As a point of introduction it needs to be highlighted that small-scale fisheries, in most developing countries still forms the (invisible?) backbone of the fishery – marine and inland. The big policy ‘oversight’ made by developing countries – in the 1950s and 1960s -- was to blindly adopt the ‘industrial fishery’ model from the developed world. The implicit assumption behind this policy was that the small-scale fishery (labelled as ‘primitive, traditional’) would just disappear once the industrial fishery established itself. Most of the promotional efforts and subsidies in fisheries went to the industrial fishery; all the capacity building and research initiatives (e.g. fishery schools; research institutes; technology innovations etc.) were oriented to the industrial fishery. However, in reality what happened over the years, despite all this support, is evident for all to witness: the industrial fishery could not replace the small-scale fishery and the small-scale fishery survived despite the discriminatory policy treatment. As a matter of fact, in many countries, instead of complementing the small-scale fishery, the industrial fishery has been in conflict with the small-scale fishery. From the 1980s onwards, in many developing countries, the small-scale fishing communities have been taking firm affirmative actions to highlight and challenge this discriminatory situation. There have been strong initiatives taken by small-scale fishers at the international levels over the past two to three decades to valorise and re-affirm the ecological, economic, social and cultural relevance and superiority of the small-scale fishery.
The current initiative of the FAO/UN for the formulation of the guidelines for SSF must be viewed against this background. It will greatly help in the consolidation of the efforts of the small-scale fishers and their supporters in civil society. It will bring back small-scale fisheries and fishers to the ‘centre of the fishery development and management discourse’. States will now be able to prioritise their small-scale fishery and the fishers and re-orient their policy priorities and financial outlays to strengthen the sector. All this will be most welcome.
Partnering for implementation – roles of different actors and stakeholders
Implementation of the VGSSSSF will require the committed involvement of a wide range of actors and stakeholders. The fishers/fishworkers; the state; and civil society are the three key players. The fishers and fishworkers from the local level upwards should first take ‘ownership’ of the VG. The various branches of the state must be committed to bringing about the key policy, legislative, and executive changes in order to give SSF their rightful role. The various sectors of civil society – e.g. consumers, researchers and academics, media, social and environmental activists etc. – should support SSF and prioritise SSF interests into their own respective concerns.
Information and communication – promoting experience sharing and collaboration
There are several SSF communities in developing countries that have, through their own initiatives, and sometimes with support from state and civil society, achieved significant results with regard to alternative technology development; formation of organisations; valorising their cultural and customary contexts; ecosystem rejuvenation efforts; management of resources and so forth.
A cataloguing and careful documentation of such efforts must be undertaken and systematic efforts to share these experiences should be made. The focus should be on making good audio-visual products and teaching aids which are people-friendly.
More people-to-people exchange programs should be organised as an important strategy for dissemination of these novel initiatives across countries. The stress should be on understanding the basic principles of these initiatives so that ‘transfer efforts’ are not just blind copying of external forms and structures alone.
A cadre of youth from SSF communities across the world should be created who can become SSF brand ambassadors.
The actions and measures taken by states to reorient their fishery policies to focus more on SSF should be widely shared. Important measures include: the social and welfare programs to achieve higher levels of socio-economic development for SSF communities to fulfil their human rights; participatory fishery management initiatives; supportive legislative measures to strengthen the SSF and so on.
Efforts should be taken to ensure that the role and relevance of the SSF be included in the education of children through appropriate incorporation in school text books. In fishery schools and in fishery research and technological institutions special care should be taken to de-emphasise the centrality of industrial fisheries and incorporate more detailed and credible information and facts about SSF. Faculty and researchers in such institutions should be given opportunities to ‘discover’ the SSF in their countries/region.
Top fishery and agriculture policy makers should be provided with information and data on the SSF in their countries so that they are able to‘re-focus’ their priorities and be convinced about the place of SSF in the fishery and agriculture plans of their countries.
Environmental and social activists and media personnel should be given greater exposure to SSF realities so that they can obtain a great ‘aquarian rationality’ and see the point of view of SSF communities on issues such as people-centred conservation and management; technological diversity which respects the limits of nature; economic organisations which can create people-friendly markets and so forth.
Challenges and opportunities – needs for support and interventions
The major challenge confronting the implementation of the VG will be to get over the mental block that prevails in the fisheries sectors of many countries with regard to the relevance and viability of the small-scale fisheries. The adoption of the VG for the member countries of the FAO/UN in 2014 will no doubt contribute to putting to rest some of the doubts which exist in the minds of policy makers, fishery administrators and researchers. But much needs to be done.
Some important realms for support and intervention are the following:
1. Capacity building in the form of training for government functionaries who deal with the fisheries sector. They must become convinced about the economic and social viability of SSF.
2. Make efforts to incorporate the VG concepts into national legislation and formulating a clear characterisation of SSF in each country context.
3. Carving out a separate set of statistics which give a clear picture of the SSF sector in the country. Some significant efforts have already been made by civil society groups (e.g the Too Big To Ignore (TBTI) initiative) which need to be supplemented and officially incorporated into the national fishery statistics.
4. Support from consumers is crucial for enhanced value for the produce of SSF. SSF organisations should link up with fair trade initiatives; the Slow Food movement and food sovereignty efforts. When producers and consumers cooperate, the influence of multinational retail chains can be moderated.
As a point of introduction it needs to be highlighted that small-scale fisheries, in most developing countries still forms the (invisible?) backbone of the fishery – marine and inland. The big policy ‘oversight’ made by developing countries – in the 1950s and 1960s -- was to blindly adopt the ‘industrial fishery’ model from the developed world. The implicit assumption behind this policy was that the small-scale fishery (labelled as ‘primitive, traditional’) would just disappear once the industrial fishery established itself. Most of the promotional efforts and subsidies in fisheries went to the industrial fishery; all the capacity building and research initiatives (e.g. fishery schools; research institutes; technology innovations etc.) were oriented to the industrial fishery. However, in reality what happened over the years, despite all this support, is evident for all to witness: the industrial fishery could not replace the small-scale fishery and the small-scale fishery survived despite the discriminatory policy treatment. As a matter of fact, in many countries, instead of complementing the small-scale fishery, the industrial fishery has been in conflict with the small-scale fishery. From the 1980s onwards, in many developing countries, the small-scale fishing communities have been taking firm affirmative actions to highlight and challenge this discriminatory situation. There have been strong initiatives taken by small-scale fishers at the international levels over the past two to three decades to valorise and re-affirm the ecological, economic, social and cultural relevance and superiority of the small-scale fishery.
The current initiative of the FAO/UN for the formulation of the guidelines for SSF must be viewed against this background. It will greatly help in the consolidation of the efforts of the small-scale fishers and their supporters in civil society. It will bring back small-scale fisheries and fishers to the ‘centre of the fishery development and management discourse’. States will now be able to prioritise their small-scale fishery and the fishers and re-orient their policy priorities and financial outlays to strengthen the sector. All this will be most welcome.
Implementation of the VGSSSSF will require the committed involvement of a wide range of actors and stakeholders. The fishers/fishworkers; the state; and civil society are the three key players. The fishers and fishworkers from the local level upwards should first take ‘ownership’ of the VG. The various branches of the state must be committed to bringing about the key policy, legislative, and executive changes in order to give SSF their rightful role. The various sectors of civil society – e.g. consumers, researchers and academics, media, social and environmental activists etc. – should support SSF and prioritise SSF interests into their own respective concerns.
There are several SSF communities in developing countries that have, through their own initiatives, and sometimes with support from state and civil society, achieved significant results with regard to alternative technology development; formation of organisations; valorising their cultural and customary contexts; ecosystem rejuvenation efforts; management of resources and so forth.
A cataloguing and careful documentation of such efforts must be undertaken and systematic efforts to share these experiences should be made. The focus should be on making good audio-visual products and teaching aids which are people-friendly.
More people-to-people exchange programs should be organised as an important strategy for dissemination of these novel initiatives across countries. The stress should be on understanding the basic principles of these initiatives so that ‘transfer efforts’ are not just blind copying of external forms and structures alone.
A cadre of youth from SSF communities across the world should be created who can become SSF brand ambassadors.
The actions and measures taken by states to reorient their fishery policies to focus more on SSF should be widely shared. Important measures include: the social and welfare programs to achieve higher levels of socio-economic development for SSF communities to fulfil their human rights; participatory fishery management initiatives; supportive legislative measures to strengthen the SSF and so on.
Efforts should be taken to ensure that the role and relevance of the SSF be included in the education of children through appropriate incorporation in school text books. In fishery schools and in fishery research and technological institutions special care should be taken to de-emphasise the centrality of industrial fisheries and incorporate more detailed and credible information and facts about SSF. Faculty and researchers in such institutions should be given opportunities to ‘discover’ the SSF in their countries/region.
Top fishery and agriculture policy makers should be provided with information and data on the SSF in their countries so that they are able to‘re-focus’ their priorities and be convinced about the place of SSF in the fishery and agriculture plans of their countries.
Environmental and social activists and media personnel should be given greater exposure to SSF realities so that they can obtain a great ‘aquarian rationality’ and see the point of view of SSF communities on issues such as people-centred conservation and management; technological diversity which respects the limits of nature; economic organisations which can create people-friendly markets and so forth.
The major challenge confronting the implementation of the VG will be to get over the mental block that prevails in the fisheries sectors of many countries with regard to the relevance and viability of the small-scale fisheries. The adoption of the VG for the member countries of the FAO/UN in 2014 will no doubt contribute to putting to rest some of the doubts which exist in the minds of policy makers, fishery administrators and researchers. But much needs to be done.
Some important realms for support and intervention are the following:
1. Capacity building in the form of training for government functionaries who deal with the fisheries sector. They must become convinced about the economic and social viability of SSF.
2. Make efforts to incorporate the VG concepts into national legislation and formulating a clear characterisation of SSF in each country context.
3. Carving out a separate set of statistics which give a clear picture of the SSF sector in the country. Some significant efforts have already been made by civil society groups (e.g the Too Big To Ignore (TBTI) initiative) which need to be supplemented and officially incorporated into the national fishery statistics.
4. Support from consumers is crucial for enhanced value for the produce of SSF. SSF organisations should link up with fair trade initiatives; the Slow Food movement and food sovereignty efforts. When producers and consumers cooperate, the influence of multinational retail chains can be moderated.
John Kurien, India