DRAFT FOR INTERNAL DISCUSSION ONLY
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND
SMALL SCALE FISHERIES:
PERSPECTIVES ON METRICS
Arunkumar Abraham
07 November 2012
Draft for internal discussion only
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Appendices..............................................................................................................................i
List of Figures.................................................................................................................................... ii
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... iii
Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................... ix
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
2.
Vulnerability and Risk in Fisheries Management .................................................................... 3
3.
Convergence Between Sustainable Livelihoods and Small Scale Fisheries ............................. 4
4.
Performance Metrics ............................................................................................................. 11
5.
Sustainable Livelihoods Indicators ........................................................................................ 15
6.
Fish intake and Nutritional Status Indicators ........................................................................ 17
7.
Conclusions: A Way Forward ................................................................................................ 21
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I: Perspectives on Marine Protected Areas .................................................................. 27
Appendix II: From Single Species Models to Integrated Approaches........................................... 31
Appendix III: Sustainable Fisheries Indicators .............................................................................. 33
Cover photo: Packaging dried rabbitfish on Bantayan Island, Cebu, Philippines
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
i
Draft for discussion only
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Some characteristics of approaches to small-scale fishery development ...................... 4
Figure 2. Livelihoods Framework for Fisheries ............................................................................... 8
Figure 3. A Theory of Change for Livelihoods and Human Well-being........................................... 9
Figure 4. Detailed Theory of Change for Livelihoods and Human Well-being ............................. 10
Figure 5. Sample indicators and methods of measurement for sustainable livelihoods in
small scale fisheries ..................................................................................................... 16
Figure 6. Pathways to nutritional status in small scale fisher households ................................... 18
Figure 7. Some indicators and methods of measurement for nutrition and community
health .......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 8. Possible outputs and high level objectives for sustainable livelihoods initiative.......... 22
Figure 9. Some performance parameters for a sustainable alternative livelihoods initiative ..... 25
Figure 10. MPA MEAT process...................................................................................................... 30
ii
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
While there have been some labor productivity advances in many fisheries, at the “aggregate
global level” the inability of resources to sustain these conditions, combined with open access
conditions have prevented an increase in average labor productivity in the world’s capture
fisheries. Overall, productivity has diminished significantly due to a shrinking resource base and
a increasing number of fishers. Concurrently, rapidly increasing demand for fish has accelerated
the fishing effort, driven by globalization of markets. About 37% of global fish production is
traded internationally, accounting for up to 13% of global annual agricultural trade. Benefits
have been overshadowed by the continuous overexploitation due to poor fisheries governance and
management.
Over the past few decades efforts in fisheries management have been integrated with other
agendas — notably poverty alleviation, livelihoods development and climate change. Many
development efforts have focussed on small scale fisheries in an effort to improve the socioeconomic conditions of fishing communities in lower income areas. If fishers are “the poorest of
the poor” then it suggests that they face additional constraints specific to the sector that make
their living conditions and socioeconomic status worse than that of the other rural dwellers.
Moreover, fishing communities might not be “economically” (in the income-poverty sense) worse
off than other rural communities but it is conceivable that they suffer from higher vulnerability.
Experience suggests that for the large majority of households involved in fishing activities (fulltime, temporary or occasional fishers) in developing countries, fishing and related activities do
not generate high economic returns but instead help them to sustain their livelihoods and “prevent
them from falling deeper into deprivation”. Vulnerability, risk, resilience and sustainability are
inherent elements of fisheries management for stakeholders around the world. Fishing
communities are particularly vulnerable to risks and hazards that are natural, technological,
social, political and economic.
A number of reports suggest that coastal small-scale fisheries play a key role with respect to
addressing important development issues such as poverty alleviation, food security and pro-poor
growth. However, given data limitations, this is not always an easy analysis to attempt. How can
we accurately determine how many people depend directly or indirectly on fish for their
livelihood? Are the indicators developed for this purpose sufficiently well designed?
A FAO study cited in the main report, demonstrates that food security mechanisms, both direct
and indirect, can have a multiplier effect on income and employment, and that fisheries and
related activities such as processing and trade can help dependent households significantly. For
the households with limited or no access to land or other factors of production (e.g., access to
financial capital), small-scale fisheries, processing and trading are very important role in
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
iii
Draft for discussion only
“supplementing alternative low per capita food production options and in providing one — or
even the main — source of cash income”.
In this connection, the DFID sustainable livelihoods framework (SLF) identifies factors which
have an “impact on livelihood strategies and outcomes” including the inter-linkages between
these factors. A high level Theory of Change developed by Rare and Oceana, provides various
qualified assumptions for each asset category which are based on empirical research. The causal
linkages are provided in the illustration below, and provide a useful framework for the design of a
sustainable livelihood initiative.
iv
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
Capacity
Education and capacity-building at the community level leads to increased
knowledge and skills relevant to resource management, governance, and
environmental awareness.
Investment
Financial investments at the industrial and local levels leads to expanded access
to financial capital for local individuals, households and businesses.
Constituency
Social marketing, community organization, and fishery co-management lead to
strengthened social networks and cooperation, improvements in community
cohesion, trust and reciprocity, increased public participation in the governance
process, and more consistent social safety nets. All of these coalesce to promote
greater social resilience to climate impacts and other exogenous shocks.
Policy
Policy reform and legal transformation at the national, regional and local scales
leads to improved governance and enforcement, as well as greater public access
to the governance process.
Conservation
Rights-based fisheries management, protected areas, and sustainable fishing
practices lead to healthier marine ecosystems, fewer threats to biodiversity,
increased reef resilience, and enhanced provisioning of marine ecosystem
services. All of these coalesce to promote greater ecological resilience to climate
impacts and other exogenous shocks.
Human Well-being
Healthier ecosystems and improved provisioning of marine ecosystem services
leads to greater abundance of marine-based nutritional sources and incomegenerating activities. Over time, consistent and sustainable supply of fishery
resources leads to greater food and livelihood security, a critical component of
social resilience.
Objectives and Measures
When put into practical applications, these models often have performance measurement
indicators, quantitative and qualitative, associated with each key result/output, outcome or longer
term impacts. This facilitates tracking, monitoring, reporting and validation that an intervention
will achieve what it states it is going to achieve. The available literature and case materials
provide considerable guidance on indicator development in a range of interrelated fields,
including a) Governance, b) Biodiversity conservation, c) Sustainable fisheries, d) Sustainable
livelihoods, and e) Nutritional status and community health. It is important to note that
performance metrics and methods of measurement need to be customized, through a range of
participatory and third party techniques, to suit the particular combination of social, economic,
physical, human, financial or natural assets that are being addressed.
A proposed way forward would need to consider building on existing capacity, relationships and
knowledge. It is recommended that a pilot scale project be designed and implemented.
Importantly, it will need to be focused on a specific, targeting client/beneficiary group or groups.
An overarching vision, or goal, could be to “create sustainable livelihood opportunities for
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
v
Draft for discussion only
resource poor, marginalized, small scale fishers and fisher households”. Some possible outputs
and high level objectives for such an initiative are presented below:
Possible Outputs
High Level Objectives
Political Capital: Governance
mechanisms for sustainable
utilization of fishery resources
Principles of governance, such as functionality, transparency,
accountability and public participation are operational for local
government, community, fishers and other key stakeholder groups
with respect to managing resources.
Beneficiaries (fishers and fishing households) as well as outlying
community and other local stakeholders have the tools, instruments
and resources to engage in livelihood activities, confident in their
ability to assess, prevent, mitigate or adapt to various hazards, and
manage attendant risks.
Local and national institutions such as people’s organizations (POs),
fishery-based cooperatives, non-government organizations,
government agencies are able to provide support services for fishers
and other actors in the value chain through improved infrastructure
and facilities, development of better fishing techniques, new fish
products and processes, marketing and distribution capabilities,
knowledge, skills and resources to engage in profitable enterprise.
Enabling policy and governance framework attracts additional public
and private sector investments and creates opportunities for
alternative livelihood and income opportunities for fishing
households. Capacity-building and training from various service
providers allow fishers to acquire and apply new knowledge and
skills.
Financial institutions, especially those in microfinance, gain
understanding of needs of fisher communities, and develop
appropriate products (credit, insurance, savings) to assist fishers,
processors, service providers, marketing and distribution entities in
optimizing their economic performance and permit enterprise
formation.
Fishing households, especially women and children have improved
nutrition status through increased protein intake and diversification
in diet to include essential food groups.
Multimedia and other approaches help fishers, fisheries support
institutions and other stakeholders establish “communities of
practice”, access knowledge and information relevant to best
practices in sustainable livelihood development.
Social and Human Capital:
Increased resilience of fisher
communities to respond and
adapt to various hazards, risks
and vulnerabilities
Physical Capital: Strengthened
support institutions and
improved capacity for post
harvest handling for fishers
Financial Capital: Diversified
sources of income for fishing
households
Financial Capital: Better
access to finance for actors in
the fishery supply chain
(financial capital)
Human Capital: Improved
nutrition and health status for
fishing households
Social Capital: Better access to
knowledge and information to
enable livelihood development
The process of designing a sustainable livelihood initiative will require stakeholder consultations,
partnership development, identifying financial and human resource requirements, applying
different kinds of assessments and appraisals, primary and secondary research techniques, and
formulation of baseline information. This would further flow into refinement of performance
parameters (see below), and development of a full project-style document with associated budget
or investment requirement.
vi
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
Possible Outputs
Some Performance Parameters
Political Capital:
Governance mechanisms
for sustainable utilization of
fishery resources
 Policies, legal instruments, orders and ordinances passed with
implementing rules and regulations in place
 Instruments institutionalized and operational
 Management plans developed and legitimized
Social and Human
Capital: Increased
resilience of fisher
communities to respond and
adapt to various hazards,
risks and vulnerabilities
 Risk and vulnerability assessments conducted
Physical Capital:
Strengthened support
institutions and improved
capacity for post harvest
handling for fishers
 Improved technology and infrastructure related to fishing (boats, gear),
landing, post-harvest handling (e.g., clean water, ice-making and storage,
transport and logistics)
 Risk reduction and management plans developed, legitimized and
implemented
 Resilience of fisher communities enhanced
 Support institutions (e.g., cooperatives, NGOs, LGUs) develop and
implement capacity building and training programs for fisher
constituents
 Fishers and other actors in supply chain trained in post harvest handling
and related techniques
 New fishery-based products and processes developed, packaged and
marketed
Financial Capital:
Diversified sources of
income for fishing
households
 Investments by support institutions, local governments and private sector
catalyze new opportunities for fishing communities (e.g., ecotourism,
small scale agriculture/aquaculture, seaweed farming, etc.)
 Fishers and fisher households trained in new skills and reduce reliance
on fishery-based income and develop new, sustainable sources of income
 Fishing effort reduced
Financial Capital: Better
access to finance for actors
in the fishery supply chain
 Micro finance institutions develop/customize products and access for
fishers and fisher households (e.g., mobile banking facilities)
 Support institutions and other intermediaries manage and collateralize
risk associated with micro financing
 Fishers and households trained in financial literacy, business
management and other skills
 Micro capital flows to fishers based on specific proposals
 Micro enterprises established to advance alternative livelihood initiatives
Human Capital: Improved
nutrition and health status
 Protein intake increased, especially for women and children
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
vii
Draft for discussion only
Possible Outputs
Some Performance Parameters
for fishing households
 Fishers and households diversify sources of nutrition to include all
essential food groups
 Fishers and households have better access to health care services
Social Capital: Better
access to knowledge and
information to enable
livelihood development
 Knowledge management strategy using multimedia tools and methods
developed (e.g., use of radio, social media, print, etc.)
 Knowledge products focusing on best practices developed and
disseminated
 Communities mobilized and new adoption of new knowledge
accelerated and scaled up/replicated to other communities
The above recommendations are specific to the Philippines, where initial steps have been taken,
some models are in place, absorptive capacity exists and levels of interest are reasonably high.
This should not preclude, however, similar initiatives being launched in other countries based on
emerging lessons learned. In the framing a ‘pilot’ initiative it will be essential to ensure that this
a. Adopts inclusive approaches
b. Builds on existing body of knowledge and experience
c. Complements conservation objectives and existing organizational competencies. (the
Appendices provide more information on the linkages to threat reduction in biodiversity)
d. Permits scalability and replication of process to reach a wider set of beneficiaries
e. Integrates learning processes, and offers opportunity to be associated with
complementary initiatives such as financing strategy that targets commercial/industrial
fishery (e.g., EKO), or specific governance or advocacy campaigns (e.g., Oceana), and
f.
viii
Addresses financial and technical sustainability concerns.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
ACRONYMS
ADB
BES
CRM
CTI
DDS
DFID
EAFM
EBFM
FAO
FARMC
F-TAP
GDP
ICMBio
IFAD
JICA
LBP
LRP
M&E
MEAT
METT
MEY
MF
MMA
MPA
MSY
NGO
NIPAS
PBSP
R2R
SLF
TKSI
TRP
TURFS
TWG
USAID
-
Asian Development Bank
Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services
Coastal Resource Management
Coral Triangle Initiative
Dietary Deficiency Score
Department for International Development
Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management
Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management
Food and Agricultural Organization
Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council
Functionality-Transparency, Accountability and Public Participation
Gross Domestic Product
Brazil’s Federal Biodiversity Conservation Agency
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Land Bank of the Philippines
Limit Reference Point
Monitoring and Evaluation
Management Effectiveness Assessment Tool
Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
Maximum Economic Yield
Microfinance
Marine Managed Areas
Marine Protected Area
Maximum Sustainable Yield
Non-Government Organization
National Integrated Protected Area Management System
Philippine Business for Social Progress
Ridge-to-Reef
Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
Taytay sa Kauswagan, Inc.
Target Reference Point
Territorial User Rights for Fisheries
Technical Working Group
United States Agency for International Development
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
ix
Draft for discussion only
x
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES:
PERSPECTIVES ON METRICS
Arunkumar Abraham
07 November 2012
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
Economic losses from the global capture fisheries are estimated to be about USD 50 billion
per annum, with cumulative estimated losses of about USD 2 trillion over the past thirty
years. “The losses represent the difference between the potential and actual net economic
benefits from global marine fisheries.” The crisis in fisheries is largely seen as a “fish
issue” and not as a fundamental economic issue.1 Through improved governance measures
and systematic fisheries reform it is possible to recover a good part of this loss, strengthen
sustainable livelihood initiatives and economic growth and reduce the net negative impact
on global marine biodiversity.
1.2
According to the World Bank and FAO, the average reported harvest per capture fisher has
declined by 42 percent, from over 5 tons yearly in 1970 to 3.1 tons in 2000. Noteworthy,
is the average output per fisher in the context of the fast-paced technological advancements
in global capture fisheries that have taken place during this period. These include largescale motorization of traditional small-scale fisheries, the expansion of active fishing,
techniques such as trawling and purse seining, the use of sophisticated fish-finding and
navigation equipment, and the modern means of communication. While there have been
some labor productivity advances in many fisheries, at the “aggregate global level” the
inability of resources to sustain these conditions, combined with open access conditions
have prevented an increase in average labor productivity in the world’s capture fisheries.
Overall, productivity has diminished significantly due to a shrinking resource base and a
increasing number of fishers. Concurrently, rapidly increasing demand for fish has
accelerated the fishing effort, driven by globalization of markets. About 37% of global
fish production is traded internationally, accounting for up to 13% of global annual
agricultural trade. Benefits have been overshadowed by the continuous overexploitation
due to poor fisheries governance and management.2
1.3
“Bycatch” or the unintended capture of non-target species is also one of the greatest threats
to fisheries management. Each year countless numbers of dolphins, marine turtles,
seabirds, sharks, juvenile fish, fish with little commercial value, corals, starfish, and then
discarded dead or dying back into the ocean. Over and above the biodiversity loss, this
practice is a major waste of time, effort and hundreds of millions of dollars in damaged
gear and inefficient fishing methods.3 Bycatch has historically not been given much
attention by managers unless the species involved were commercially significant. Also
associated with indiscriminate trawling techniques is “bykill” or the unseen destruction of
1
Arnason, R., Keller, K. The Sunken Billions: Economic Justification for Fisheries Reform. World Bank: Washington,
DC, 2009, p. 19.
2 Ibid.
3 http://www.smartgear.org/smartgear_bycatch/
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
1
Draft for discussion only
habitats and species that are never brought to surface; fishes, shellfish, sponges, corals get
smashed, damaged, pulverized by destructive techniques. Bycatch and bykill have largely
been considered as “collateral damage in pursuit of protein”.4
1.4
The pursuit of solutions to the so-called ‘tragedy of the commons’ has been very
precarious, with mixed results at best. Over the past few decades efforts in fisheries
management have been integrated with other agendas — notably poverty alleviation,
livelihoods development and climate change. Many development efforts have focussed on
small scale fisheries in an effort to improve the socio-economic conditions of fishing
communities in lower income areas. If fishers are “the poorest of the poor” then it suggests
that they face additional constraints specific to the sector that make their living conditions
and socioeconomic status worse than that of the other rural dwellers. Moreover, fishing
communities might not be “economically” (in the income-poverty sense) worse off than
other rural communities but it is conceivable that they suffer from higher vulnerability.
1.5
It is likely that for a majority, fishers will oscillate between periods where they manage to
generate some wealth, or even accumulate capital through their involvement in fisheries,
and period where they will just manage to support their family’s needs. For fishers, the
frontier between poverty reduction and poverty prevention is therefore fuzzy and shifts
over time. Although small-scale fisheries may contribute to poverty reduction and create
substantial income for households involved in fishing, it should be recognized that the
most effective contribution of small-scale fisheries would be to poverty prevention — at
least in terms of number of people concerned. Experience suggests that for the large
majority of households involved in fishing activities (full-time, temporary or occasional
fishers) in developing countries, fishing and related activities do not generate high
economic returns but instead help them to sustain their livelihoods and “prevent them from
falling deeper into deprivation”.5
1.6
The main focus of discussion is on outlining the relationships between fisheries
interventions and local livelihoods, and on identifying indicators to be used in performance
measurement, within a logical causal chain. It is clear that indicators and sets of indicators
need to be developed and customized to align with the overarching objectives of a
program-related investment. This paper discusses various sets of indicators in the context
of sustainable fisheries, but focuses more specifically on proposed activity sets in
sustainable livelihoods and relevant metrics in the small scale fisheries sector. The
discussion also operates under these assumptions:
a. There may be limitations on fisheries effort through different forms of user/property
rights, closures of fisheries to certain segments of the industry, or reduced fishing
effort on the part small scale, artisanal fishers which comprise the poor and vulnerable
segments of coastal populations
b. There may be interventions that offer other livelihoods options to poor and vulnerable
populations, which will divert pressures away from the fishery resources, or be part of
a larger management framework that seeks to increase abundance of fish and fishery
resources.
4
5
2
Roberts, Callum. The Unnatural History of the Sea. Octopus Publishing Ltd: London, 2007. p. 349.
Bene, Christopher. Small Scale Fisheries: Assessing Their Contribution to Rural Livelihoods in Developing Countries.
FAO Fisheries Circular No 1008. Rome: 2006.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
2. VULNERABILITY AND RISK IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
2.1
The literature on vulnerability distinguishes it from poverty. Vulnerability refers to
“exposure to contingencies and stress, and difficulty in coping with them”.6 Vulnerability
is therefore different from poverty, although the concepts can be inextricably linked, as it is
often argued that vulnerabilities are inherent elements of being poor. It is also important to
consider that “poverty can be measured in absolute terms, and vulnerability only in relative
ones.”7
2.2
Vulnerability, risk, resilience and sustainability are inherent elements of fisheries
management for stakeholders around the world. Fishing communities are particularly
vulnerable to risks and hazards that are natural, technological, social, political and
economic. The literature is well developed in this field, with increasing attention due to
enhanced risk exposure from climate change.
2.3
Fishing communities experience high occupational risk, because they stand the risk of
losing their entire productive capital each time they go to work. Fishing is, by its very
nature an “unpredictable activity”, and while the links between capital investment and
returns to investment in fisheries may be calculable, the relationship is particularly
uncertain and variable in small-scale fisheries both in the short and longer terms. The
revenues that fishers earn from their trade goes beyond the number of nets or the time spent
at sea. It is shaped by “exogenous factors, and in particular the availability/ catchability of
the resource” — which can change on daily, monthly, seasonal and annual basis. This lack
of certainty distinguishes fisheries from most other rural farming activities.8
2.4
This risk dimension also includes high exposure to natural disasters (e.g., floods,
typhoons), although this is not specific to small-scale fishers only, high exposure to
changes in macro-economic factors (e.g., fuel and input price, fish prices, etc.), high
exposure to conflicts with other users (including industrial fishing fleets), gender-related
vulnerability and recently, high exposure to disease.
2.5
There are a number of available tools to assess different types of risk, hazards and
vulnerability. There are also a number of parallel initiatives that seek to build biophysical, 9
social,10 economic,11 and ecological 12 resilience.
6
Chambers, Robert. 1989. Editorial Introduction: Vulnerability, Coping, and Policy. IDS Bulletin. 20 (2):1-7.
Rockefeller Foundation. “Definitions of Poor and Vulnerable” (internal) New York: n.d.
8 Bene, op cit. p.11.
9 http://www.reefresilience.org/
10
Fauzi, Ahmad., Anna, Zuzy. “Social resilience and uncertainties: The Case of Small-scale Fishing Households in the
North Coast of Central Java” MAST 2010, 9(2):55-64
11 Marschke, M. J., and F. Berkes. 2006. Exploring strategies that build livelihood resilience: a case from
Cambodia. Ecology and Society 11(1): 42. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art42/
12http://unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_work_programme/knowledge_resources_and_publications/items/5340.php
7
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
3
Draft for discussion only
3. CONVERGENCE BETWEEN SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS
AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
3.1
A number of reports suggest that coastal small-scale fisheries play a key role with respect
to addressing important development issues such as poverty alleviation, food security and
pro-poor growth. However, given data limitations, this is not always an easy analysis to
attempt. How can we accurately determine how many people depend directly or indirectly
on fish for their livelihood? Are the indicators developed for this purpose sufficiently well
designed? At what social and economic levels are the analyses carried out? It is also
important to note that the relative contribution of small scale fisheries to GDP will vary by
country.
Some characteristics of approaches to small-scale fishery development









Use labor intensive harvesting, processing and distribution techniques
Level of effort can be full time, part time or seasonal
Target supply of fish and fishery products to local and domestic markets
Subsistence consumption, but some export orientation due to globalization and market integration
Gender divisions: men typically fish, and women process and marketing/distribution, with some
near shore harvesting
Ancillary activities such as net making, boat construction and repair, engine repair and maintenance,
packaging
Organization range from self employed/informal sector, microenterprise, formal business,
cooperatives (not homogenous)
Operate in near shore, target multiple species and use relatively simple gears and techniques (nonmechanized boasts, low horsepower outboard/inboard), passive methods (manually operated gear,
no electronic devices for search and navigation)
Returns to investment uncertain and variable
Photo: USAID/EcoGov
Source: Bene, 2006
Figure 1. Some characteristics of approaches to small-scale fishery development
4
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
3.2
At the household or community (municipal/city or province) levels, tangible outcomes are
likely to be derived from livelihoods support if the fisheries are important to that particular
bio-geographic area. A FAO study demonstrates that food security mechanisms, both
direct and indirect, can have a multiplier effect on income and employment, and that
fisheries and related activities such as processing and trade can help dependent households
significantly. For the households with limited or no access to land or other factors of
production (e.g., access to financial capital), small-scale fisheries, processing and trading
are very important role in “supplementing alternative low per capita food production
options and in providing one — or even the main — source of cash income”.13
3.3
The FAO study underscored the need to strengthen the understanding of linkages between
small scale fisheries development and many of the other factors that are now emerging in
and analysis of biodiversity and ecosystems services (BES).
3.4
One example of the complexities of trying to advance solutions is documented by Nandan
in Kerala, India. The central premise for declining livelihoods in the small scale fisheries
sector, was believed to be due to declining fish catches. Government efforts to catalyze the
industry were in the form of support for export-oriented fisheries. But in effect, due to their
high dependency on natural resources, poorer households were driven into deeper poverty
(food insecurity) when these resources are degraded. They did not have the assets to
available of credit, yet the households operating in the fish processing and distribution
segment, benefitted through increased income, leading to greater food security. This was
due, inter alia, to weak institutional arrangements regarding property rights, which limits
options of some households.14 Perhaps more important to note, is that the Government
intervention was actually misguided - by initiating a policy that would actually increase the
pressures on the fishery and surrounding ecosystem.
3.5
Addressing sustainable livelihoods needs to be viewed from the same integrated ecosystem
management approach as EBFM itself. An essential element of this is the systematic,
rigorous field-level analytical tool. The Department for International Development (DFID)
“Methods Manual for Fieldwork”, for example, sets out methods to examine livelihoods of
artisanal fishing households in low income countries. The methodology is participatory,
and seeks to strike a balance between “cost, feasibility, statistical representation and
defensibility.”
3.6
The purpose of the field work is to gain an accurate understanding of the institutional
context, the livelihood patterns and strategies of individuals and households, and factors
that might influence choices and options, and how these might change over time.15 A
perfect example of how fishing households develop coping, or adaptive strategies would be
the conscious efforts of families to send a member to work overseas, either as a fisher in
the Middle East, in the construction industry, or as a seafarer or domestic helper.
Remittances sent back to the households can be used to either invest in technology to
improve the fishing effort (e.g., outboard motor, better gear) or to diversify into other
income-generating activities (e.g., small merchant operations).
13
Bene, Christopher. Small Scale Fisheries: Assessing Their Contribution to Rural Livelihoods in Developing Countries.
FAO Fisheries Circular No 1008. Rome: 2006.
14
Divakarannair, Nandakumar. “Livelihood Assets and Survival Strategies in Coastal Communities in Kerala, India”.
PhD Dissertation. Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Canada. 2007
15
DFID Fisheries Science Management Programme. “Sustainable Livelihoods from Fluctuating Fisheries. Annex 3:
Manual for Fieldwork”. R7336, n.d.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
5
Draft for discussion only
3.7
In this connection, support for strengthening effective management of marine protected
areas (MPA) is growing. The MPA or MPA network serves as the biophysical and
intellectual convergence point for efforts to promote livelihood development and improve
the fishery, among others. For purposes of clarifications, in the literature on biodiversity,
lexicon related to “marine protected areas” (MPA) is wide-ranging. Such terminology as
“marine sanctuaries”, “marine reserves”, “marine managed areas” (MMAs), “marine
natural parks”, “ marine national parks”, have been used to describe conservation areas that
are broadly similar, but differ in scope, scale and management approach. In some cases,
MPAs are defined in primarily in the context of fisheries development and spatial
management16, and in others, MPAs have taken multidimensional, multisectoral and
multinational characteristics.17
3.8
For purposes of this discussion, the IUCN definition should be considered. The IUCN
defines a protected area as:
“A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed,
through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of
nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.”
MPAs can exist as relatively small sites, each strictly protected on an individual site-basis,
or as a number of larger multiple-use areas within which protected areas exist and are
strictly protected. In order to quality as a bona fide MPA, there must be an effective
programme of ecosystem management covering the marine ecosystem and the land areas
that are influenced by it.18 A MPA, which may contain designated “no take zones”, is one
type of resource management approach that can co-exist with other forms of property or
territorial user rights for fisheries (TURFS).
3.9
A number of case studies document these benefits derived from well managed MPAs in
selected parts of South East Asia and the Pacific Islands:19,20,21
a. Fish abundance and catch increased: Fish can be “spilling over” from the no-fishing
zone areas, and improved fish catches contribute to poverty reduction many sites.
Local fishers report improved catches and less effort.
b. Fish size and biomass increased: The average size of some species of fish is
noticeably larger, as juveniles are able to grow out to adulthood. Data indicate fish
biomass increases in MPAs after 3-5 years, while fish biomass outside the MPAs show
decreasing trends.
16
Sanders, J. Greboval, D., Hjort, A. Marine Protected Areas: Country Case Studies on Policy, Governance and
Institutional Issues. Brazil, India, Palau, Senegal. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Technical Paper 556/1,
Rome 2011.
17 ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity. Protected Areas Gap Analysis for the ASEAN Region. Los Baños, Philippines: 2010.
Also refer to unpublished leaflet on “ASEAN Criteria for National Marine Protected Areas” (nd)
18 http://depts.washington.edu/mpanews/MPA102.pdf
19 Leisher, Craig; van Buekering, Pieter; Sherl, Lea M. Nature’s Investment Bank: How Marine Protected Areas
Contribute to Poverty Reduction. The Nature Conservancy, AUSAID. n.d.
20
EcoGov Project. 2011. Lessons from the Philippines: Achieving Synergies through Marine Protected Area
Networks. Philippine Environmental Governance Project (EcoGov), Pasig City, Philippines.
21
Samonte G, Karrer L, Orbach M. 2010. People and Oceans. Science and Knowledge Division, Conservation
International,Arlington, Virginia, USA.
6
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
c. New jobs created in tourism sector: in some cases, fishers who switch to new
occupations in the tourist industry earn considerably higher incomes. Some alternative
livelihoods are risky and susceptible to market forces (e.g., commodity prices for
seaweed). Larger, capital-intensive investments in tourism are more likely to lead to
long-term gains in non-fishing income. In some cases, there could be diversified job
creation.
d. Better local governance: Improved governance processes, marked by functionality,
transparency, accountability and participation have the effect of increasing community
confidence and sense of stewardship over resources. A management body, new
regulations and ordinances (e.g., zoning schemes) support local initiatives, help to
mitigate user conflicts and serve as platform for continued dialogue. Traditional
fishing rights may receive greater recognition if stakeholders participate in MPA
design and implementation.
e. Community health improvement:. Greater fish catches lead to higher protein intake in
regular diets, and a perceived improvement in children’s health in particular. More
incomes permit increased investments in health-related and preventive care
expenditures at the household level. Local government investments other components
of ecosystem management, such as solid waste, septage treatment and waste water
management, led to reduced effluent flowing into the MPA. There is likely increase in
awareness of the importance of good sanitation practices.
f.
Benefits to women: MPAs help to empower women economically and in some cases
socially. Participation in community level resource management decisions have
increased commensurate with livelihood opportunities.
g. Improved social and economic resilience: Diversity in sources of income and
livelihood reduce exposure to economic downturns. In these circumstances, individuals
and households participate in making local institutions operation more effectively.
h. Faster adoption and replication of best practices: As capacity improves and initial
benefits are perceived, communities are confident to adopt changes in behaviour,
cooperative spirit is uplifted, and with improved popularity, politicians are more likely
to continue to encourage additional conservation and related infrastructure
investments, such as mangrove restoration or better public market.
3.10
With respect to livelihoods, among the most frequently cited is the DFID sustainable
livelihoods framework (SLF) which identifies factors which have an “impact on livelihood
strategies and outcomes” including the inter-linkages between these factors. Early models
were more linear and included “5 capitals”, while the most refined and comprehensive
version, presented below, acknowledges the importance of “political capital”. The
different forms of capital, complement the livelihood asset base. In this vein, the schema
below illustrates at a general level the relationship between the 6 livelihood assets (or
capitals) as articulated in the DFID framework and the improvement in fisheries
productivity and sustainability.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
7
Draft for discussion only
Figure 2. Livelihoods Framework for Fisheries
3.11
Taking the broad framework for livelihoods and fisheries a step further, the below diagram
depicts a theory of change for livelihoods and human well-being in the context of the 6
livelihood assets and of the planned partnership interventions at a general level. The
headings in the diagram above articulate the high-level pathway of the Rare, Oceana, and
EKO series of interventions: a combination of capacity- and constituency-building at the
local level, financial investment at multiple levels, and policy transformation to create the
enabling conditions for change. The corresponding description under each heading outlines
the multilevel contributions of this pathway to the livelihood assets as outlined in the
Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. The impact of such interventions on livelihoods and
human well-being is not purely a function of outcomes, but also of the processes designed
to achieve them — this is a product of the intrinsic complexity of the livelihoods and wellbeing concepts.
3.12
The nature of a high-level theory of change, developed by Rare and Oceana below, is
inherently reductionist, but the various assumptions for each asset category are outlined in
greater detail below. It is particularly important to note that this is an outline of
assumptions based on research and experience. Equally as important are the metrics and
processes that will be engaged to measure and, over the longer term, refine these numerous
assumptions.
8
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
Figure 3. A Theory of Change for Livelihoods and Human Well-being
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
9
Draft for discussion only
Capacity
Education and capacity-building at the community level leads to
increased knowledge and skills relevant to resource management,
governance, and environmental awareness.
Investment
Financial investments at the industrial and local levels leads to expanded
access to financial capital for local individuals, households and
businesses.
Constituency
Social marketing, community organization, and fishery co-management
lead to strengthened social networks and cooperation, improvements in
community cohesion, trust and reciprocity, increased public participation
in the governance process, and more consistent social safety nets. All of
these coalesce to promote greater social resilience to climate impacts
and other exogenous shocks.
Policy
Policy reform and legal transformation at the national, regional and local
scales leads to improved governance and enforcement, as well as greater
public access to the governance process.
Conservation
Rights-based fisheries management, protected areas, and sustainable
fishing practices leads to healthier marine ecosystems, less threats to
biodiversity, increased reef resilience, and enhanced provisioning of
marine ecosystem services. All of these coalesce to promote greater
ecological resilience to climate impacts and other exogenous shocks.
Human Well-being
Healthier ecosystems and improved provisioning of marine ecosystem
services leads to greater abundance of marine-based nutritional sources
and income-generating activities. Over time, consistent and sustainable
supply of fishery resources leads to greater food and livelihood security,
a critical component of social resilience.
Figure 4. Detailed Theory of Change for Livelihoods and Human Well-being
10
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
4. PERFORMANCE METRICS
4.1
The measurement of development initiatives and related
technical assistance has long been a concern for funding
agencies, scientists, managers, political leadership, and
increasingly for civil society at large. In this vein there are
a plethora of frameworks and graphic illustrations of
“results-based management” models - how activities will
lead to immediate results/outputs, medium term outcomes,
and have longer term impacts. All of these are useful in
their own right. These models often have performance
measurement indicators, both quantitative and qualitative,
associated with each key result/output, outcome or longer
term impacts. This facilitates tracking, monitoring,
reporting and validation that an intervention will achieve
what it states it is going to achieve.
What is an indicator?
An indicator can be defined
as the measurement of an
objective to be met, a
resource mobilised, an
effect obtained, a gauge of
quality or a context
variable. An indicator
should be made up by a
definition, a value and a
measurement unit
Governance and management indicators
4.2
In the biodiversity conservation space, the common top line metric is to place a defined
area, terrestrial, marine, or both, “under improved management”. In order for an area to be
under improved management, a minimal subset of the following pre-conditions should be
met:
a. There is a ‘legitimized’ management plan in place.
b. There is a functional, representative resource management organization that takes
stewardship of the plan.
c. The plan is supported by an annual budget for management of the area(s).
d. Good practices in law enforcement, M&E and sustainable financing are key
elements of plan implementation.
4.3
In the fisheries, coastal and marine sector, a typical management plan would include, but
not be limited to the following information:
a. Definition of the coastal and marine areas, including identification and
demarcation of the extent of coastal zones and land areas, local and national
government jurisdiction.
b. Biophysical data on the living and non-living resources within the territorial
jurisdiction. This would include species level fishery resources, and important
habitats and ecosystems such as mangroves, sea grasses and coral reefs.
c. Socio-economic and demographic information on the populations settled in the
defined areas.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
11
Draft for discussion only
d. Overview of policy framework, institutions and mechanisms in place to govern the
coastal and marine areas, including international and national laws, policies and
regulations and the roles of respective agencies, departments, units and other
stakeholders.
e. Summary of the roles of various stakeholders in conservation, protection and
management of living resources. This would focus on various instruments such as
privileges, permits, licences, ordinances and enforcement provisions designed to
ensure sustainable use of resources.
f.
Summary of the roles of various stakeholders in conservation, protection and
management of non-living resources. This would focus on land-based sources of
pollution (e.g., industrial and agricultural activity), sea-based sources of pollution
(e.g., vessel-generated) solid waste disposal, water and sanitation, mining and
quarrying among others, with legal options identified to address these concerns.
g. Definition and clarity of the roles and responsibilities of governing and regulatory
bodies in managing activities and dealing with issues that arise in coastal and
marine waters and lands. Such issues would include illegal settlements, building of
structures that are not within regulation or raise concerns related to public safety,
ownership and regulation of littoral and riparian areas, and processes for issuing
clearances, permits, tenurial instruments, etc.
h. Inventories and classifications of various coastal and marine species (e.g., rare,
threatened, endangered).
i.
Identification or any potential and real risks or hazards exposure, with proposed
risk assessment measures.
j.
Identification of any special or priority coastal and marine use areas or zones (e.g.,
co-management, mariculture, etc.).
k. Requirements for certificates or clearances for special purpose projects or
initiatives, and
l.
Enumeration of penalties and fees for specific legal violations.
The term “legitimized” would mean that the plan would need to be reviewed and endorsed
by a recognized legal authority, for example a municipal, provincial or regional body.
4.4
12
A functional, representative resource management organization could consist of a national
or local government unit, an inter-governmental alliance, a non-government agency, a
private sector corporation, or a mixed consortium of stakeholders. “Functionality” would
be a measure of the extent to which the resource management body embodies form and
structure and internalizes a set of rules, processes and procedures to obtain the overarching
objectives, results or products. There is a growing recognition of the importance of
governance in reducing threats to biodiversity. In addition to functionality, governance
requires the application of principles associated with transparency, accountability and
public participation (F-TAP).
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
4.5
Transparency would be a measure of the extent to which civil society is able to have access
to timely, accurate and complete operations of the resource management body.
Accountability is a measure of the extent to which resource managers are able to take
responsibility for their actions in relation to targets and standards. Public participation is a
measure of the extent to which the general public has opportunity to provide effective and
meaningful inputs into activities related to managing natural resources. In order for this to
happen, there should be mechanisms to ensure prior knowledge/timeliness and
accessibility. An illustration of how these elements connect and some ‘process indicators’
is provided below:22
Governance
Function
Law enforcement
Sample Process Indicators
Functionality
Transparency
Formulation and
updating of
ordinances
consistent with
national laws
Public posting of
proposed
ordinances or
amendments to
ordinances
Laws and
ordinance strictly
enforced and
violators punished
Public
consultations and
hearings
Logistical
requirements of
law enforcement
officers are met
Regular and
sufficient budget
allocations for law
enforcement
Training of law
enforcement
officers
4.6
22
Information,
education and
communications
activities to
support local
ordinance
enactment
Posting of law
enforcement
statistics
Accountability
Public Participation
Clarity in roles,
responsibilities and
powers of law
enforcers
Public consultations
and hearings (from
lowest political
unit)
M&E status of law
enforcement
Deputized law
enforcement
officers
Sanctions for
erring law
enforcement
officers
Rewards for good
performers
Multi-sector
collaboration
(government, civil
society, private
sector)
Incentives for
public participation
in law enforcement
Communications/
feedback protocols
(e.g., text brigades,
hot line numbers,
complaint boxes)
The process of establishing a management plan and implementing it is as important as the
plan itself. This is why a robust and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
system is a critical tool for implementation of an integrated fisheries/coastal resource
management plan. There are a number of existing governance-related capacity-building
tools for governance at the level of a local or national government agency, non-government
organization or corporation. Some of these are also applicable in specific sectors, and can
combine “self assessment”, third party assessment or joint assessment techniques.
Associated with these are “governance indices”, which are associated with different levels
of performance.
Adapted from EcoGov Project 2007. “Good Practices in Managing Coastal and Marine Resources”. Pasig City,
Philippines.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
13
Draft for discussion only
4.7
There are a number of different ways of establishing a “governance index”, which would
help internalize F-TAP enriched processes. The most effective tools are those that are
highly participatory (e.g., multi-stakeholder) and involve some form of ‘self-assessment’.
4.8
Effective governance, or political capital, will be important for effective policy
development and implementation, creating appropriate legal and institutional arrangements
for sustainable livelihoods in the fisheries sector.
14
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
5. SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS INDICATORS
5.1
As mentioned above, numerous sustainable livelihoods frameworks are in existence, each
with their own assumptions, approaches and indicators. The SLF has historically provided
value in the sense that it has served as an analytical tool for poverty alleviation initiatives,
helped understand the challenges and institutional dynamics, focussed on the ‘human’
element, fostered more multi-dimensional and collaborative approaches, and created
linkages at micro, meso and macro levels in the development dialogue. Bennett’s
relatively recent and thorough review of the SLF literature has identified a number of
challenges, outcomes, impacts and research themes in applied SLA in conservation
practice.23 It would be safe to posit from this work, that:
a. Initiatives that combine livelihood and conservation objectives will generate positive
outcomes if designed and implemented appropriately, and
b. Poverty reduction, improved community health, food security, fisheries livelihoods and
tourism development are among the areas where these outcomes can be realized.
5.2
Additional documentation on livelihood outcomes with corresponding indicators, are
elaborated by Kolmair and St. Gramper24, and Wattage25 to include:
a. increased income (indicator = more cash flow)
b. increased well-being (indicators = non material goods such as self-esteem, health
status, access to services, sense of inclusion)
c. reduced vulnerability (indicator = better resilience through increase in asset status)
d. improved food security (indicator = increase in financial capital in order to buy food)
e. more sustainable use of natural resources (indicator = appropriate property rights)
f. adoption of improved practices (indicator = knowledge and attitudes change)
g. improved productivity (indicator = better material inputs, higher prices for end
products), and
h. increased levels of fish consumption/nutrition.
5.3
A review of about 200 sustainable livelihood indicators by Schreckenberg et al, noted that
no indicators exist to describe political impacts at the household level. Intra-household
power relations relating to women’s rights, is “underrepresented” among the constellation
of indicators. In this vein, few indicators exist that relate to political impacts at the intracommunity level, perhaps because they are less tangible and more difficult to aggregate.26
23
Bennett, N. (2010). Sustainable Livelihoods from Theory to Conservation Practice: An Extended Annotated
Bibliography for Prospective Application of Livelihoods Thinking in Protected Area Community Research. Protected
Area and Poverty Reduction Alliance Working Paper No. 1. Victoria, Canada: MPARG (UVic); PAPR (VIU).
24 Kollmair, N., Gramper, St. “The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach” Input Paper for Integrated Training Course of
NCCR North-South, University of Zurich, July, 2002.
25 Wattage, Premachandra. 2009. Millenium Development Goals and aquaculture: indicators to evaluate the conservation
of the resource base for poverty reduction, pp. 59-72. In M.G. Bondad-Reantaso and M. Prein (eds). Measuring the
contribution of small-scale aquaculture: an assessment. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 534.
Rome, FAO.
26 Schreckenberg, K., Camargo, I., Withnall, K., Corrigan, C., Franks, P., Roe, D., Scherl, L. M. and Richardson, V.
(2010) Social Assessment of ConservationInitiatives: A review of rapid methodologies, Natural Resource Issues No.
22. IIED, London.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
15
Draft for discussion only
5.4
Figure 5 identifies some sample indicators and methods of measurement which can be
incorporated into a SLF framework.
Output
Quantitative
Indicator
Sustainable
Livelihoods
% increase in
employment (by
category)
% increase in
household income/
assets
% increase in
household non-cash
income
% increase in
consumption of core
goods and services
% increase in
consumption of noncore goods and
services
# of new jobs
created as results of
new investments
# of new products
and processes
developed as a
results of improved
efficiency in fishing
effort
# of new
opportunities
created through
investments that
diversify livelihoods
away from fisheries
dependence
# people trained in
various occupational
categories
Qualitative Indicator
Remuneration for wage/
fee based on contract.
Employment needs to be
defined (e.g., seasonal,
part time, casual, etc.)
Better quality assets, or
more essential assets;
non-essential assets
Increased non-income
assets through barter,
transfers, acquisition,
gifting, remittances
Consumption related to
housing, food and
transport
Consumption related to
education, health,
entertainment, clothing,
tobacco, alcohol,
insurance, investments
Formal and non-formal
education delivered in
such areas as
communications, tourism,
natural resources
management, business
administration, finance ,.,
to shift away from
fisheries
More involvement in
higher value added
activities in the supply
chain (e.g., fish
processing, product
development and
marketing)
Investment programs,
plans which qualify
opportunities
Methods of
Measurement
Government reports
and statistics
Participatory research
techniques that
capture baseline data
on assets and
consumption patterns
Human development
index, headcount
index (# of poor),
poverty index (ave
depth of poverty),
weighted poverty gap
index (inequality
among poor)
Human poverty index
(HPI) (capability index)
Net Primary
Production (NPP) is
ecological equivalent
of GDP)
Relative measure of
sustainability (RMS)
Policy analysis (e.g.,
land tenure patterns)
Comment
Asset analysis covers
two types - stores and
resources and claims
and access, in order to
determine which are
enhanced and which
erode over time
HPI measured against
life expectancy, literacy
levels and access to
health services, potable
water and % of
malnourished children
under 5
NPP linked to MSY and
carrying capacity
RMS addresses issues
of intergenerational
trade-offs
Consumption measures
need to consider the
composition of
consumption, as the
poor consume a
different bundle of
goods
Department of
Education and related
government bodies
Reports from NGOs,
donors or other
program related
investments
Destination
development plan, or
investment priority
plans of LGUs
Figure 5. Sample indicators and methods of measurement for sustainable livelihoods
in small scale fisheries
16
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
6. FISH INTAKE AND NUTRITIONAL STATUS INDICATORS
6.1
Fish, when consumed, provides animal protein, essential amino acids, fatty acids and
micronutrients, including vitamins D, A and B, essential minerals (e.g., calcium, iodine,
zinc, iron and selenium). With a few exceptions, fish is usually low in saturated fats,
carbohydrates and cholesterol. Even small quantities of fish can have positive nutritional
effects by providing these essential ingredients that are not readily available in vegetablebased diets. There is evidence of beneficial effects of fish consumption to address
coronary heart disease, stroke, age-related macular degeneration and mental health. Solid
evidence of benefits in terms of growth and development also exists, in particular for
women and children during gestation and infancy for optimal brain development of
children.27
6.2
Apart from direct dietary intake, fish can be marketed/sold, and thereby contribute to
household food security by increasing income which can be used to buy other food
products, including those lower cost staple foods. Seasonal availability of fish differs
from crop cycles, and therefore serves to extend food and income opportunities when
crop-based income is lean. As indicated in previous sections, aquaculture also plays a
role in direct nutrition and also cash-based income at the household level.
6.3
Households which are poor, have limited income for food consumption, and hence will
prioritize which goods they buy. These are likely to be basic items such as rice or corn,
while remaining income is used to purchase less expensive staples such as vegetables
(unless the household is also farming). While low income households are likely to
consume less fish than higher income households, fish still remain as an important source
of animal protein. Non-fish animal foods are often more expensive than fish. If
households are engaged in aquaculture, there is a tendency to sell fish for cash instead of
consumption. In effect, fish are still an important element for food security because of
the exchange value.
6.4
Market value of fish has a bearing on fish consumption patterns, as low income
households have limited purchasing power, they are likely to buy comparatively cheaper,
smaller fish species, which the higher income households would be more inclined to
purchase medium-sized species which are less bony and more tasteful. Households
practicing aquaculture are still more likely to buy indigenous species for daily
consumption and sell larger fish produced through fish farming. In the off season,
fermented or dried fish is consumed more frequently.
6.5
There is not much information on how fish is consumed within a household. Some
studies show a “consumption gap’, where a male head of household consumes high
amounts by weight than other family members, children included. Similarly if a single
fish is consumed, the male is more likely to consume the body of the fish. It is a strategy
for low income households to buy higher numbers of small fish, so that they can be
distributed to more equally among family members (although it may be likely that young
27
FAO. State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012. Rome: 2012, p.100.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
17
Draft for discussion only
boys will receive larger share than girls or adult women). National agencies do not
systematically capture data on fish consumption patterns of low income households,
which will required in order to address conditions related to under nourishment and
malnutrition.
Figure 6. Pathways to nutritional status in small scale fisher households
Source: Kawarazuka (2010)
6.6
18
The figure above illustrates the pathways by which fish will contribute to nutritional
status. The causal relationships of undernourishment are complex and influenced by a
range of factors. It is reasonable to assume, however, that small scale fisheries will
contribute to increased incomes in poor coastal community households, especially those
without significant land, or other assets. With the appropriate mix, communities can
engage in downstream value added activities such as trading, processing, packaging and
selling, which also creates opportunities for women’s participation and empowerment
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
through the cash income. Cash income, while helpful in addressing food insecurity, will
need to be sufficient in order to improve nutritional status.28
6.7
In terms of indicators, the following may be considered:
a. percentage of protein from fish in relation to total animal protein intake
b. percentage of household income which contributes directly to increase micronutrient
intake
c. percentage of household income which contributes indirectly to improve overall
dietary intake
d. dietary deficiency score (DDS) changes29
6.8
There are a number of proxy indicators relevant to nutritional status. These might include
such items as reduced visits to health care facility, reduced costs of health care, improved
school performance of children, among others.
6.9
In the nutrition field, assessments have been established that will help those with
associated problems. These assessments normally involve the use of a number of
different indicators, including biological, ecological and behavioural. These are
measured through a number of different laboratory, biochemical and functional
physiological protocols, as well as clinical investigations in severe cases.30
6.10
One study in confirms that: “there is a need to develop convenient, cost efficient
indicators that can measure changes in the micronutrient status of vulnerable
populations......... [A] simple count of food groups can be used to predict the probability
of adequate micronutrient intake in young non-breast-feeding Filipino children. Indices
that include additional information such as quantities of food consumed or total energy
intake should enhance the performance of the indicator. The decision about the level of
detail to incorporate into a survey will depend on the time available for data collection,
overall study budget, and purpose or objective for which the indicator will be used.”
(p.477) (Noticeably absent in some of the literature is reference to increasing plant-based
sources of protein.)
6.11
Figure 7 below provides information on indicators and some methods of measurement
related to nutrition and community health.
Kawarazuka N. (2010). “The contribution of fish intake, aquaculture, and small-scale fisheries to improving
nutrition: A literature review.” The WorldFish Center Working Paper No.2106. The WorldFish Center, Penang,
Malaysia. 44 pp.
29
Kennedy, Gina. Pedro, M.R., Seghieri, C., Nantel, Guy. Brouwer, I. “Dietary Diversity Score Is a Useful Indicator of
Micronutrient Intake in Non-Breast-Feeding Filipino Children” in The Journal of Nutrition. Community and
International Nutrition. 137: 472–477, 2007
30 Wasantwisut, E.U., Rosado, J.L., Gibson, R.S., “Nutritional Assessment: Methods for Selected Micronutrients and
Calcium”. The Role of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in Human Nutrition. Volume IV: Encyclopedia of
Life Support Systems. n.d.
28
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
19
Draft for discussion only
Output
Nutrition
and
Community
Health
Quantitative
Indicators
Qualitative
Indicators
Methods of
Measurement
% improvement
in water quality
Reduced
eutrophication
through nutrient
loading, reduced
incidence of algal
blooms, reduced
incidence of waterrelated disease
Water quality and
biological monitoring
Shift away from
single cereal-based
diets to consume
representative food
groups
Data provided by local
and national health
departments, and
private health care
institutions
% increase
dietary diversity
% increase in
protein intake
% decrease in
health care costs
Distance to
nearest health
care facility
Reduced rates of
morbidity from
diseases linked
to degrading
coastal
ecosystems
Better access to
hospitals, clinics and
health care advice
Poor families
consume more fish
as source of protein,
are able to afford
other animal
proteins and also
diversity with plantbased proteins
Studies on
micronutrient intake
Blood chemistry
monitoring
Comments
Degraded
ecosystems and
areas where
eutrophication
occurs, give rise to
harmful algal
blooms, cholera
and other threats
to human health.
Need to measure
dissolved oxygen,
turbidity,
nutrients,
temperature,
salinity, depth,
presence of HABs.
Bioaccumulation
of water pollutants
(heavy metals,
sewage) affects
community health
as chemicals enter
waterways and
eventuall
consumed
Figure 7. Some indicators and methods of measurement for nutrition and community
health
20
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
7. CONCLUSIONS: A WAY FORWARD
7.1
In summary, there is considerable scope to advance a sustainable livelihoods initiative in
the context of small scale fisheries, based on the following general logic:
a. Marine capture fisheries are declining due to a manifold set of threats, including
overfishing and habitat destruction
b. Demand for fish and fish products for human consumption and also for the
aquaculture/animal feed markets is increasing
c. Small scale fishers living in coastal communities are among the most vulnerable, due
to a number of factors, principal among which are their dependence on near shore
fisheries for their livelihood, and lack of alternative options and related skills/
opportunities
d. Vulnerability is exacerbated through exposure to hazards related to climate change,
such as sea level rise and increased storm frequency and intensity, coupled with large
industrial projects such as mining, land reclamation or port expansion/development,
and
e. Development of sustainable alternative livelihoods for resource-poor, small scale
fishers has been identified as a priority area in multilateral fora, various regional and
national plans of action, as well as at the local, community-levels.
7.2
In preparation to support a sustainable livelihoods initiative, the following design steps
should be considered:
a. Distinguish target “beneficiaries”. These would be the segment of the population that
would benefit directly from an intervention. The geographic location of beneficiary
groups could also be identifies, as well as any “secondary beneficiaries’ or other
actors in the development chain
b.
Articulate an overarching vision, such as “create sustainable livelihood
opportunities for resource poor, marginalized, small scale fishers and fisher
households”
c. Identify major outputs and outcomes. Some suggested outputs which correspond to
those in Figure 4 above, are provided below:
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
21
Draft for discussion only
Possible Outputs
High Level Objectives
Political Capital:
Governance mechanisms for
sustainable utilization of
fishery resources
Social and Human Capital:
Increased resilience of fisher
communities to respond and
adapt to various hazards,
risks and vulnerabilities
Physical Capital:
Strengthened support
institutions and improved
capacity for post harvest
Principles of governance, such as functionality, transparency,
accountability and public participation are operational for local
government, community, fishers and other key stakeholder groups with
respect to managing resources.
Beneficiaries (fishers and fishing households) as well as outlying
community and other local stakeholders have the tools, instruments and
resources to engage in livelihood activities, confident in their ability to
assess, prevent, mitigate or adapt to various hazards, and manage
attendant risks.
Local and national institutions such as people’s organizations (POs),
fishery-based cooperatives, non-government organizations, government
agencies are able to provide support services for fishers and other actors
in the value chain through improved infrastructure and facilities,
development of better fishing techniques, new fish products and
processes, marketing and distribution capabilities, knowledge, skills and
resources to engage in profitable enterprise.
Enabling policy and governance framework attracts additional public and
private sector investments and creates opportunities for alternative
livelihood and income opportunities for fishing households. Capacitybuilding and training from various service providers allow fishers to
acquire and apply new knowledge and skills.
Financial institutions, especially those in microfinance, gain
understanding of needs of fisher communities, and develop appropriate
products (credit, insurance, savings) to assist fishers, processors, service
providers, marketing and distribution entities in optimizing their
economic performance and permit enterprise formation.
Fishing households, especially women and children have improved
nutrition status through increased protein intake and diversification in
diet to include essential food groups.
Multimedia and other approaches help fishers, fisheries support
institutions and other stakeholders establish “communities of practice”,
access knowledge and information relevant to sustainable livelihood
development.
Financial Capital: Diversified
sources of income for fishing
households
Financial Capital: Better
access to finance for actors
in the fishery supply chain
Human Capital: Improved
nutrition and health status
for fishing households
Social Capital: Better access
to knowledge and
information to enable
livelihood development
Figure 8. Possible outputs and high level objectives for sustainable livelihoods initiative
d. Identify and cultivate various sources of funding. A well designed project would
“layer in” opportunities for different types of financing at different points in the
project life cycle – including grants, loans, equity or varying combinations.
e. Prepare a short list of candidate sites for pilot implementation. Some criteria for
selection would include:
i. Currently part of a Rare Pride campaign, therefore critical mass and relationships
established
ii. Demonstrated commitment from local political leadership (Mayor/Vice- Mayor),
who are in early terms of office
22
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
iii. Presence of relatively strong support or civic institutions (municipal agricultural
office, fisheries wardens, university, NGO, etc.)
iv. Coastal resource/fisheries management plan in place with funding allocated by
the local government
f.
Establish Technical Working Group which would draw on key stakeholders in the
community. This would involve the Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management
Councils (FARMCs), local government unit, civil service organizations, fishers and
others. Formal arrangements such as signing of Memoranda of Understanding or
Agreement may be required.
g. Structure the above outputs into programmatic components or activity sets and
develop a logical framework (or results framework). In relation to this, identify
potential skill sets and human resource plan. Promoting sustainable livelihoods for
small scale fishers would require multi-disciplinary inputs, and as such the following
types of personnel and service providers might need to be considered.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
Project managers
Natural resource management specialists (fisheries, marine biology, maritime
transport, environmental economics)
Social marketing specialists and community organizers
Governance and institutional development specialists
Financial analysts
Business administration specialists
Community health / micronutrient specialists
Training and capacity building specialists and coordinators
Multi-media/knowledge management specialists
h. Identify and consolidate partnerships with local, national and/or international
institutions. It would be essential to define potential roles and methods of
engagement for each — service provider, subcontractor, etc. For example, for
delivery of capacity building initiatives, such organizations as Philippine Business for
Social Progress (PBSP), or Tambuyog Development Center have proven track
records. In microfinance (MF), Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), Taytay sa
Kauswagan, Inc. (TKSI) have been active in the fisheries sector. International MF
institutions that would be interested include Oiko Credit and Grameen Foundation,
both active in the Philippines, but unable to secure an entry into the
fisheries/livelihood nexus.
i.
Establish linkages with existing projects and international funding institutions for
purposes of complementarity, and also to leverage resources. The Asian
Development Bank (ADB), Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), International
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Japan International Cooperation Agency
(JICA) and USAID are active in this field.
j.
Conduct study to collect and collate baseline data/ information which would serve as
basis for monitoring and evaluation plan and development indicators. Development
of activities and indicators are sometime guided by the SMART principles —
specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely. M&E in particular, might be
best undertaken by the project implementor (as opposed to an external or
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
23
Draft for discussion only
subcontracted party), with external reviews and assessments undertaken on a case by
case basis. If in-house capability is not available, for example in community health
and nutrition, then perhaps this can be subcontracted. Appropriate metrics (methods
for measurement) will need to be identified and validated.
k. Processes and methods for data gathering should be inclusive, employ stakeholder
analysis techniques, be gender sensitive and could include, but not be limited to:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
l.
One on one interviews
Focus group discussions
Formal questionnaires/survey
Secondary sources (published literature, statistics, etc.)
Review of data from similar sustainable livelihood projects in other areas
Third party assessments (e.g., capacity assessment of local institutions by
consultants, etc.)
Apply other assessment tools (e.g., post harvest livelihood assessment,
community perception surveys, social mapping, etc.)
Consider cross-cutting themes (eg gender, conservation), review and present baseline
data to TWG for validation and endorsement.
m. Establish performance parameters (identified below) related to possible outputs,
which will flow into more refined metrics and M&E system, and
n. Finalize a formal project document/plan with associated budget / investment and
establish the mechanics for implementation.
Possible Outputs
Some Performance Parameters
Political Capital:
Governance mechanisms for
sustainable utilization of
fishery resources
 Policies, legal instruments, orders and ordinances passed with
implementing rules and regulations in place
 Instruments institutionalized and operational
 Management plans developed and legitimized
Social and Human Capital:
Increased resilience of fisher
communities to respond and
adapt to various hazards,
risks and vulnerabilities
 Risk and vulnerability assessments conducted
 Risk reduction and management plans developed, legitimized and
implemented
 Resilience of fisher communities enhanced
Physical Capital:
Strengthened support
institutions and improved
capacity for post harvest
handling for fishers
24
 Improved technology and infrastructure related to fishing (boats, gear),
landing, post-harvest handling (e.g., clean water, ice-making and
storage, transport and logistics)
 Support institutions (e.g., cooperatives, NGOs, LGUs) develop and
implement capacity building and training programs for fisher
constituents
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
Possible Outputs
Some Performance Parameters
 Fishers and other actors in supply chain trained in post harvest handling
and related techniques
 New fishery-based products and processes developed, packaged and
marketed
Financial Capital:
Diversified sources of
income for fishing
households
 Investments by support institutions, local governments and private
sector catalyze new opportunities for fishing communities (e.g.,
ecotourism, small scale agriculture/aquaculture, seaweed farming etc)
 Fishers and fisher households trained in new skills and reduce reliance
on fishery-based income and develop new, sustainable sources of
income
 Fishing effort reduced
Financial Capital: Better
access to finance for actors
in the fishery supply chain
 Micro finance institutions develop/customize products and access for
fishers and fisher households (e.g., mobile banking facilities)
 Support institutions and other intermediaries manage and collateralize
risk associated with micro financing
 Fishers and households trained in financial literacy, business
management and other skills
 Micro capital flows to fishers based on specific proposals
 Micro enterprises established to advance alternative livelihood
initiatives
Human Capital: Improved
nutrition and health status
for fishing households
 Protein intake increased, especially for women and children
 Fishers and households diversify sources of nutrition to include all
essential food groups
 Fishers and households have better access to health care services
Social Capital: Better access
to knowledge and
information to enable
livelihood development
 Knowledge management strategy using multimedia tools and methods
developed (e.g., use of radio, social media, print etc)
 Knowledge products focusing on best practices developed and
disseminated
 Communities mobilized and new adoption of new knowledge
accelerated and scaled up/replicated to other communities
Figure 9. Some performance parameters for a sustainable livelihoods initiative
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
25
Draft for discussion only
7.3
The above recommendations are specific to the Philippines, where initial steps have been
taken, some models are in place, absorptive capacity exists and levels of interest are
reasonably high. This should not preclude, however, similar initiatives being launched in
other countries based on emerging lessons learned. In the framing a ‘pilot’ initiative it
will be essential to ensure that this
g. Adopts inclusive approaches
h. Builds on existing body of knowledge and experience
i.
Complements conservation objectives and existing organizational competencies.
(The Appendices provide more information on the linkages to threat reduction in
biodiversity)
j.
Permits scalability and replication of process to reach a wider set of beneficiaries
k. Integrates learning processes, and offers opportunity to be associated with
complementary initiatives such as financing strategy that targets
commercial/industrial fishery (e.g., EKO), or specific governance or advocacy
campaigns (e.g., Oceana), and
l.
26
Addresses financial and technical sustainability concerns.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
APPENDIX I: PERSPECTIVES ON MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
The idea of placing areas as refuge from fishing “has a long pedigree.” The practice is known to
have started in Pacific Island nations as a way of having a period resting before fishing. There are
reports of offenders being clubbed to death in Hawaii for violations. In Europe the trend for
protecting areas from fishing was formalized in the late 1700s and early 1800s, mainly as a way
to restrict bottom trawling for extended periods, with noticeable results in catch abundance.
Guidance on managing marine reserves in France was given as early as 1912, with specific
reference to maintaining herring and sardine stocks.
Benefits of marine protection were rediscovered in the 1970s in such countries as Chile,
Philippines and New Zealand, where small protected areas were set up as research stations, with
noticeable blossoming of ecology, especially rapid increases in density and sizes of commercially
important marine species.31 Since then intergovernmental agencies, national and local
governments have responded, although unevenly across countries, with legislations, enactments
and some regulatory frameworks related to protecting coastal and marine areas.
The transformational aspects of effective management of marine protected areas have been
increasingly documented, supported by science-based evidence, and corroborated by rich
traditional and local knowledge. Not all the experience has been positive, however, as there
appear to have been significant failures, which have given rise to some important lessons.
Within the National System of Marine Protected Areas in Brazil, marine managers have been
generally pessimistic about the system’s weaknesses, with few recognizable marine conservation
outcomes at the local level. Major challenges identified include: a) poor inter-institutional
coordination of coastal and ocean governance; b) institutional crisis faced by the national
government marine conservation agency; c) poor management within individual MPAs; d)
problems with regional networks of marine protected areas; e) an overly bureaucratic
management and administrative system; financial shortages. This has had the effective of
perpetuating structural problems and a disconnect between MPA policy and its delivery. There
has also been a perceived lack of professional motivation among MPA managers, which has
necessitated the need to strengthen 'leadership' in the performance of socio-ecological systems
(such as MPA networks), more effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, more localized
audits of (and reforms if necessary to) Brazil's federal biodiversity conservation agency
(ICMBio), and the need for political measures to promote state leadership and support.
Designating more MPAs, many of which are considered as “paper” MPAs, would only
exacerbate the problems, and prevent Brazil from fulfilling its international marine biodiversity
commitments.32
Sri Lanka too, has had its share of challenges. Despite the popularity of marine protected areas
(MPAs) as a fisheries management tool, evidence shows that many do not achieve stated
conservation objectives. Although several MPAs exist in Sri Lanka, most are not managed, and
resource extraction and habitat degradation continue unchecked. Many in the scientific
31
32
Roberts, C. op cit. p. 361
Gerhardinger, L.C., Godoy, E. A, Jones, P.J., Sales, G., Ferreira, B.P. “Marine Protected Dramas: the Flaws of the
Brazilian National System of Marine Protected Areas” in EnvironManage. 47(4): April 2011; pp 630-43.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
27
Draft for discussion only
community feel that the declaration and management of MPAs is done without sufficient
consideration of the ecology, socioeconomic realities, or long-term management sustainability.
Managers have focused more on the creation of new legislation and protected areas instead of
ensuring the proper implementation of existing regulations and management of existing protected
areas. Poor coordination and a lack of serious political will have also constrained successful
resource management. MPA managers work with coastal communities that are directly dependant
on marine resources for their daily subsistence. Excluding resource users is therefore not feasible,
and MPAs have not attracted necessary government support because many politicians are more
inclined to address immediate needs of local communities for economic and political reasons.33
Even more challenging has been the resource management issues in the Jaffna peninsula due to
the Tamil-Singhalese conflict, where fishing communities have been among the worst hit
victims.34
Management of Chile’s emerging system of marine protected areas is constrained by similar
factors. Legislation identifies a number of different types of protected and managed areas,
however the application of the instruments is not always well coordinated given that four
different national government agencies are responsible for implementation (these do not include
those managed by universities and private sector), and the designated conservation goals and
commensurate funding are not consistent across the board. The MPA system implementation in
Chile has historically been low on the national priority list, given way to higher priority initiatives
to promote fisheries production efforts (i.e., aquaculture), been marked by uncoordinated policy
and planning efforts which balance uses with goals and objectives, vested interests taking undue
advantage of loopholes, insufficient capacity and participation of fishing communities and related
stakeholders, increases in biodiversity threats due to multiple uses and competition for areas, high
costs of enforcement leading to inadequate protection, priority sites determined by the
administration have not been subject to rigorous and thorough scientific assessment of
ecosystems, risks and vulnerabilities to human settlement areas need to be better understood (e.g.,
managing ship-generated wastes, oil spill preparedness).35
The Indian experience with implementation of MPAs has some parallels with other countries,
despite the different geography, political economy, cultural context and biodiversity and
ecosystem endowments. Effective MPA management requires more attention to legal concerns,
particularly boundary demarcation, infrastructure and equipment required for monitoring, more
scientific and technical personnel involved in management decision-making, more systematic and
holistic approaches to planning, absence of regulatory enforcement of fishing practices, vessels,
waste discharges and land-based sources of pollution, resource use conflicts with aquaculture
operators, and poor inter-agency cooperation and communication.36
In spite of recognition of the Philippines as a global priority for marine conservation, limited
work has been undertaken to evaluate the conservation effectiveness of MPAs. The Local
Government Code and Fisheries Code are two primary pieces of legislation which define MPA
coverage. Analysis of a database of over 1000 MPAs determined that the extent and distribution
does not adequately represent biodiversity, and that areas and distances between MPAs are
Perera, N., de Vos, A. “Marine Protected Areas in Sri Lanka: A Review” in EnvironManage 40 (5): November,
2007: pp 727-38.
34 V. Suryanarayan. “Livelihood of Fishermen in the Palk Bay – Sri Lankan Tamil Perspective”. South Asia Analysis
Group. 28 January 2011. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers44%5Cpaper4304.html
35 Fernandez, Miriam; Castilla, Juan Carlos. “Marine Conservation in Chile: Historical Perspective, Lessons and
Challenges” in Conservation Biology. 19 May 2005.
36 Singh, H. S. “Marine Protected Areas in India” in Indian Journal of Marine Sciences 32:3, September 2003, pp. 22633.
33
28
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
generally insufficient to permit “larval connectivity”, which require larger scale networks and
more community based approaches supplemented with bigger “no take” areas.37 In the
Philippines, implementation of the National Integrated Protected Area Management System
(NIPAS), in some areas, has led to unclear institutional arrangements between national and local
governments, as well as between local governments and community-based organizations. Without
active participation and transparency in MPA management processes, communities lose interest,
and MPAs do not receive the require support to succeed. Lack of management capacity, funding
and access to funding, lapses in enforcement, need for equipment, encroachment across municipal
boundaries (i.e., “poaching”), conflicts with aquaculture operators, and destructive fishing
practices persist in many areas. Among the challenges for the Philippines, will be the need to
address the reputation for having a very high number of non-functioning “paper” MPAs.38
The importance of designing and effectively managing MPAs, and coordinating efforts, is now
gaining currency on a global scale. The IUCN is marshalling an effort to establish guidelines for
classification of MPAs.39 Multilateral and bilateral development agencies in collaboration with
national and local governments, non-government organizations and the private sector are
supporting efforts to refine tools that will strengthen the management effectiveness of protected
areas, including MPAs. Communities of practice are developing to advance and scale up the best
practices in this regard. One of the key drivers, is the perception that an effectively managed
MPA can deliver benefits at multiple scales, especially if a number of key principles are
advanced, such as ensuring that no take areas, prohibitions on fishing gear and access limits are
permanent, or long term.40
There are some tools which introduce a performance-based assessment and rating system for
MPAs and MPA networks. These include
a. Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), which exists in a number of different
forms and can be applied to protected areas in general. One version uses a ‘score card’
system to establish baseline and, inter alia, identify areas for strengthening in
organizational and financial capacity and track progress, and
b. MPA Management Effectiveness Assessment Tool (MPA MEAT), which is being scaled
up in the context of the Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) countries, has a benchmarking
function, applies indicators and weighted importance values, and applies certain threshold
governance processes, to help gauge some outputs/outcomes and define effectiveness.
Weeks, R., Russ, Gary, R., Alcala, Angel, C., White, Alan. “Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in the
Philippines for Biodiversity Conservation” in Conservation Biology, 01 July 2009.
38 http://www.reefbase.org/key_topics/pdf/Philippines%20mpa.pdf
37
39
http://iucn.org/about/work/programmes/marine/marine_our_work/marine_mpas/?8857/PAmanagementcategoriesfor
MPAs
40 Fernandes, L, Green, A., Tanzer, J., White, A., Alino,P.M., Jompa, J., Lokani, P., Soemodinoto,A., Knight, M.,
Pomeroy, B., Possingham, H., Pressey, B. “Biophysical principles for designing resilient networks of marine
protected areas to integrate fisheries, biodiversity and climate change objectives in the Coral Triangle: The Nature
Conservancy, 2012. pp.10-12.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
29
Draft for discussion only
Figure 10. MPA MEAT process
Source: Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines
Establishing or strengthening existing MPAs is one key tool in conserving ecosystems and
building sustainable and resilient fish stocks, but may not be suitable for all fisheries. They are
probably most effective when combined with a number of other, complementary management
measures.41
41
30
International Sustainability Unit. The Prince’s Charities. Towards Global Sustainable Fisheries: The Opportunity for
Transition. London: February, 2012.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
APPENDIX II: FROM SINGLE SPECIES MODELS TO INTEGRATED
APPROACHES
Ecosystem-based fishery management (EBFM) marked a paradigm shift for fishery management.
It reverses the order of management priorities so that management “starts with the ecosystem
rather than a target species”. EBFM addresses the health of marine ecosystems and the fisheries
which they support. The potential benefits of implementation of EBFM surpass the challenges
involved in making the transition from a management system based on maximizing individual
species. There is now considerable guidance on EBFM, including, among others, the use of the
“precautionary principle”, which recognizes that the conduct of fisheries involves decisions that
are made without a full understand of all the inherent complexities of a dynamic ecosystem. It
requires inter alia that:
a. a measure of precaution in relation to risk be applied to all fisheries
b. the principle is applied systematically from research, to management and fishing
operations
c. potentially irreversible changes be avoided (to ensure future generations have
options)
d. undesirable outcomes are foreseen and mitigating measures be taken
e. effective and timely corrective measures are applied immediately
f.
conserving productive capacity of the resource should be priority consideration
g. if resources are highly uncertain, precautionary limits be put on fishing capacity
h. prior authorisation and periodic review required for all fishing resources
i.
the burden of proof be appropriately (realistically) placed
j.
standards of proof must be equal to the potential risk to the resource, and
k. a supporting comprehensive legal and institutional framework is in place.
Widely-adopted by a number of international, regional and national fishery bodies, the
precautionary approach still needs to be implemented beyond its biological elements, to apply to
social, economic, climate and other risks, and ensure that a set of appropriate indicators is
integrated.42
42
Pikitch, E.K., Santora, C., Babcock, E. A, Bakun, A, Bonfil, R., Conover, D.O., Dayton, P., Doukakis, P, Fluharty,
D. Heneman, B., Houde, E. D., Link, J., Livingston, P.A., Mangel, M., McAllister, M.K., Pope, J., Sainsbury, K.J.
“Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management” in Science. 16 July 2004, 305:28.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
31
Draft for discussion only
With exception of the high seas, ecosystems are usually for other purposes other than fishing,
such as conservation (e.g., wetlands), forestry (e.g., mangroves), agriculture (e.g., floodplains),
offshore mining and oil and gas extraction, and human settlements (e.g., coastal areas). Aquatic
ecosystems also end up being serve the receptacle for most pollution produced by human
settlements and industrial activities, inland, in and around the coastal area as well as at sea. Even
the most remote areas (e.g., deep ocean and polar seas) are now affected, seriously placing in
jeopardy, the sustainability of present practices and the present ecosystems resources to future
generations.43
At one level, fisheries management has been integrated with broader “coastal resource
management” (CRM) frameworks, with a number of tools and instruments in play. In this way,
looking at reducing land based sources of pollution, such as untreated sewage, agricultural and
hazardous wastes, will also have a bearing on the quality of adjacent and connected aquatic
resources — streams, rivers, estuaries, bays, seas and oceans. At another level, fisheries
management has become one of a much more broadly defined ecosystem, which takes into
consideration a larger geospatial area.
Such “ridge-to-reef” (R2R), or “island to highland” approaches recognize the interconnectivity
between ecosystems, which are responsible for life supporting environmental services — the
hydrological, nitrogen and carbon cycles that are so essential for long term human survival.
Sustaining these cycles addresses a number of major development concerns and challenges; water
security, health security, food security, energy security and economic security. It is scalable, in
that it allows for a wide range of interventions, from small, discreet, single sub-sector initiatives
to complex, long term, multi-sector, multi-partner interventions in environmental management.
R2R provides for system-wide analysis in the sense that communities can have a better
understanding of the root causes of threats to biodiversity conservation, and formulate appropriate
actions and responses.
Taking it even further, ecosystem management at the “seascape” or “landscape” level considers
large areas of marine and terrestrial biodiversity, in order to facilitate replication/adaptation of
successful initiatives, address broader threats such as expansive fisheries, allow for better design
of networks of marine protected areas (MPAs), take account of connectivity issues and migratory
species, fill knowledge gaps between site-based projects and national/international initiatives, and
address trans-boundary issues that cut across sub-national and national territories. What is
relevant is that these frameworks are essential preconditions to for sustainable livelihoods
initiatives to have increased chance of success.
43
32
For more on the elements of ecosystem-based fisheries management, see http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/13261/en
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
APPENDIX III: SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES INDICATORS
Considerable guidance is available on applied M&E in the fisheries sector. M&E frameworks are
customized at the program, project or sub-project level. Below is a sample illustration of how
indicators are used by the European Commission Directorate General for Fisheries and Maritime
Affairs.44
Indicator
PROGRAM
LEVEL
Definition
Source of information
Decreasing of fishing
effort as regards the
situation of stocks
Reduction of the size of
the fishing fleet as a
result of the tonnage and
power exit from the
fishing fleet and where
relevant, equivalent of
capacity concerned by
temporary cessation of
activities.
Fishing vessels register
Jobs created or
maintained.
Direct jobs created, full
time equivalents, plus
gender split broken down
by main sector (fishing,
aquaculture, processing)
National statistics system
and monitoring system
Competitiveness
(reduction of the
production costs (%),
increased productivity
(%), economic viability
(increased profit (%)) or
other economic indicator
where relevant statistical
data are available
Macro-economic models
and monitoring system
An additional, more specific illustration from the WorldFish Centre is more targeted towards
impact on reducing poverty and improving gender equality in fisheries and aquaculture.45
European Commission Directorate General for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs. “Indicators for Monitoring and
Evaluation: A Practical Guide for the European Fisheries Fund 2007-2013”. Working Paper. n.d.
45 http://www.worldfishcenter.org/our-research/research-focal-areas/gender-and-equity/tools-sec3
44
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
33
Draft for discussion only
Process indicators
 A gender-sensitive monitoring and evaluation system in place
 Mechanisms for consultation and participation of both female and male
stakeholders/beneficiaries in the design, implementation, dissemination of
findings, and lessons learnt
 Participation of both male and female researchers
 Budget reflects the gender-specific strategies and activities of the project
Output indicators
 Sex-disaggregated data collected
 Gender analysis conducted
 Gender training workshops held
 Reports, papers and other publications with gender analysis produced and
disseminated
Outcome indicators
 Evidence that services and activities of the project reach both women and men
 Project interventions demonstrate that gender equity concerns are addressed and
voices of both gender groups are heard
 Uptake by other projects and initiatives of best practices and lessons learnt
 Incorporation of gender into fisheries and aquaculture policies
Impact indicators
Gender gaps reduced in:







time/labor spent on livelihood activities
income levels/control over assets
decision-making at household, community, regional, national levels
food security/nutrition levels
education completion rates of girls and boys
literacy rates
reduction in gender-based violence
The FAO approach to sustainable fisheries indicators requires integration of a number of
difference variables, including:
a. the resource endowment, including its abundance, diversity and resilience
b. the environment, for example by reference to its pristine condition
c. the technology in terms of capacity as well as environmental-friendliness
d. the institutions, e.g., fishing rights, enforcement system
e. the human benefits, e.g., food, employment, income
f.
the economics of exploitation, e.g., costs, revenues, prices
g. the social context, e.g., social cohesion, participation, compliance.
34
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
The organization also distinguishes a small number of issue-driven indicators which focus on:
a. pressures (direct and indirect) or driving forces affecting the resource system
b. the state of the system being affected, and
c. response, reflecting actions taken (by management, or industry, or other stakeholders)
to mitigate, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for the stress. Such action could be
taken to affect the pressure (mitigation, regulation) or the state (compensation,
rehabilitation).46
Examples of indicators of pressure, state and response:
Issue
Overfishing Economic
losses
Pressure
(driving force)
Response
(Mitigating action)
Overcapacity
Biomass < MSY
Low catch rates
Overcapacity
Limit access
Reduce effort
Suppress subsidies
Coastal trawling
% seagrass cover
Juveniles mortality
Protected areas
Closed seasons
Increased penalties
Extensive aquaculture
(and other pressures)
% of mangrove cover
Mangrove replanting
Decrease access
Pollution
Nutrient load
Frequency of crises
Algal productivity
Aquaculture feed management
Control of land-based
sources of pollution
Littoral habitat
degradation
Algal blooms
State
(Condition)
Source: FAO
Maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is often used as a metric for sustainable fisheries management
because this represents the level at which the biggest catch can be maintained over the long term.
A fishery is on an unsustainable path if the catch from that fishery is at or greater than the MSY,
with no management regime in place. A management regime would set MSY limits on individual
fisheries or fish stocks, with additional measures in place to ensure sustainability of a wider
marine habitat or ecosystem. More and more, fisheries are being managed using a range of
alternative targets and limits, which can be referred to as yields or catch, biomass of fish stock
that remains in the water, or a metric of fish mortality. A Maximum Economic Yield (MEY) is a
measure of the maximum economic profitability (catch minus operational costs) of a fishery by a
fishing effort that is below the MSY. The assumption is, that if the MEY target is below that of
the MSY, it is at a “biologically safer level”, than the MSY, and therefore allows for some
46
http://www.fao.org/docrep/W4745E/w4745e0f.htm
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
35
Draft for discussion only
resiliency to be built into the system. As associated measure, “fishing effort” is used to describe
the level of physical activity that is applied to catch a certain amount of fish — a function of the
number of hours at sea, amount of fuel expended or effectiveness of nets/gear to catch fish over a
given time frame.
Put another way, the “resource rent” is an indication of the net economic benefits from the
capture of wild fish stocks. Different fisheries will achieve different levels of resource rent. A
fishery for a high-value fish in coastal waters (which has a low cost of harvesting), for example,
will create more rent (or profits to fishers) than a fishery for a low-value species that are caught at
high cost in deep water. If the fishery is profitable, more fishers will join, which will increase the
total costs of catching the limited quantity of the species available. The total net benefit, or
economic rent, therefore goes down, and diffuses among the fishers in the form of higher costs
and lower returns for their fishing effort. The rents can even be losses or negative when public
financial transfers or subsidies prop up an economically challenging fishery. As more fishers
invest in more fishing effort (for example, by fishing longer hours or using more effective fishing
gear) to maintain their prior profits or catch levels, the fishers will end up diminishing the fish
stock capital that sustains the productivity of the fishery. This reduces potential net benefits.
When the level of fishing effort goes beyond point of maximum economic yield, this creates a
situation of economic overfishing — a situation which can be prolonged if the stock remains
healthy or biologically sustainable.47
47
36
Arnason, R., Keller, K (2009) op cit. p. 56
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
Draft for internal discussion only
Fisheries Indicators: Some Factors to Consider
Developing methodologies to select indicators and associated guidance is key first step
Interpretation of indicators requires scientific expertise because of potential, often subtle, error and bias
in analyses
No single indicator (nor single ecosystem model) describes all aspects of ecosystem dynamics. There is a
need for a suite of indicators (covering different data, groups, and processes), because indicator
performance may differ (with ecosystem, history of exploitation, and other pressures, e.g., pollution).
Aggregated indicators can provide a quick evaluation of the state of marine ecosystems, and can be used
simultaneously with a suite of indicators to understand the mechanisms and processes
Environmental and low-trophic-level indicators (e.g., for plankton) to capture environmental change and
bottom-up effects
Top predators or high-trophic-level indicators (e.g., birds, marine mammals) summarize changes in the
fish communities, which can sometimes be related to exploitation
A cluster of trophodynamic indicators are needed to measure the strength of the interactions between
the different living components, and of structural ecosystem change resulting from exploitation
Size-based indicators are perceived as promising for characterizing fish community dynamics in a context
of overexploitation
An ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) requires integration of spatial dynamics of the
various components (including fishers), as well as quantification of the interactions between different
components of the ecosystem
Considering both target reference points (TRP) and limit reference points (LRP) in the same framework or
model represents a promising way to reconcile constraints and objectives when exploiting natural
resources
Several indicators are better used for surveillance than for prediction. Regime shifts, illustrates a situation
where surveillance indicators may be useful
Analysis of single-species vs. ecosystem harvest strategies shows the need to provide explicit protection
for those species whose value derives in part from support of other species as well as from harvesting.
Harvesting all species at their single species maximum sustainable yield may lead to ecosystem erosion
Reinforce (or start) the process of implementing ecosystem-based indicators (TRP and LRP) and a
framework for fisheries worldwide. Pragmatic approaches need to be taken to move towards an EAFM.
This may be viewed as a stepwise process that needs to integrate scientific results (data, models,
indicators) and management expertise in a spatially explicit manner
Establish strong feedback mechanisms between scientific expertise, management and local stakeholders
validate and adjust indicators to practical use.
Source: Adapted from Cury, Philippe and Christensen, Villy. “Quantitative Indicators for Fisheries
Management” in ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62: 307e310: 2005.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
37