Why mainstream fisheries in development strategies?

520 C. Reid et al. Second, it provides a benchmark against which the implementation of policy, and its coherence with those of other agencies or organisations, can be evaluated. The purpose of this paper is to fulfil the first of these objectives, with a view to informing subsequent research addressing policy implementation and coherence. Our approach to evaluating the place of fisheries in these APFIC member documents is twofold. First, we consider whether fisheries are socio- economically important by evaluating contributions to trade, consumption, and employment, and considering the extent of rural poverty. Secondly, we undertake a detailed content analysis of NDPs and PRSPs to consider how effectively they articulate fisheries issues, causal linkages between fishing and poverty, policy responses, and participation by fisheries stakeholders in policy formation. 2. Why mainstream fisheries in development strategies? The socio-economic impact of fisheries is evidenced by the diversity of fisher’s livelihoods and the contribution to the social fabric of rural and urban economies through complex chains of production, distribution, and consumption. Here, we illustrate two ways in which fisheries might establish a case for representation in NDPs and PRSPs. First, fisheries may contribute to economic growth: the greater the contribution, the stronger the case for mainstreaming. Second, there is an equity case for incorporation: higher levels of participation support the case for greater integration and representation in development plans. Fisheries and growth Export-led growth remains central to many development and poverty reduction strategies. Renewable resources are often important exports for non-oil producing countries without substantial manufacturing industries. Agriculture is conven- tionally viewed as ‘the most important engine for the creation of employment and income for the poor’ FAO 2005d, p. 1, 3 and fisheries have been overlooked in sev- eral important studies considering means to promote growth and reduce poverty. 4 The importance and potential of fisheries and aquaculture have drawn the attention of governments and international agencies. The Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific has been instrumental in improving and diversifying rural incomes through coordinated regional programmes. The planned Bay of Bengal Large Ma- rine Ecosystem programme is committed to creating conditions that ‘lead to the improved well-being of rural fisher communities through incorporating regional approaches to resolving resource issues and barriers affecting their livelihoods’ GEF 2005, p. 5. Similarly, the Support to Regional Aquatic Resources Man- agement STREAM initiative aims to secure and improve the livelihoods of poor people across 15 Asia-Pacific countries by enabling them to exert greater influence over resource management policies STREAM 2006. APFIC has an integral role in this process FAO 2004b; as a regional forum it can stimulate discussion as to how the growth-enhancing, poverty-reducing potential of fisheries can be more Downloaded By: [University of TokyoTOKYO DAIGAKU] At: 03:22 8 December 2008 Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy 521 effectively highlighted in the region for, if the regional MDG are to be reached, fisheries ‘are an important area in the fight to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger United Nations 2005b, p. 10.’ Fisheries may encourage and enhance growth in several ways, although re- source assessments suggest there are limited opportunities for developing under- exploited fisheries Sugiyama et al. 2004, pp. 20–22. Aquaculture and mariculture are among the world’s fastest growing food export activities by value IFPRI 1997, and are important in many APFIC countries. Efforts to add value through invest- ment in landing and processing facilities, for example, reduces wastage and helps develop new markets. 5 Benefits may also accrue through greater integration within tourism and coastal-zone management programmes FAO 1996a, p. 10. We have chosen two measures of the fishery sector’s economic contribution that illustrate important priorities in development planning. First, we highlight foreign exchange earnings. FAO 2003a, p. 1 reports that ‘net export revenues from fish exports earned by developing countries reached US17.7 billion in 2001, an amount larger than for any other traded food commodity such as rice, cocoa, tea or coffee.’ We therefore anticipate that fisheries would be more fully represented in NDPs and PRSPs when exports make significant contributions to trade earnings. In addition, larger volumes of trade are likely to give rise to private and public sector organisations capable of asserting influence on policy agendas. 6 Second, we highlight the contribution to food security, since it is reasonable to expect development strategies to mainstream the sector when fish is important in national diets. For example, fish provides 37 of daily animal protein consumed in Vietnam. This is reflected in the government’s Sustainable Aquaculture for Poverty Alleviation Strategy and Implementation Programme, part of a wider Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction Programme Socialist Republic of Vietnam 2001. However, systematic under-reporting of inland fisheries production and artisanal fisheries production results in a general and significant underestimation of the contribution of fish to diets Hortle 2007. Fisheries and equity Poverty reduction strategies are increasingly central to development planning. IMF and World Bank requirements for PRSPs as a condition of concessional lending has undoubtedly helped stimulate their publication. While the merits of the PRSP framework have been widely debated Booth 2003, IMF 2004, World Bank 2004, Dijkstra 2005, Driscoll and Evans 2005, we observe that it obliges countries to define poverty’s characteristics and advance policies consistent with its reduction. The process of policy formation is expected to be participatory and transparent, engaging stakeholders from throughout civil society. For the fisheries sector to benefit from the poverty reducing opportunities offered by PRSPs there must be sufficient evidence substantiating the endemic nature of poverty within fishing communities. The poverty of fishers and fish- ing communities has often been taken as given since Gordon’s 1954 seminal Downloaded By: [University of TokyoTOKYO DAIGAKU] At: 03:22 8 December 2008 522 C. Reid et al. contribution. Recent FAO Fishery Country Profiles suggest that poverty among fishers is an issue for APFIC members: 80 of Indonesian fisher families re- ceived incomes below the national poverty threshold FAO 2000; Filipino fisher households suffered from a higher incidence of poverty and worse access to ba- sic necessities FAO 2005b; Bangladeshi fishers were ‘among the extremely and moderately poor people’ FAO 1999; and most Vietnamese fishing communities were described as poor FAO 2005a. Similarly, STREAM 2000, p. 23 disclosed that 88 of very low-income households encountered in Tay Ninh province in Vietnam in 1999 were linked to the fisheries sector, compared with only 44 of high-income households. Recent reviews by B´en´e 2003 and Macfadyen and Corcoran 2002, for example, also suggest that this remains the conventional wisdom, and there remains a limited understanding of the mechanisms linking poverty and fisheries. 7 This paper identifies two measures to consider the equity argument for representation in development plans. First, in the absence of comprehensive data on poverty among fishers or coastal communities, we use a headcount index of ru- ral poverty in APFIC member states as a proxy measure of the likely magnitude of poverty in the sector. While not all fishers are necessarily based in the rural econ- omy, FAO 1996b observe that ‘fishing communities often are poor, physically isolated and with little access to public infrastructures and services or coverage by social policies’. 8 Stobutzki et al. 2006, p. 111 suggest that Asia’s small-scale coastal fisheries are particularly important in coastal and rural areas, often pro- viding a ‘safety net against failures from income in other sectors’. The majority of those directly and indirectly employed in marine fisheries across the region participate in small-scale fisheries, and hence are likely to be conditioned by the same demographic and socio-economic factors that give rise to rural poverty. From the perspective of this study, we assume that higher levels of rural poverty are more likely to attract poverty reduction strategies, and that such policies impact upon the fisheries sector directly through dedicated policies or indirectly by – for example – reducing the cost of credit. Second, we would expect greater inclusion in development strategies when those wholly or partly dependent upon fisheries for their livelihood constitute a greater proportion of the labour force. 9 Fisheries in developing APFIC states APFIC members accounted for approximately 40 of world fisheries production and 90 of aquaculture production in 2003, with China alone responsible for approximately half of member’s catch from capture fisheries, and nearly 70 of global aquaculture production. Moreover, as Table 1 demonstrates, capture fisheries and aquaculture production made substantial contributions to national income in many developing APFIC states. In Vietnam, for example, seafood is the most important export after textiles and oil FAO 2005a, and the contribution to GDP is approximately equal to that of education and training General Statistics Office of Vietnam 2006. National accounts, however, do not relay the sector’s Downloaded By: [University of TokyoTOKYO DAIGAKU] At: 03:22 8 December 2008 Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy 523 Table 1. The contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to GDP in developing APFIC states: 2001 Sugiyama et al. 2004 † Fisheries Aquaculture Cambodia 10.030 Vietnam ‡ 3.497 Vietnam ‡ 3.702 Bangladesh 2.688 Indonesia 2.350 Philippines 2.633 Philippines 2.184 China 2.618 Thailand 2.044 Thailand 2.071 Bangladesh 1.884 Indonesia 1.662 Sri Lanka 1.428 Cambodia 0.893 China 1.132 India ‡ 0.540 Malaysia 1.128 Sri Lanka 0.468 Malaysia 0.366 Nepal 0.345 Myanmar 0.167 † Excluding countries where fisheries or aquaculture contribute less than 0.1 of GDP. ‡ Data for 2000 full importance, as fisheries also make a significant contribution to national food security in a number of APFIC states, although there is concern that current production and trade patterns are compromising this contribution. 10 Here, we analyse the growth and equity issues outlined above in greater de- tail. Contributions to growth are examined by plotting the association between the sector’s role in trade and consumption. Figure 1 plots the value of each coun- try’s fisheries exports during 2003, measured as a proportion of that year’s total agricultural exports hereafter Trade, against average per capita fish and seafood consumption during 2003, measured as a proportion of total daily animal protein hereafter Consumption. 11 Data and sources are set out in Appendix A. Figure 1 is divided into four quadrants by reference lines, set at 18.5 and 19.4 for Trade and Consumption respectively, which are the average values for the developing world during 2000, reported by Thorpe 2005, p. 18. It reveals the relative importance of fisheries Trade and Consumption in each developing APFIC state. Contributions to Trade are above average in nine countries and only marginally below for India and Indonesia, and all the countries in the sample with the exception of Nepal 12 enjoyed a surplus on fisheries trade during 2003, often measurable in billions of US dollars FAO 2005c, A-7. Consumption was also typically above the developing world average. Countries in the Northeast quadrant Bangladesh, Cambodia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam recorded the greatest contribution to both Trade and Consumption. Consequently, we would anticipate that fisheries would feature prominently in these countries’ development strategies. China, the world’s largest exporter of fisheries commodities by value in 2003, 13 has an above aver- age contribution to Trade, allied to a marginally below average contribution to Downloaded By: [University of TokyoTOKYO DAIGAKU] At: 03:22 8 December 2008 524 C. Reid et al. 20 40 60 80 Fisheries exportsagricultural exports 10 20 30 40 50 60 F is h s eaf ood to ta l ani m al pr ot ei n c ons um pt ion BGD KHM CHN IND IDN MYS MMR NPL PAK PHL LKA THA VNM PRSP Trade against consumption Figure 1. Source: Appendix A. Consumption, and is the only country located in the Southeast quadrant. Three countries Indonesia, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka are found in the Northwest quad- rant, suggesting that Consumption is relatively more important than Trade, al- though Indonesia recorded a substantial trade surplus during 2003. Population and income growth in Indonesia and Malaysia, in particular, are expected sharply to increase demand for fisheries commodities in these countries FAO 2000, 2001. The case for mainstreaming fisheries because of its contribution to growth is least strong for countries in the Southwest quadrant: India, Nepal, and Pakistan. The presence of landlocked Nepal among this group is unsurprising, although the true extent of Consumption is uncertain due to the artisanal nature of production and the absence of organised distribution networks FAO 1997. Despite Pakistan’s impressive coastline, only about 9 of the population live within 50|km of the sea World Resources Institute 2006 and, while considerable irrigation and freshwater resources exist, these are not currently used in a significant manner for fish pro- duction. Limited distribution networks and concentration on fishmeal production also help explain low Consumption. 14 Figure 2 illuminates the equity argument for mainstreaming by illustrating the association between employment in fishing 15 as a proportion of the labour force hereafter Employment, and the level of rural poverty. Here, reference lines are set at the developing world averages of 1.3 and 44.3 for Employment and Downloaded By: [University of TokyoTOKYO DAIGAKU] At: 03:22 8 December 2008 Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy 525 1 2 3 4 5 Fisherseconomically active population 10 20 30 40 50 60 R u ra l P ov er ty H eadc ount I nde x BGD KHM CHN IND IDN MYS NPL PAK PHL LKA THA VNM PRSP Employment against rural poverty Figure 2. Source: Appendix A. rural poverty respectively, as reported by Thorpe 2005, p. 18. Asia accounts for some 85 of world fisheries employment, although this probably still understates engagement in the sector Sugiyama et al. 2004, p. 2 as most census information only covers full-time fishers. 16 This is also a policy issue, as developments that have catastrophically impacted upon inland fisheries have been able to do so due to the undervaluation of fisheries and their absence from impact assessments. The impact is particularly severe on the poorest segment of the rural population, which is the most heavily dependent upon the wild resource. Nonetheless, most countries are positioned in the Northeast or Southeast quadrants. Bangladesh and the Philippines exhibit high fisheries Employment and above average rural poverty. While Employment is above average in China, India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam, available survey evidence suggests these countries have rural poverty levels that are below the average global level reported by Thorpe. 17 Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, and Thailand are all located in the Southwest quadrant, with only Cambodia in the Northwest quadrant. However, this may be slightly anomalous and does not reflect the highly seasonal nature of fishing in Cambodia and the role of inland fisheries, foraging and part-time activity alongside other cropping activities. Cambodia has a small marine fishery, but an extensive inland fishery and around 70 of the population fish in some capacity at some stage of the year Hortle 2007. Downloaded By: [University of TokyoTOKYO DAIGAKU] At: 03:22 8 December 2008 526 C. Reid et al.

3. Mainstreaming fisheries in development strategies