Many of sections/topics in this report are linked, although for ease of comprehension we have tried to keep them distinct as suggested in the terms of reference. Section 9, for example, on the critical factors for small-scale fishers to get out of poverty is necessarily informed by all sections; the need to manage common property, use of appropriate technology, decreased vulnerability, and effective fisher organizations (i.e. Sections 5-8 inclusive). It is also apparent in the literature that to break the poverty cycle, the causes and characteristics of poverty must be understood in all its dimensions and this must be reflected in policy and interventions (Sections 1-3).
This review presents a snap-shot of the literature only, and does not claim to be comprehensive. Each of the Sections in this report could be the topic of a full FAO Technical Paper, or even a PhD, and to do justice to the range of topics covered in just one month has been a considerable challenge. Nevertheless, some important themes have emerged. It is certainly clear from the literature reviewed that there are very few studies in Sections 5-9 which examine the impacts of different issues on poverty in an empirical way, and which actually define and measure poverty. Furthermore, those that do, generally only measure changes in income. Much of the older literature refers to income [poverty], and not the broader concept of poverty as proposed in the SLA. As is now realised, poor people have many criteria of well-being and deprivation (Jodha N. surveyed two villages in Gujarat 20 years apart (Chambers R., 1989) and found that the households whose real per caput incomes had declined by more than 5% were, on average, better off on 37 of their own 38 criteria of well-being).
Nearly 300 published and Internet documents were reviewed. Figure 2a (overleaf) illustrates the total number of references from different regions, disaggregated according to the points/topics of the terms of reference. Figure 2b shows a series of pie charts that describe the geographical distribution of the material for each of the four main sections of the terms of reference. More general and theoretical references account for over a quarter of the references, with the main bulk of the research and context-specific articles resulting from work in South Asia, Southeast Asia and East and West Africa, perhaps reflecting the focus of the development agencies. Bangladesh, India and the Philippines are the countries that have been the focus of most work.
The pie charts (Figure 2b) clearly illustrate the move away from theoretical to more contextual material as a subject matures. Although not statistically tested, the impression is that the geographical diversity of the final sections of the report (TOR 4) on more general fisheries issues is much greater than that of newer concepts relating to multi-dimensional poverty assessment, livelihoods and their involvement in the PRS processes (TORs 1-3). Overall there is a rather academic focus surrounding sustainable livelihoods, as can be seen from this review, and the amount of theoretical literature is large for something that is designed to aid appropriate implementation. There is still a lot to be learned from field experiences, and this experience can be expected to improve the SLA's potential as a useful asset to poverty alleviation.
Figure 2. Distribution of literature reviewed, considering geographical region and the volume of theoretical information - 2a. Bar chart to illustrate where the distribution across the four main sections of the TORs
Figure 2. Distribution of literature reviewed, considering geographical region and the volume of theoretical information - 2b. Pie charts for the geographical coverage of material contributing to each of the TORs
Figure 3. Diagram to show the proportion of fisheries documents reviewed. The blue shaded area indicates the percentage of documents that relate to small-scale fisheries.
It is evident from Figure 3 that the amount of fisheries specific information available for SL, policy and poverty assessment methodologies is rather low. However conversation with experts currently working in these fields, and evidence from the current web sites indicate that there is a large amount of ongoing work in this area, the results of which will be available soon and which are expected to greatly contribute to the learning process.
1. A realization is dawning that fishers may not necessarily be the poorest of the poor, as is often claimed. Until recently there has been a common assumption that (i) small-scale fishers are poor and that (ii) development initiatives in small-scale fisheries set in place by governments, donors and NGOs would contribute to the reduction of this poverty. The issue of poverty was not, however directly addressed.
2. Poverty in fisheries has largely been defined in terms of incomes until very recently.
3. The whole concept of poverty has been broadened in recent years. Recognising that it is multi-dimensional, dynamic and very complex radically affects how it is measured, what approaches are used to tackle it, and its determinants etc. A key realization is that simple sectoral approaches are unlikely to be successful. The broader concept of poverty means that it is very difficult and time-consuming to measure, define and understand the causes of poverty, but efforts to do so are essential if interventions and policy initiatives are to be successful.
4. Poverty is not a homogeneous phenomenon, but varies between individuals, households and communities, over time, as well as according to people's definition of what poverty is.
5. Trying to identify "poor communities" is often an invalid question, as there is rapid movement in and out of poverty within communities, and usually great differentiation of wealth within any particular group. This makes defining the poor, and whom you are trying to help, rather difficult.
6. Long- and short-term poverty require very different approaches in terms of alleviation strategies.
7. The poor are generally more risk averse than the non-poor, and therefore more difficult to help. A key factor in encouraging them to take risk, diversify and accumulate assets, is likely to be the presence of safety nets.
8. Diversity and mobility are critical livelihood strategies (and coping mechanisms to reduce vulnerability), and should be supported by policy that is cross-sectoral e.g. farmers are fishers and fishers are farmers, fishers migrate seasonally
9. Livestock appears to be especially important as a livelihood strategy by both fishers and non-fishers as a method of banking assets for security.
10. Despite the short period of implementation of SL approaches and rather intellectual focus of the literature, many lessons have been learned which feed back in to the iterative SL development. The overwhelming impression from the literature is that SL approaches are an improvement on conventional sectoral efforts, facilitate the incorporation of inherent complexities, and are applicable in all sectors and with different groups of people in different countries, cultures and at different levels.
11. The fact that the SLA is such a new approach to our understanding of poverty means that most of lessons learned are more to do with design and implementation of approaches and interventions, rather than with the results of such programmes in terms of factors to help people out of poverty, key determinants of poverty, etc.
12. Explicit references and definitions of poverty seem to be avoided in the majority of SL-influenced work despite being the implicit focus of the approach. How one should measure poverty and how SL approaches can contribute to poverty alleviation appears to be a stumbling block. In many documents it seems that poverty is taken for granted as being the main focus.
13. Application of SLAs to guide interventions and policy must be adaptive and flexible, which increases time and costs. It also means that comparisons between different contexts is problematic, and that it may not be possible to develop a generalizable theory of poverty using the SLA.
14. An important outcome of the SL process is the stimulation of continual critical analysis, challenging ideas and practices that develop the debate. It is hoped that this momentum will help towards the increased dynamism and flexibility of policies, institutions and processes that is required to tackle the dynamic nature of development.
15. PRSPs have so far made little explicit reference to livelihoods in small-scale fisheries. While the SLA is thought to offer great potential to contribute to improving the relevance of PRSPs, there is some concern over the extent to which SL principles are currently incorporated in PRSPs.
16. Health (e.g. HIV/AIDS) is thought to be especially important to livelihoods, and relates to vulnerability in particular.
17. Vulnerability seems to be at least as important as poverty, and while related, is distinct from poverty. Policy must focus on preventing people from falling into poverty as much as helping them to get out of it.
18. Vulnerability appears to be increasing in small-scale fisheries, and lacks a well-developed theory and accepted indicators and methods of measurement. There do not appear to be many obvious generalizable findings in the literature about vulnerability and coping mechanisms.
19. Coping mechanisms in fisheries can be divided into ex-ante risk management measures seeking to reduce vulnerability, and ex-post management mechanisms seeking to deal with shocks and stresses. Coping mechanisms and strategies are surprisingly diverse.
20. Open access/unregulated common property is likely to lead to poverty, although it tells us nothing about equity, and nothing definitive about incomes, only that resource rents will be dissipated. Incomes are determined in part by the opportunity cost of labour. But even where reasonable alternative employment opportunities for fishers may be available, fishers may choose to stay in fishing.
21. Regulated common property resource regimes can result in equity, efficiency and sustainability, but do not necessarily always do so. The availability of common property resources, which are of such importance to the poor, are declining and the establishment of successful common property resources management regimes leaves much to be desired. Management and policy that restrict access to common property resources can be to be the benefit of poor fishers who have access/use rights but detrimental to the interest of other poor people.
22. Technical efficiency in fish harvesting does not usually relate to economic efficiency at the aggregate level of the entire fishery. Technological improvements in the absence of control over access may cause increased overfishing and reduce catches, incomes and profits. Even at the level of the individual fisher, the initial gain by adopting an improved harvesting technology may be quickly wiped out as other fishers adopt it too.
23. Technology has been shown to have had significant equity and poverty implications, both in terms of small-scale fishers loosing out to industrial vessels, but also within the small-scale fisheries sector through increasing debt to middlemen etc, and increased vulnerability. For technology to assist with poverty reduction (whether it be aquaculture, marketing or production technology), it must be "appropriate" and not "top-down"; this has too often failed to be the case. Some simple technology can have great benefits to the poor e.g. use of VHF radios for surveillance, safety, etc
24. The poor are usually not early adopters of technology due to their marginal circumstances and attitudes to risk, so programmes incorporating the use of technology must specifically assist the poor to ensure that the benefits do not accrue to the better off.
25. We have found few empirical studies on the impacts of political fisher's organizations on poverty and the poor, even through they have certainly affected policy changes in a number of countries.
26. Studies on economic organizations such as cooperatives, show that they are often of limited benefit, except where such organizations are locally based with a strong identification by fishers with the aims and motivations of the organizations concerned, good leadership and appropriate facilities. Almost all the literature examining the "success" of economic organizations defines success in terms of functioning, repayments and membership levels, and not on the impacts on poverty.
27. Support for any form of fisher organization can easily be undermined by wider social, economic and political factors.
28. The literature includes a huge range of factors which various authors view as being particularly important in getting small-scale fishers out of poverty. Few are backed up by hard empirical study, and those that are, focus almost exclusively on income poverty.
29. It is not possible to prioritise between the various factors claimed as important for reducing poverty in small-scale fisheries, but control over access, reduced power of middlemen, sustainable exploitation, protection from industrial vessels, and alternative employment opportunities are perhaps the most widely supported.
30. Given that poverty is so complex and context specific, identifying one or more generic "key factors" to help with reducing poverty is likely to be futile. The SLA provides the potential to get away from development paradigms (e.g. production technology) to a more measured and realistic approach to what is achievable in each context. Planning appropriate interventions is likely to be more time consuming using such an approach, but the chances of success far greater.
Each section of this report has outlined a number of research implications. In this concluding section, we highlight just a few research requirements that are thought to be of particular importance.
1. Research is urgently needed into the type and prevalence of poverty in fishing communities, and its main determinants. What is the relationship between assets, and how can changes in poverty be best assessed using the SLA? In addition, how does poverty in small-scale fisheries actually equate to poverty in other sectors.
2. More work is necessary on whether fishers are really the poorest of the poor, and how poverty in small-scale fishing compares to other sectors and those not able to fish.
3. How can cross-sectoral responses be improved (e.g. health and fisheries)?
4. What are the means by which barriers (for example breaching sectoral limitations) to the adoption of the SLA at institutional level can be removed?
5. More work is required on how to increase participation in SLAs and PRSPs so that it goes beyond consultation.
6. While a theoretical emphasis on SLA is understandable given the recent formalisation of the approach, much greater field-based research is now required.
7. Vulnerability, such a key factor in livelihoods, is very little understood in the fisheries sector. In addition, little is known as to how the vulnerability of fishers compares to those in other sectors, and between countries/regions, what are the main determinants and coping mechanisms, how has vulnerability changed over time, what are the most effective ways of reducing it, etc.
8. Research is needed on the contribution of common property resources to livelihood strategies, a better understanding of how access is negotiated and eroded (through power relations), and who depends most on them.
9. A better understanding is required of the impacts of technology on the poor in more than just income terms. Which forms of technology are most pro-poor, and what are the attitudes of the poor to technology?
10. If fisher organizations are to be supported through programme interventions, a much better understanding is required about the actual impacts of such organizations on the poor, on which types of organizations are likely to have the greatest benefit, and on which groups are excluded from particular organizations (i.e. are they the poorest of the poor).
11. How does economic growth in the economy as a whole affect poverty in fishing communities, and how important generally are macroeconomic factors in comparison to microeconomic ones?
12. While the references we have reviewed are of course not a random sample reflective of the overall body of relevant work completed, and reflect the biases in our search strategy, it would nevertheless be interesting to compare the geographical distribution of (poor) artisanal fishermen throughout the world, with the analysis of where most research appears to have been conducted to consider any mismatch?
13. Although there are specificities of the fisheries sector that should of course be borne in mind in any research, given the broad scope of the SLA it should not be forgotten that the fisheries sector can learn a great deal from other fields of academic research as well as from more general models of development.
