FAO.org

In 2003 the pilot project set in train a vast undertaking of rural development and inland fisheries governance which will only come to an end when its full impact becomes apparent after at least 12 years of sustained activities. The changes, the first signs of which are only just perceptible, are likely to be considerable. By basing fishing community development on a strengthening of human and social resource assets, firm foundations have been laid on which to build other resources (physical, natural and financial). In terms of development approach, by using development training based on the interest of beneficiaries and on the process approach, the pilot project broke down or, at least, upset a number of established practices: the flexibility of the logical framework made it possible for the fishing communities to identify the activities they found pertinent and to attach the necessary priority to them. In this way, they have clear objectives in line with their interests.The players’ motivation, strategy, rationale, real needs and the feasibility of the activities are all taken into account. However, there needs to be strict adherence to the rules of implementation; the fishing communities’ relevant empirical knowledge and know-how were put to good use (choice of spawning grounds to be protected); Instead of being obsessed with short-term viability (donors being given tangible signs of achievements, results and effects), it is now time to turn our attention to the beneficiary communities and national decision-makers and try to help them appreciate the project results by themselves and for themselves so that they may be able influence the course of “events”; the project set itself up as the champion in the struggle against developers acting in a disorganised fashion. It showed this by always endeavouring to work with the local and national partners; the project broke with the premise of charitable handouts which are in contradiction with the project’s stated objective of accountability and autonomy. finally, by ensuring that literacy courses were available to all, by giving women a role in project activities, by providing information and communication activities (local radio), and by promoting transparency and social dialogue, the project will have discouraged the practice of patronage common in the rural areas, whereby those with authority appoint members of their family to jobs so that they can remain in control. Now that the fishing communities have been trained, informed, made aware, developed and made accountable, they have the potential to carry the long-term, high value-added projects of vulnerability and poverty reduction and sustainable fishery resource management to a successful conclusion. The pilot project’s preliminary outcomes tend to show that while institutional arrangements may be functional, they are not always sufficient to achieve the objectives of sustainable fisheries resource development. Co-management has damaging effects on jobs (exclusion and shorter working hours), incomes (decline in fish landings) and investments (changes in fishing gear and techniques). In order to reduce the fishing communities’ vulnerability, a raft of support measures have to be taken if the desired changes are to be achieved. Increasing financial capital and having a support strategy, such as shops selling fishing equipment or the establishment of revolving funds, will significantly reduce the cost of readjustments to be borne by the communities. The explicit inclusion of income-generating activities as a component of co-management strategies has the potential to absorb some of the rural labour force and bring about competition between fisheries and other economic activities, thereby helping to control fishing effort. Restored and well-managed fisheries are a source of wealth. It is therefore possible to reconcile responsible fishing with poverty reduction under the above conditions.