ConclusionsHaving attempted to high

Conclusions
Having attempted to highlight what we believe is wrong with current approaches to fisheries management and development, we conclude by offering some alternative suggestions, or points for discussion, that emerge from a livelihoods perspective on small-scale fisheries management and development:
* Livelihood diversification is a feature of many fishing communities. Policy and management that encourages or enables part-time fishing is preferable to approaches that seek to ‘professional ’ small-scale fishers and ban part-timers.
* Development in rural areas where fishing is important may not be best served by intervention to increase fishing incomes, but rather to support complementary household activities. This does not mean encouraging people to leave the fishery altogether, as substituting one insecure income source for another is no solution. Encouraging alternative livelihood sources raises the opportunity income of fishing, with potential conservation and economic benefits.
* Geographical mobility is necessary to sustain catches on mobile or fluctuating fish stocks. Mobility can also be beneficial to stock conservation in that it enables fishers to move away from locally depleted resources When small-scale fisherfolk are operating outside their home area, they are generally resident in and landing to other ports or beaches in the vicinity. This generally conveys economic benefits to the area they are visiting. Existing arrangements for reciprocal access can be encouraged, but where stock conservation becomes an issue, the power of ports to levy landing or berthing fees can be used to adjust incentives for other vessels to fish in that area or not.
* The remittance economy is important in rural areas, and whether or not remittances are invested in fishing can act to regulate capitalisation in fisheries. Support for financial transfer mechanisms, together with support for flexible loans built on existing local financing schemes, can provide a means of appropriate capital investment in fisheries development.
* Within the fisheries sector, the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, with its provisions to protect small-scale fishers’ livelihoods from conflict with larger-scale commercial interests, provides the necessary framework for maintaining or enlarging small-scale fisherfolks’ ‘action space’. Many of its other provisions related to use of non-destructive fishing gear, withdrawal of subsidies for commercial fisheries etc, are also supportive of the sustainability of small-scale fisheries.
* A livelihoods approach does not imply that all technology development in fisheries is bad. Appropriate technologies are likely to include those related to fishing techniques that reduce by catch, more efficient processing and storage and improved vessel safety/seaworthiness. Livelihoods analysis can help to target technologies that fit within peoples’ constraints, opportunities and investment strategies.
* A livelihoods approach, emphasising the removal of barriers to entry and to mobility does not imply a laissez-faire approach to management. Institutions to regulate access to resources are still important, it is just that they do not necessarily take the form of fixed fishing territories and fixed licence numbers calculated on the basis of taking an economically optimal catch from a static equilibrium fish stock.
* Fisheries sector development analyses have tended to focus on what small-scale fisherfolk do not have Faccess to infrastructure, finance and technology Frather than what they do have Fadaptable and flexible income-generating strategies, resilient resource management institutions, knowledge, skill and social capital. The key to sustainable fisheries management and development is to facilitate small scale fisherfolk to find their own routes out of poverty by building on their existing capital and capabilities.