fisheries;- Poverty reduction is major policy goal, and there is strong commitment to MDGs;Economic growth- at least phases of policy can be identified since 1971: 1971-1978: intensive intervention; 1978-

1990: economic liberalisation and series of 2-5 year plans; 1990-2002: democratic/economicreform;

- GDP fluctuated in 1980/1990s; since then 5% growth rate maintained;- Fisheries contributed 5.15% GDP in 2003-2004; and continues to grow;- Fish exports are important (2nd after garments); aquaculture (e.g. shrimp) increasing in

importance;Fisheries development and management- fisheries resources are owned and managed by State (Department of Fisheries);- 2 million tonnes production (35% inland; 43% inland culture; 22% marine fisheries);- Total value of production: up to TK147 million (2003-04); 5.2 million people involved;- Main policy goal is maximisation of production through enhancement and management; using

four sets of laws and regulations (mainly access control); low level of enforcement for majoropen-water fisheries; more effective in smaller water bodies; fisheries statistics and informationare very limited; Policy for marine fisheries not well developed;

- Various schemes to utilise community-based approaches to management (trials);Policy- 1985 New Fisheries Management Policy (NFMP) was adopted, with aim of conserving fish

stocks and reducing exploitation of fishers by powerful landowners (inland areas); DoF still tocollect lease money; but Ministry of Land owns/controls inland water bodies;

- various other policy changes have occurred since changing the way in which inland fisheriesare leased and controlled, but dominance of powerful fishery owners remains; other waters arelargely open-access in nature, and vital to underpin livelihoods of poor;

- Fisheries policy implementation is limited by lack of real government investment (notallocations); complicated institutional arrangements between government departments; fisheriesprogrammes targeted at or operated by poor often not effectively supported;

- Fisheries sector now included in PRSP: goals include increasing productivity in fisheries andaquaculture; raising income of poor; promoting rice and fish culture; strengthening research andextension; (a new policy and institutional framework is prioritised, plus legal framework andwider stakeholder participation);

C-6

Overall, then, what are the major issues concerning the relationship between fisheriesand poverty in Bangladesh as revealed by the case-study. There are at least fiveissues which can be identified, as follows:

First, Bangladesh has a large and growing population, with the majority of peopleliving in rural areas and mainly dependent upon agriculture for their livelihoods.Inland fisheries are an important sub-component of this sector, and help to underpinthe livelihoods of millions of people providing employment and income, and asource of fish protein. Farming and fishing are often integrating within householdsand communities.

Second, although Bangladesh has experienced economic growth in past 10 years,poverty remains a very serious problem (30-40% population are impoverisheddepending on measurement methods used). Inland fisheries (especially during floodperiods) which operate under open and free access arrangements are regarded as animportant safety-net for the poor. Other fisheries (discrete lakes and river channels)are subject to ownership and control, and the collection of use rights fees (thegovernment – Department of Fisheries - sells use rights to owners and collects fees).However, the ownership of fisheries is known to favour more powerful stakeholders,and the revenues collected by the DoF are retained by government, and it is difficultto establish a link with re-investment in the sector or poverty alleviation targeted atthe fisheries sector itself.

Third, fisheries policy in Bangladesh in recent years has focused on increasingfisheries production each year, particularly from inland areas, and also thedevelopment of an export trade, mainly in shrimps. While both of these objectiveshave been achieved to some degree, there has been a lack of success in establishingappropriate fisheries management systems in either the inland or marine sub-sectors.This raises the issue of whether the increased fisheries production or export tradesare sustainable into the future. Another issue for concern is the actual use of thebenefits generated by the fisheries sector. In the absence of appropriate managementsystems, the benefits from these valuable fisheries are often retained by the morepowerful stakeholders involved, which helps to re-enforce poverty particularly at thelocal level (poor fishers do not have access to sufficient benefits to reducevulnerability to poverty).

Fourth, the possibilities for developing and implementing appropriate fisheriesmanagement systems have been limited by a number of constraints – the lack of aclear and stable fisheries policy; the lack of inclusion of policy objectives other thanproduction maximisation and export development; a lack of coherence between themany government organisations involved in fisheries; a lack of real funding tosupport policy development and implementation; the lack of an effectiveunderpinning legal framework to clearly identify and defend use-rights; and thelimited involvement of a full range of stakeholders in the policy and managementprocess (contrary to the established dominance of a few powerful individuals andgroups who have long benefited from fisheries).

C-7

Fifth, more recently, policy-makers in Bangladesh have recognised that open water(and open access) capture fisheries have declined substantially and have affected thelivelihoods of rural people, especially the poor. The need to improve the situation hasalso been recognised, and as a starting point, the role of fisheries and the necessarypolicy reforms have been recognised in plans such as the national Poverty ReductionStrategy Paper for Bangladesh including – the need to amend the national fisheriespolicy and create an enabling framework, to re-define and strengthen the Departmentof Fisheries, to establish an appropriate legal framework, to promote greaterparticipation of a wide range of stakeholders in the policy and management process,and to develop and implement new methods of fisheries enhancement andaquaculture. Only time will tell whether these new proposals will have a positiveimpact on the flow and distribution of benefits from fisheries and aquaculture tosociety in Bangladesh.

2.3. CANADA

A profile for Canada (Newfoundland) (fisheries and poverty) based on the findingsof the national case-study (Appendix F) is given in Box 2 below.

Box 2: CANADA Case-study (Schrank, 2005)Overview and background

- Large island in north Atlantic, Newfoundland drawn into Union with Canada in 1949, before thatCrown Colony of London;

- Region economically impoverished and politically distant from Ottawa;- Heavily dependent upon subsidies from Ottawa;- Predominantly rural with heavy dependence (historically) on cod.

Poverty- History of poverty in the region (and this a key reason to join Union of Canada for receipt offinancial transfers);

- At Union had highest birth rate in Canada and lowest education levels;- In 1990s less than half of Newfoundland adults had completed high school, unemploymentdouble Canadian average.

Economic growth- Historically, cod most important export until improved transportation allowed development ofinterior (timber and mining);

- Oil and gas reserves now important;- Growth has been slow and sporadic and largely dependent upon capital transfers (subsidies) fromOttawa;

- Oil contributes 16% of GDP and large nickel mine due to open shortly.Fisheries development and management

- At union in 1949 cod employed 1/3 of the economically active pop and contributed 20% of GDPthis contribution has slowly dropped and now stands at 3.7%;

- Cod fishery regarded as the root of Newfoundland culture which has complicated efforts to reducecatch and effort in the sector;

- Fishery closed in 1992 to all commercial fishing, stocks have not recovered since;- Snow crab and shrimp fishery now very important;- Industry as a whole heavily dependent upon subsidies.

Policy- Policy heavily influenced by the perception that Newfoundland is dependent upon cod and thatefforts need to be made to secure income for the population;

- Opportunities to expand other sectors whilst fishery were closed in the 1970s were passed by infavour of allowing inshore fishery to expand further;

- 1992: Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery Programme (NCRP) set up to ease 1992moratorium by realigning sector but failed to take the drastic steps needed, opting instead for acompromise position;

- 1994: Atlantic Groundfish Strategy (TAGS) recognizes that problems with low catches extend toother stocks but bulk of this plan made up of income maintenance measures.

C-8

Overall, then, what are the major issues concerning the relationship between fisheriesand poverty in Canada (Newfoundland) as revealed by the case-study. There are atleast five issues which can be identified, as follows:

First, ever since its union with Canada in 1949, Newfoundland has been heavilydependent upon financial support from the centre (Ottawa). This degree ofsubsidisation – much of it in the form of income support for the fisheries sector hasprevented any real programme of effort reduction in the fishery to be carried outsuccessfully.

Second, the vision that Newfoundland was culturally dependent upon the cod fisheryhas also severely hampered any efforts to diversify the economy or rationalise thefishing industry. As a result, opportunities to radically cut the number of fishermen(up to 50% in some instances) were lost to the perceived socio-economic need tomaintain a ‘way of life’. Compared to the rest of Canada, Newfoundland was clearlyunderdeveloped – at the time of union it had a higher birth rate and mortality ratethan the rest of the country, it had a greater percentage of the population unemployedand a greater percentage lacking basic high school education. Many of these factorshave improved since Union but largely on the back of welfare payments rather thanany link between economic growth and poverty reduction.

Third, whilst cod was clearly an important part of the economy of Newfoundland atthe turn of the century, a series of economic crisis (global wars, global economicrecession) has slowly eroded the importance of the resource for the island’spopulation. Whereas the cod fishery accounted for 20% of the GDP at the time ofUnion, oil and gas are now the most important exports (making up 16% of the GDP)and shortly the new nickel mine will also make a significant contribution to GDP.What little domestic industry was in evidence in Newfoundland was quicklydissipated on Union with Canada as Newfoundland goods were unable to competeagainst cheaper Canadian imports.

Fourth, the collapse of the cod fishery in 1992 highlighted the many mistakes thathad been made, over time, regarding the management of fishery. It became clear thatefforts to maintain the fishery as a way of life had resulted in over capitalisation inthe sector when the management should have concentrated on building a viableindustry in anticipation of stocks recovering. Little effort had been made to exploitthe resources further off shore (at the peak of the cod fishery, Canada was onlytaking 1/8 of the total catch). However, other fisheries have since emerged. Theshrimp and crab fisheries are currently producing revenue beyond the levels everseen during the time of the cod fishery.

Fifth, various policy initiatives to revitalise the fishery have been put in place but allhave been based on a principle of subsidisation and income support. In the 1970s alarge programme of resettlement from isolated coves to population centres (in a bidto reduce the cost of providing basic services to outlying districts) relied heavilyupon subsidies being paid to displaced fishermen. Subsequent policies aimed atimproving the income base of the fishermen (who earned very low wages) only

C-9

served to keep the fishermen (receiving significant welfare payments) in the industryduring subsequent downturns, frustrating any attempts to reduce effort.

2.4. INDIA

A profile for India (fisheries and poverty) based on the findings of the national case-study (Appendix G) is given in Box 3 below.

Overall, then, what are the major issues concerning the relationship between fisheriesand poverty in India as revealed by this case-study? At least five issues can beidentified as follows:

Box 3: INDIA Case-study (V. Salagrama, 2005)Overview and background- 7th largest country by land area (3.3 million sq.km); 2nd largest by population (over 1 billion);- 72% pop. in rural areas; rapid urbanisation (20 cities >1 million people);- 360 million people on coast; fishing has traditionally been regarded as lowly and risky;- Mixed economy of developing country: Agric (25%GDP); Service Sector (50% GDP) and Industry

(25% GDP); Agric provides livelihoods for 70% total population;Poverty- Indian policy-making and politics ‘dominated’ by poverty (and measurements applied);- In general, poverty reduction has been recorded over past 30 years (e.g. 55% pop. (1973) to 26%

pop. (2000) based on head count ratio); but 260 million people still in poverty;- HDI improved significantly 1980 - 2001; wide variation in poverty incidence across states;- Relatively few studies on poverty in fisheries; fishers assumed to be poor by policy-makers; other

important factors and inter-linkages – access to resources; technology and capacity; debt; marketsand trade – still overlooked/not understood in government decision-making;

Economic growth- GDP US$510 billion; GDP/capita (PPP) has increased from US$430 (1975) to US$2,670 (2002);- Service sector is increasing; Agric declining and Industry is stable;- Fisheries contribute 1.3% GDP (4.6% Agric GDP); High export earnings (FOREX); increase in

fisheries employment; significant gap between rich and poor fishers (benefit distribution?);Fisheries development and management- Between 1951-2001 fisheries production increased by eight-fold (0.75 to 5.6 Mmt); 4th largest

producer; shrimp is most valuable species; 65% craft are small-scale and non-motorised;- 6.7 million people depend on fisheries for livelihoods; lack of precise data on occupations/incomes;

but indications are that fishing is still a better livelihood option than others; 70% fish sold locallyand important for food security;

- Many government agencies have some responsibility for fisheries – makes management difficult &complex; inhibits coherent organisation of sector; fisheries remain free & open-access under law;

Policy- Fisheries policy has developed with few linkages between sectors, out-dated legislation; and with a

focus on production increases; national policy has favoured exports (FOREX); state policy hasfocused on fishers welfare; policy and management has been reactive (to crisis) rather thanobjective-driven;

- Poverty reduction through 5-year development plans (and PRSP-approach) , but weak performanceoverall (serious implementation problems); benefits of expanded fisheries sector have not impactedon poverty; ‘safety-net role’ of fisheries;

- Important future issues for fisheries and poverty: How to address weak management and open-access in fisheries? How to achieve a clear vision for the sector? How to cope with lack of policycoherence between ministries? How to balance winners and losers in fisheries development? Howto cope with change? How to gain recognition and support of role/value of fisheries?

C-10

First, a majority of India’s huge population lives in rural areas, and fisheries, as asub-sector of agriculture, makes an important contribution to rural livelihoods, andmakes up 4% of agricultural GDP. Fisher populations are still regarded as vulnerableto poverty, but the sector also includes a wide diversity of other stakeholdersincluding those involved in capital-intensive industrial fisheries and in the supply ofequipment and services.

Second, India’s economy is one of the largest in the world, and has grownsignificantly in the past 20 years, with an overall reduction in poverty. Within thiscontext, fisheries policy has focused on the expansion of fisheries and maximisationof production through technological modernisation. Catches have increasedsignificantly (India is 4th largest producer globally) and there is a large export tradeparticularly in shrimp.

Third, although the fisheries sector has expanded in India, the development andimplementation of appropriate fisheries management systems has not occurred at thesame pace. Many of India’s fisheries operate under free- and open-access conditions,and there is concern that the current fisheries exploitation patterns are not sustainableinto the future.

Fourth, there is also concern about the nature of benefit flows from fisheries, and thelikely impact of future changes on different sectors of society. Although governmentpolicy has encouraged fisheries expansion, export trade and the generation ofFOREX, serious doubts have been raised about the contribution to economic growthand poverty reduction – given the large number of small-scale fishers who have notparticipated in this activity, who do not receive direct or indirect benefits, and whoare increasingly marginalised by the activities of the more powerful players in thefisheries sector. Fisheries currently underpin millions of small-scale rural livelihoods,but it is doubtful whether this situation is sustainable given the increasing fishingpressure on resources and other exogenous factors such as pollution andenvironmental changes.

Fifth, India clearly has significant fisheries resources, and the potential to develop afisheries sector which could make an important contribution to economic growth andpoverty alleviation. However, the existing policy framework is weak and does notoffer many opportunities to capitalise on this potential. Policy reform anddevelopment is needed to provide a clear vision for fisheries development in Indiaand to provide a basis for the design and implementation of appropriate managementsystems. However, the sector continues to be characterised by a lack of policycoherence, prioritisation of fisheries production, technological expansion, weakmanagement institutions and a ‘reactive’ and limited government response tofisheries management issues and problems. This situation is unlikely to changewithout the necessary political will to take ‘hard decisions’ to change the currentsituation.

C-11

2.5. MALAWI

A profile for Malawi (fisheries and poverty) based on the findings of the nationalcase-study (Appendix H) is given in Box 4 below.

Overall, then, what are the major issues concerning the relationship between fisheriesand poverty in Malawi as revealed by the case-study. There are at least five issueswhich can be identified, as follows:

Box 4: MALAWI Case-study (Donda, 2005)Overview and background

- Landlocked country with 20% of area taken up by lakes;- Population of 9.9 million (1998), 14% in urban areas, 10% by major water bodies;- Independent in 1964, multiparty democracy since 1994;- Fish makes up 70% of animal protein needs and 40% of all protein in-take of the poor.

Poverty- 28.2% of population in dire poverty (living on less than $1 a day);- just under a quarter HH are female-headed and make up 27% of the poorest households;- poverty caused by lack of economic productivity and lack of land, population growth and weakinstitutional structure;

- no study into poverty in the fisheries sector, although plenty of poverty studies carried out.Economic growth

- Predominantly rural and agriculturally-based economy with a small mining sector;- Agriculture makes up 38% of GDP and 90% of exports;- Key exports are tobacco, tea, coffee, sugar;- A series of SAP introduced 81-94 but have had little impact on poverty and long-term growth stillelusive;

- Economic growth for 04-08 estimated at 7% and will be driven by agriculture sector;- Fisheries sector second largest employer after agriculture;- Malawi Economic Growth Strategy established to drive forward PRSP but fails to acknowledgepotential role of fishing – seeing mining as having more potential.

Fisheries development and management- Fisheries account for 4% of GDP and declining;- 350,000 employed in the sector which has multiplier effect of 1:5;- annual catch is between 40-80,000 MT, Lake Malawi most significant producer;- artisanal sector contributes 85-90% of total landings, rest from commercial sector;- OA fishery and highly complex management structure (traditional and modern);- Fishery currently operating at below recommended effort levels and sector considered to haveunrecognized potential;

- Management heavily bio-economic based and aims at conserving resource;- Fisheries have never been considered viable source of revenue beyond sale of licenses;- No calculation of resource rent has ever been conducted.

Policy- 1997 Fisheries Management and Conservation Act refers to the role of the community in themanagement of fisheries indicating slow shift to social/community aspect of fisheries.

- 2001 Fish and Aquaculture policy takes it’s lead from the FAO CCRF;- Participatory Fisheries Management established in 1993 following collapse of stocks in ShireRiver

- This required establishment of Fisheries Management Units which has seen advent of fishinglicenses and effort limits for commercial fleet;

- Malawi PRSP requires that economy grows at 6% per annum and much of this growth neededfrom the agricultural sector.

C-12

First, Malawi is a largely rural and agriculturally based, land-locked nation whichhas experienced severe and prolonged economic hardship for many years. Despite aseries of SAP measures introduced between 1981-1997 little impact has been madeon poverty levels and little long-term sustainable growth has been realised. Much ofthe blame for the failure of repeated policy interventions to make a difference inMalawi are put down to a weak institutional structure, lack of access to land, labourand capital and low economic productivity levels.

Second, poverty is a significant problem in Malawi – and a notably genderisedproblem as well. Just over one quarter of all households are headed by females andthese households in turn account of 27% of the poorest households in the country.Over one quarter of the population is in dire poverty defined as “a state of continuousdeprivation or a lack of the basics of life”. Because agriculture forms the basis ofthe Malawi economy it is this sector alone that will be able to lift the population outof poverty and this sector that has received most attention from policy makers.

Third, Malawi is heavily dependent upon the export of primary materials –accounting for just over 90% of all exports. In the Economic Growth Strategy whichwas written in order that the PRSP would be able to attain its goals (these could onlybe achieved by boosting growth rates) it is mining, rather than the fishing sector (thesecond largest employer in the country) which is seen as the key to boosting growthrates. Fishing is rarely seen as a means of addressing poverty and indeed there havebeen no studies conducted on the level of poverty in the fisheries sector.

Fourth, although the fishing sector accounts for only 4% of GDP (and declining) hasa relatively low profile in the government strategy, fish is a critically importantaspect of the diet in Malawi – particularly for the poor. Fish makes up 70% ofanimal protein needs and accounts for 40% of the poor’s protein needs. Inrecognition of this fact, government policy towards the sector is slowly starting toregulate catch and effort in the fishery as a means of sustaining the industry. Semi-commercial fishers now require a licence to fish and a pilot scheme to limit fishingunits on all but the main lake (Lake Malawi) are now in place. A quota system isalso under discussion although potential problems with enforcing such a system arerecognised.

Fifth, the role of communities in the management of fisheries is slowly beingacknowledged within government policy frameworks. The 2001 policy takes its leadfrom the FAO CCRF and in doing so has adopted participatory fisheries management(PFM) approaches. These aim to achieve the active participation of local fishingcommunities in the management of fisheries, to promote legal instruments forparticipation of local stakeholders and to develop national capacity to monitorprogress in fisheries. Fisheries Management Units have been established to facilitatePFM and may succeed in encouraging more sustainable use of the resource and thuscontribute to poverty alleviation.

C-13

2.6. MAURITANIA

A profile for Mauritania (fisheries and poverty) based on the findings of the nationalcase-study (Appendix I) is given in Box 7 below.

Box 7: MAURITANIA Case-study (Cherif Ould Toueileb, 2005)

Overview and background- Large country of 2 millions sq.km, 2/3 desert; small population (2.6 million)- Constant decrease in nomad population (33% to 5% , from 1977 to 2000) , rising urban pop and nb

of towns and relative decrease in rural pop (49% in 2004)- Economy mainly based on the primary sector, agriculture, mining and fisheries. Agriculture and

husbandry are main sources of employment and revenue

Poverty- Poverty is a major issue: 50% of pop below poverty threshold and 33% below extreme poverty

threshold in 1996 (last study). Poverty rate has decreased since but remains important.- Poverty is concentrated in rural areas (76%) and amplified by the permanent deficit in human and

animal food.- Poverty policy focussed on education and food security;- Very little data on fisheries and poverty. Fisheries is assumed to impact significantly on incomes

and livelihoods along the coast.

Economic growth- GDP increased relatively steadily around 4 to 5% since 2000 (6,1 in 2004);- Mining, agriculture, construction, telecommunications and administrative sectors are increasing;- Trade balance relies heavily on exports of fish (mainly cephalopods) and mining products.

Situation is expected to change soon with oil production and export about to begin.- Contribution of fisheries to the GDP is down from 20% in 1980 to 12% in 2004 but still represent

25% of government revenue and 40% of foreign exchange.

Fisheries development and management- Production is about 65 000 t, slightly decreasing since 2000, main commercial stocks are

considered fully or overexploited- Fisheries production is dominated by national and foreign industrial fleets that produce 90% of

volume, 80% of value; artisanal fishery catch, long thought to be negligible, has been recently re-evaluated (from 30 000 to 80 000t.)

- Despite the situation of permanent food deficit, national fish consumption is modest. Fish ishowever a complementary source of proteins, especially along the coast and the Senegal river.Almost all industrial catch and a significant part of artisanal catch are exported.

- Fishery management is ensured by the government agency. A new management system is currentlybeing developed based on fishery management plans. Fisheries are evolving from free and openaccess focussed on foreign markets, towards more controlled access to resources for multi fleets(national/foreign, industrial/artisanal) with mixed objectives (export/poverty reduction/foodsecurity...).

Policy- Fishing a key economic sector for the last 20 years. 4 policies have been implemented since the

first in 1979. A key objective is the better integration of fisheries to the Mauritania economythrough sustainable exploitation of resources, increased added value and maximization of localemployment;

- Artisanal fisheries are expected to grow to the detriment of industrial fisheries because of theiradditional value in terms of local development and poverty reduction. It is expected that oil exportswill decrease state reliance on fishing exports and fishing agreements and thus open new paths forfisheries contribution to national economy, especially the poverty reduction objective.

C-14

Overall, then, what are the major issues concerning the relationship between fisheriesand poverty in Mauritania as revealed by the case-study. There are at least five issueswhich can be identified, as follows:

First, Mauritania is in a phase of settlement and urbanisation, although rural areasremain the main employment pool dominated by the agriculture and husbandrysectors. Fisheries, as a sub-sector of agriculture, offers employment and livelihoodopportunities. Consumption of fishing product remains modest even if it constitutes asubstantial protein intake in localised areas.

Second, the Mauritania economy relies strongly on its exports of fish and miningproducts. Within this context, fisheries expansion has been organised to compensatetrade balance and ensure government revenue, then to increase added value for thecountry and maximise employment for a largely unqualified poor population.Catches have increased and trade is significant, especially of cephalopods towardsthe EU and Japan (representing 60% of total turnover of the sector).

Third, despite the four management systems since 1979, the implementation of anappropriate management system has not developed as quickly as the exploitation.Most commercial stocks are considered as fully or overexploited. The 1998 reformintroduced a new approach to management including fishery management plans andcontrol of resource access. It is recognised that the development and implementationof such plans is a long term process.

Fourth, there is concern about the nature of benefit flows from fisheries, especiallyconsidering the importance of industrial fleets (including foreign fleets). Artisanalfleets targeting high value species for export are recognised to maximise employmentand direct socio-economic impacts on the coastal population. Fishing zones restrictedto artisanal fishing have recently been tripled and it is expected that artisanalfisheries will expand and be the lever for poverty alleviation and food securityobjectives. However, the current state of resources limits production growth andmechanisms do not exist to ensure that artisanal fisheries contribute to governmentrevenue.

Fifth, Mauritania evaluates its potential fish resources at 1.5 millions tons (includingclams). The potential for production growth is however limited as main high-valuestocks are fully exploited. The way fisheries contribute to growth is being debated.The government aims to improve the return of fishery resource rent to the domesticeconomy, increasing added value and maximising local employment andqualifications. With the trade balance and government revenue both being stronglydependent on fisheries export, those objectives are difficult to achieve. As oilproduction comes on stream and begins to be exported, new opportunities may ariseto support the current reform of the management system and the rethinking of fisherycontribution to growth and poverty alleviation.

C-15

2.7. MOROCCO

A profile for Morocco based on the findings of the national case-study (Appendix J)is given in Box 6 below.

Overall, then, what are the major issues concerning the relationship between fisheriesand poverty in Morocco as revealed by the case-study. The following issues can beidentified:

Box 6: MOROCCO Case-study (Ayoubi, 2005)

Overview and background- Pop. of 29.8 million; fast growing population (14.6% over 10 years, 50% over 30 years);- Rapid urbanization (29% of urban pop in 1960, 54% in 2004);- Employment dominated by the primary sector (45%), services (37.5%), industry (17.5);

fisheries still considered an employer of last resort, in particular for vulnerable pops.

Poverty- Poverty concerns 44% of the total pop: 19% below the poverty line and 25% considered as

‘economically vulnerable’;- Poverty is mainly rural: 66% in rural areas;- And concentrated in the primary sector (57% of the poor), services (26%), construction

(13%);- Relatively little data on fisheries but it seems that low incomes are the norm (from 30% to

100% of the Moroccan minimum wage).

Economic growth- Economic performance depends on agriculture, fisheries, mining, gas, tourism and transfers

from expatriate Moroccans;- From 2001 to 2004, GDP increased by 3.8% per annum on average but fluctuates with

primary sector performance;- Fishery exports are 50% of primary product exports and 13% of total exports, but share

decreasing due to resource overexploitation; - Fisheries contribute 2.3 to 2.5% of GDP and the sector employs 400,000 people.

Fisheries development and management- 2.5 million people depend in some way on fisheries for livelihoods;- Production peaked in 2001 (1.1 million t), it is now declining (0.9 million t in 2004);- Increase in number of Moroccan vessels by 50% in 20 years (2.954 units in 2004),- Departure of European fishing fleet in 1999 after the end of the 4th EU-Moroccan Fishing

agreement,- Management is ensured by the central government that implemented a set of new measures

in the 1990s. However most stocks are now fully or over exploited such as cephalopods,certain sardines stocks and hake stocks. Since 2001, some movement towards TAC andquotas management and the use of fishery management plans.

Policy- A poverty and inequality reduction policy has been a central policy theme for the last 10

year. Integrated approach focussing on improving rural infrastructure, teaching reading andwriting skills, micro-credit systems, increasing school attendance.

- The fishery sector plays a marginal role in development and poverty alleviationprogrammes. No poverty policy targets the poorest fishing communities;

- Some positive results, especially school participation rates in rural areas. But micro credithas had little impact in rural areas, still less in fishing.

C-16

First, the number of people whose livelihood depends on fishing in some way isestimated to be around 2.5 million, which is some 8% of the total population. Themarine fisheries sector is still considered an employer of last resort. As a result,labour supply greatly exceeds labour demand, in a context where most Moroccan fishresources are fully- or over-exploited.

Second, the primary sector remains a central economic pillar despite rapidurbanisation over the past 20 years. Fish resources contribute relatively little to directfood security. They make a significant contribution to GDP and to the balance ofpayments. The collapse of cephalopod exports due to overexploitation has had astrong negative effect on a trade balance already weakened by fluctuations inagricultural exports.

Third, despite fluctuations due to the instability of the stocks of small pelagic species(such as sardine), production has risen over the past 20 years. But the developmentand implementation of appropriate fisheries management systems has not occurred atthe same pace, leading to the full or over-exploitation of most commerciallyimportant stocks.

Fourth, although the primary sector is central to the Moroccan economy, it is alsohere that poverty is concentrated. Fishing is an activity that in general does notgenerate large incomes, although there are variations depending on the type offishing (small-scale, coastal, offshore) and the type of employment (upstream,downstream, fishers).

Fifth, faced with the full or over exploitation of most of its resources, Morocco hasbegun to develop fishery management plans. Moroccan experience confirms thegradual nature of the process. The first plan concerned cephalopods, especiallyoctopus. The use of an overall total allowable catch (TAC) led to a race for fish, anda decision was made to move towards individual transferable quotas (ITQs). Otherplans are to be developed.

In the context of this management strategy, the country is also aggressively seekingto position Moroccan products on the international market, whilst seeking to improvesocial cohesion and the distribution of wealth. But relatively little debate appears tohave taken place concerning the role of the fisheries sector in the achievement ofthese latter two goals.

C-17

2.8. PACIFIC ISLANDS (FORUM FISHERIES AGENCY AREA)

A profile for the FFA (fisheries and poverty) based on the findings of the nationalcase-study (Appendix K) is given in Box 7 below.

Overall, then, what are the major issues concerning the relationship between fisheriesand poverty in The Pacific Islands as revealed by the case-study. There are at leastfive issues which can be identified, as follows:

Box 7: Pacific Islands FFA (Tamate, 2005)Overview and background

- Fisheries Forum Agency set up in 1979 after UNCLOS III in recognition of the need of islandstates to work together on fisheries management;

- Population across the region of 8.6 million – largest proportion in PNG, Solomon Islands andVanuatu;

- Largely rural population (50%), very young age profile (average age is 17.8), rising fertility andfalling mortality rates;

- Traditional governance structures prevail.Poverty

- Traditionally not been seen as a problem and as a result few studies but rise in political instabilityand unrest has seen rise in homelessness and displaced populations;

- Those without land considered the poorest;- Poverty not a priority issue in government policies;- Pacific Region Poverty Programme now set up to build capacity in assessing poverty and workingtowards MDGs;

- ADB and WB attempted to measure contribution of fisheries to poverty but task complicated bypoor data.

Economic growth- Differing level of growth across the region: PNG, Solomon Islands have timber and mineralresources, Kiribati and Tuvalu are solely dependent upon tuna stocks;

- Fiji and PNG are classed as ‘industrially developed’;- GDP ranges from 6371 million (PNG) to just 15 million (Tuvalu);- Tuna makes up significant part of export earnings (71% in Samoa, 94% in Federated States ofMicronesia (FSM)).

Fisheries development and management- Tuna the key fisheries resource across the region and tuna fishery in Western Central Pacific islargest in the world;

- Key nations fishing in the region are Japan, Taiwan, Korea and USA. Local fleets making anincreasingly large contribution to over all catch;

- Rate of return for access fees currently at 5% (6% in PNG) – these rates are very low;- Previous attempts to raise access fees met with fierce resistance from foreign fleets;- Fisheries are OA except Palau which has introduced limits on purse seiners; FSM attempted tolimit access to vessels that make sizeable local contribution but had no means of enforcing this;Tonga and PNG both limit access to foreign vessels;

Policy- No country specific poverty alleviation plans but countries are encouraged to include this as acore outcome of national development strategies – this is the case in Fiji and PNG;

- National Tuna Management and Development Plans are in place in PNG and other state – butsuch plans are criticized for not encouraging a rise in access fees;

- National development plans now looking at encouraging local investment in the sector, reducingaccess to foreign fleets and balancing this against potential lost revenue from access fees.

C-18

First, the nations of the Pacific over a vast area and contain a comparatively smallpopulation. This population is, in turn, largely dependent upon the tuna fishery ofthe Western Central Pacific (the largest in the world). In order to facilitate the co-operative management of such a vast and potentially lucrative resource, the ForumFisheries Agency was established in 1979 in the light of UNCLOS III.

Second, traditional governance structures are still very much in evidence in theregion and family and community form the foundation of society. As such, povertyhas been rarely acknowledged or defined because it was assumed that family alwayslooked after its own. The classic signs of poverty: malnutrition and homelessness,for example, were not in evidence and thus poverty was not considered to be an issuefor governments in the Pacific Islands to deal with. However, recent periods ofpolitical instability and civil unrest (Fiji and the Solomons for example) have seenproblems with displaced and landless peoples emerge and thus a renewed interest inthe issue of poverty. As a consequence National Development Plans are now beingencouraged to see poverty alleviation as a potential output of their activities.

Third, the vast spread of island nations contains a wide disparity of economicgrowth. The larger islands are the more developed (PNG, Solomons and Fiji forexample), are notably less dependent upon fisheries resources and have a degree ofindustrial development linked to the other natural resources they are able to exploit.Some of the smaller island groups, however, are heavily dependent upon fisheries fortheir revenue and have no other resources available to them (Kiribati for example).

Fourth, despite the potential wealth to be generated from the tuna fisheries, the levelof access fees remains comparatively low (compared to other regions of the world)and no attempt has ever been made to link revenue from the fishery to nationaldevelopment directly. The island states have always had to find a compromiseposition between charging more for access to their fisheries from the large fishingnations (Japan, Taiwan, Korea and the US in particular) and the risk that thosenations will fish elsewhere. PNG recently increased its access fees to 6% (up from5%) of rate of return and as a result no longer enjoys a bilateral agreement withJapan, which refused to pay higher charges.

Five, linked to the access fee dilemma above is the drive for greater localinvolvement in the fishery. Many of the island nations are now providing incentivesfor locals to invest in the lucrative fisheries in an attempt to keep more of the revenuefrom the tuna on the islands, they are also attempting to restrict the number offoreigners allowed within the EEZ and to tie those vessels more tightly to theprocessing plants which exist on a number of the larger islands (Samoa, forexample). One of the problems of such as policy path is that monies lost fromrestricting foreign access to stocks may not be recouped through local fishingactivity.

C-19

2.9. THAILAND

A profile for Thailand (fisheries and poverty) based on the findings of the nationalcase-study (Appendix L) is given in Box 8 below.

Overall, then, what are the major issues concerning the relationship between fisheriesand poverty in Thailand as revealed by the case-study. There are at least five issueswhich can be identified, as follows:

First, Thailand has achieved economic growth on the back of a thriving industrialsector but also on a growing fisheries sector where culture fisheries are of increasingimportance. What is more, policy towards fisheries has tended to focus on increasing

Box 8: THAILAND Case-study (Tokrisna, 2005)Overview and background

- A country with 2,600 km of coast line, population of 63.7 million, constitutional monarchy;- well developed industrial base;- large coastal fishery with well-developed inland culture fishery too; fish contributes 28% ofanimal protein needs.

Poverty- 7.5 million fall below nationally-defined line although this number falling year-on-year;- Main reasons for poverty are lack of capital assets and landlessness ;- 9% of total poor in Southern Region (focus of marine fishing sector);- more poverty in rural agricultural sector than fisheries sector;- resource degradation hitting small scale fishers much harder than commercial fishers withinfisheries sector.

Economic growth- economic development built on industrialization which relies upon import of raw materials butthis process of development ignored rural areas;

- economic crisis of 1990s heavily impacted on growth rates;- GDP is 151.3 billion US$, 90% of GDP generated from non-agricultural sector, growth rate8.89% (2003).

Fisheries development and management- fishing contributes 1.75% to GDP, sector is growing faster than agric and non-agric sectors afternegative growth turn of 21st century but overall share of GDP is falling;

- Marine sector makes up 31.7% of GDP from fishing;- Of 97 billion US$ exports, fishing contributes 3.9 billion (2.1bn of this from processed seafoodsector);

- 50% of exports of primary product is frozen shrimp, 25% is processed fish and squid and final25% is processed shrimp and canned tuna;

- fastest growth in fishing sector is in culture fisheries, then inland capture followed by coastalcapture fishery;

- value of fisheries rising at 12% per annum with the greatest contribution coming from coastalculture fisheries – the bulk of this being shrimp;

- marine capture sector focuses on trash fish for feed (nearly 50% of total marine catch);- 92.7% of fishers are small-scale working from small boats in inshore waters.

Policy- major fisheries sector reform in 2002 (Prior to that the sector governed under 1947 legalframework that focused on freshwater fisheries) ;

- Fisheries policy targets marine fisheries with the aim of increasing production and reducing catchof trash fish for feed mill.;

- 8th National Economic and Social Development Plan ((7-01) aimed at reducing income disparities(highest in the region) through decentralization and community capacity building;

C-20

production rather than rationalising how the resource was used. One consequence ofthe failure to pay sufficient attention to the resource base is that overexploitation inthe Gulf of Thailand (in part due to the fact that 50% of the fish caught in the marinesector was trash fish destined for the feed mill) has resulted in considerable marinedegradation. The group that suffers most from this degradation is the small-scalefleet that operates in inshore waters: the largest marine sector and also the poorest.

Second, compared to neighbouring states, poverty in Thailand is distinguished by alarge and increasing gap between incomes. As a result, the main focus of povertyalleviation programmes in the country is to reduce these income discrepancies.Fisheries do not form an employer of last resort in Thailand; fishing households aregenerally better off than landless rural households. However, there are discrepancieswithin the fishing sector. Whilst just over 90% of coastal fishers are working fromsmall-scale boats in inshore waters, it is fishers operating in the commercial fleet(generally larger boats and able to stay out at sea for several days) that are benefitingfrom financial rewards. These more successful fishermen are investing in othersectors (small scale aquaculture being a key target) thus providing themselves with amore diversified income.

Third, from the perspective of economic growth, whilst fisheries overall share ofGDP has been falling in recent years, the sector it self has been experiencing rapidgrowth – much more so than the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors Themajority of this growth has occurred within the cultured fish sector – particularly thesub-sector that concentrates on shrimp production. Inland freshwater cultureproduction has experienced the second highest level of growth with coastal marinefisheries experiencing lower growth rates than the other two sectors. There is littleevidence, however, that increased revenues from the culture sector are having anydirect impact on poverty levels.

Fourth, although fisheries play an important role in the export and domesticeconomies, agricultural and the production of rice remain far greater employers inthe rural areas. As a result most policy attention on poverty reduction has beenfocused on the agricultural sector which is the sector that has witnessed higher levelsof poverty and lower income levels than the fisheries sector.

Fifth, fisheries policy continues to be production driven despite the widespreadgovernance reforms of 2002 which saw the Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironment become involved in the management of fisheries (along with theDepartment of fisheries). What is more, expert opinion considers the resources in theGulf of Thailand to be overexploited which belies the Thai Governments productiontargets which exceed generally agreed MSY levels.

C-21

3. DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDINGS

The case studies presented in this report cover a wide range of geographical settings(from small islands through land-locked countries), involve vastly different numbersof peoples (from the population of India at over 1 billion to that of the Pacific whichin total amounts to just 8.6 million), demonstrate differing levels of poverty (fromMalawi where just under a third of the population live below the poverty line to thePacific where poverty has not, until recently, been acknowledged) and encompasseconomies built of very different basis (from Thailand with its broad industrial baseto Malawi and Mauritania with their predominantly agricultural economy). Yet,common themes have emerged from the studies that serve to tie together the range ofapproaches that have been taken by government when faced with a need to managetheir fisheries. Based around the key headings from the case studies, the following isa synthesis of the case-studies which draws out the commonalities and thedifferences.

Regarding poverty as a broad theme, we find there are considerable differences inhow poverty is measured, how accurate those measurements are considered to be andindeed whether the concept of ‘poverty’ is acknowledged at all. The case-study fromNewfoundland (Canada) amply highlights the relative nature of poverty. Whilstliving conditions in Newfoundland at the time of Union (1949) and indeed up to thepresent day far exceed the levels of poverty to be found in the rest of the case studies,compared to the living conditions experienced by the rest of Canada, there is littledoubt that over all Newfoundlanders were extremely poor. Levels of health care,education and life expectancy were considerably lower than in mainland Canada –and indeed it was this desire to address the disparity in income which drove much ofthe subsidisation and welfare programmes which, arguably, were a barrier to efficientfisheries management (more on this later). Due in part to the nature of society (stillbased around small family groups) and to the lack of readily observable indicationsof poverty (homelessness, malnutrition, for example) the Pacific Islands are onlynow beginning to recognise the presence of poverty in their societies. The lack of aperceived problem with poverty has meant that there has, to date, been nocomprehensive poverty studies carried out in the region. It is only since the upsurgein violence in Fiji and the Solomon Islands that problems related to displacement,landlessness and the factors that drive civil conflict that poverty has been recognisedby governments in the region and addressed.

In direct contrast to these two case studies we have the examples of India – wherepoverty has played a key part in the formation of government policy and where some260 million people are considered to live below the poverty line; Malawi – wherepoverty afflicts just under one third of the population and is also a noticeably femaleproblem (27% of the poorest households are headed by women and these householdsin turn make up just under a quarter of all households in poverty), Mauritania wherearound one third of the population is below the poverty line and Bangladesh wherepoverty affects between one third and one quarter of the population (depending onhow it is measured). Occupying the mid-ground between all these extremes we haveMorocco where 19% of the population is strictly under the poverty line with another25% classified as ‘economically vulnerable’ and Thailand where around just 10% of

C-22

the population are considered to live in conditions of poverty. Interestingly, all thecountries noted that levels of poverty have been decreasing over time although thereasons for these declines are not articulated and the link with fisheries as a possiblefactor is rarely made. In this respect the one case that does stand out is that ofNewfoundland which has arguably experienced rapidly improved living conditionsfor its rural populations over recent decades. However, this improvement is largelythe result of considerable welfare payments that have been received by the islandfrom Central Government and one needs to question whether such improvements inliving conditions would have been achieved otherwise.

Whether fisheries are an employer of last resort or not varies across countries. Theywere identified as such in Canada and to an extent in Bangladesh. Yet in Thailandand Malawi fishers are generally better off than the poorest in the agriculturalsectors. The Indian case study likewise notes that fisheries are, in general, not anoccupation of last resort and this is also the case in the Pacific.

The levels of economic growth experienced by the countries in this report varywidely. Both India and Thailand have been able to demonstrate considerable growthon the back of an expanding industrial base. Whilst Thailand was particularly badlyhit by the SE Asian currency crisis in the 1990s, it has since recovered and onceagain is able to demonstrate positive growth. In both countries the share ofagricultural products in general and fisheries in particular as contributors to GDP arein decline (although these sectors are experiencing growth in their own right) andboth countries have been able to diversify into the services sector (India) andmanufacturing (Thailand) as sources of foreign exchange. Whilst Bangladesh’seconomy is still predominantly rural, it has been able to expand its garment sector tothe extent that this now forms the greater part of its exports (closely followed byfrozen/processed shrimp). For the remaining countries, however, natural resourcescontinue to form the basis of the economy and export revenues (fish, timber andminerals in the Pacific; tobacco, sugar and tea in Malawi; fish and mining products inMauritania; phosphates, agricultural products and fish in Morocco and oil inNewfoundland). With the exceptions of India and Thailand, all the countries aredependent upon export markets for the greater part of their economic growth(Newfoundland exporting oil to mainland Canada). The role of fisheries in theseexport strategies varies. Whilst Thailand, Bangladesh and India have all witnessedrapidly expanding shrimp (culture) sectors Bangladesh is most reliant on this export.Fish trade (especially cephalopods) impacts significantly on the Moroccan tradebalance and even more so on the Mauritanian trade balance and government revenue(even if the rate fishery contribution has decreased over the past 10 years). In thePacific a number of islands rely on the export of fisheries (mostly tuna) for some90% of their export revenues whilst others (notably those with larger populations andgreater internal markets) such as Papua New Guinea and Fiji are less reliant. Withthe exception of the majority of the Pacific Islands and partly Mauritania, fisheriesare generally not considered as ‘engines for growth’. This is very apparent inMalawi where the recent Economic Growth Strategy has chosen to favour the miningsector over fisheries to meet the growth rates needed to reduce poverty significantly.Thailand, India and Bangladesh certainly derive considerable growth from thecontinued expansion of the shrimp industry but (certainly in Thailand and India) this

C-23

sector is still dwarfed by the manufacturing sector. In Mauritania, fisheries has beenconsidered the last 20 years as a main factor of growth above the mining sector ; thesituation is about to change as oil production comes on stream and begins to beexported.

The scale of fishing operations represented by the case-studies varies from small,lake-based artisanal fisheries in Malawi to long-range offshore tuna fisheries in thePacific. Within this theme we also find evidence of expanding culture fisheries inThailand, India and Bangladesh. In the case of Newfoundland (Canada) we find afishery that is now all but closed to commercial exploitation (the cod fishery) and yetrapidly expanding shrimp and snow crab fisheries which have emerged to fill thevacuum. A significant factor which ties all the case studies together – including thecase of Newfoundland – is the role of small-scale fishers in the prosecution of thefisheries. This sector contains considerable heterogeneity. In India, more than halfthe craft are non-motorised; in Bangladesh many millions are involved in subsistencebased floodplain fisheries (many working without craft); in Newfoundland, whilstworking from considerably more sophisticated boats than found in the other casestudy countries, the bulk of the fishery is made up of small inshore vessels. Thesame can be found in Thailand where over 90% of fishers are working from smallvessels in inshore waters and over 80% of the catch in Malawi is caught by artisanalvessels. In Mauritania, even if the industrial fleet produces 90% of the volume, smallscale fishery catches have been recently considerably re-evaluated upwards. The roleof small scale vessels in the tuna fisheries in the Pacific has, until recently, been rare,yet governments in the region are now trying to encourage local fishing ventures toengage in the fishery. By attempting to limit the number of foreign vessels in thefishery and providing financial and fiscal incentives to local entrepreneurs (or insome cases those able to demonstrate sufficient local involvement) they hope toallow indigenous populations to benefit from the resource rent generated by thefishery. This drive to increase the involvement of local communities in their fisheriesis also evident elsewhere. In Malawi and Bangladesh programmes have been put inplace to encourage Community Based Fisheries Management Programmes. In bothcases they are still at the pilot stage – in Bangladesh working on a number of largebeels (permanent water bodies) whilst in Malawi the programme has been introducedto all the lakes except Malawi (which has the greatest concentration of fishermen andgenerates the largest catch). In Mauritania, the government aims to improve thereturn of fishery resource rent to the domestic economy, increasing added value andmaximising local employment and qualifications. It is expected that artisanalfisheries will expand and be a major lever to realise those objectives. Newfoundland(Canada) on the other hand has always recognised the intimate link between thecommunity and the fishery and indeed has spent many billions of dollars onsupporting communities during times of crisis (such as the moratorium on fishing putin place in the 1970s and the most recent moratorium begun in the 1990s). Whilstsuch efforts have indeed maintained communities and allowed fishermen to continueto fish it is arguable that these efforts have been some what counterproductive in sofar as any natural contraction of the fishing community has not taken place.

Option on how to manage fisheries – particularly from an economic perspective varyacross the studies. In the Pacific Islands it is acknowledged that access fees currently

C-24

charged (at around 5% of the rate of return) are comparatively low and couldconceivably be higher. Yet, such a decision entails consequences of foreign fleetsfishing elsewhere and the islands losing valuable revenue (example of Japan nolonger fishing the EEZ of PNG). The same dilemma is faced when deciding whetheror not to forego revenue from outside in a bid to generate income within the islandsby encouraging more local engagement with the fishery (the case of the PacificIslands).Morocco chose to end fishing agreements with the EU in 1999. The lastagreement provided 355 million euros over four years as ‘fishery rent’, plus 145millions of euros for research and management. The government now facesimportant difficulties to recover fishery rents from national operators partly becauseadequate management mechanisms were not in place at the time of the change, andpartly because what the EU paid was a subsidy not rent. The author of theNewfoundland study highlights the problems faced when government has to chosebetween supporting the livelihoods of one of the poorest sectors of society and takingsome radical decisions in order to revitalise the industry in the long-run. In this case,the option to drastically reduce the number of fishermen in order that the resourcerents generated were not dissipated across vast numbers (thereby lifting the mostefficient fishermen that remained in the fishery out of poverty without the use ofwelfare payments) was an opportunity missed according to the author. The need tomaintain political favour is a key explanatory variable in the failure of manygovernments to engage with the economic realities of their fisheries and this wouldappear to have played a part in such decisions in both Newfoundland and the PacificIslands. This perhaps also explains why despite the dependence of the Malawianpopulation on fish for nutritional needs and the fact that the sector is, apparently,underutilised, mining was chosen as the possible partner to agriculture in the drive toimprove long-term growth rates. Mining has a potentially greater return in the shortterm and offers export opportunities which the fisheries sector does not. Bangladeshhas chosen to focus attention on the expansion of enhanced fisheries inland ratherthan marine fisheries (which still form a tiny percentage of over all production).Whilst it has engaged with the difficulties of capturing resource rent from valuableinland fisheries it has consistently failed to do this without impoverishing millions –wealth from fisheries remains in the hands of the few. Thailand has also focusedattention on the commercial sector whereas it is the small-scale marine sector that issuffering most from marine degradation in the Gulf of Thailand yet policy stillfocuses on increasing production rather than distributing the resources more evenly.Similarly Indian decisions on where to focus policy efforts have been frustrated bythe lack of cross-sectoral links and policy coherence- increasing productioncontinues to the be predominant paradigm.

Despite the considerable contribution made to the fishing sector by small-scalefishers and the likelihood that such fishers will be poorer than their largercounterparts, evidence of direct linkages between poverty and fisheries are few andfar between. The Pacific Islands case study acknowledges that revenue from tunaplants, tuna exports and access fees provide substantial budgetary support to most ofthe islands in the region, yet, such monies have never been specifically targeted attackling poverty. It does, however, acknowledge that investment in infrastructure andservices is improving the livelihoods of those in the more remote islands and nodoubt supports welfare issues on the larger islands. This, of course, begs the question

C-25

of how much better off the islanders would be if they were able to capture more ofthe resource rent through higher access fees. In Malawi fisheries was quite noticeablyignored in the Economic Growth Strategy, yet efforts by the government to manageand control the lake fisheries would appear to be working towards conserving theresource for more efficient use by the local population.

A key problem in using fisheries to contribute towards poverty alleviation is the lackof data to support or measure such moves. In all case studies (except that fromNewfoundland) the lack of good data was highlighted. In some cases basic data onlevels of resource rent are unknown (Malawi); discrepancies on how poverty mightbe measured still abound (example of the Pacific Islands); lack of technical capacityto use such data was highlighted in a number of countries also.

Institutional problems were highlighted across all the case studies. Bangladesh andIndia both suffer from vast bureaucracies managing fisheries with little coordinationbetween departments. This problem is particularly acute in Bangladesh where themanagement of water and fisheries are closely interlinked. In Malawi weakinstitutions were cited for the persistence of poverty in the country despite numerousprogrammes to try and alleviate the problem. Data collection problems in the Pacifichighlighted the lack of institutional capacity particularly where fisheries departmentson islands are often very small.

Finally it is worth noting the evidence from government policy that efforts are indeedbeing made to address the problems of poverty in the fisheries sector. Fisheries areslowly being incorporated in the national PRSPs and, although increasing productionremains the chief goal of many national fisheries policy plans, the gradual emergenceof social/community aspects of fisheries management would suggest that issues ofaccess, entitlement and retention of benefits will also be addressed across thosefisheries reviewed.