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 ‘professionalise’ 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 conserva-
tion 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 develop-
ment.
*
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. Appro-
priate 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. Insti-
tutions 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-
F
access to infrastructure, finance and technology-
F
rather than what they do have
F
adaptable and
flexible income-generating strategies, resilient re-
source 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.