Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol

Asian development and poverty reductionstrategies: Integrating fisheries into the

development discourse

Andy Thorpe a,*, Chris Reid a,1, Raymon van Anrooy b,2,Cecile Brugere b,3, Denis Becker a,4

a Department of Economics, University of Portsmouth, Richmond Building, Portland Street,

Portsmouth PO1 3DE, United Kingdomb Fishery Policy and Planning Division, Fisheries Department, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla,

00100 Rome, Italy

Received 7 March 2005; received in revised form 2 August 2005; accepted 22 September 2005

Abstract

Asia is the world�s foremost capture fishery and aquaculture producer. It is also home to themajority of the world�s fishers and marine fleet (decked and undecked). Consequently, there is everyreason to expect that this importance is reflected in national development discourses. This articleidentifies the socio-economic importance of fisheries in the region in terms of its contribution to pri-mary exports, domestic protein consumption, employment and poverty alleviation. We then analysenational development and poverty reduction strategy documents using a content analysis methodol-ogy previously applied to measure the extent to which environmental or forestry issues had beenmainstreamed into national policy documents. This enables us to identify those countries that havecurrently integrated fisheries into the national development discourse – and those that have not. We

0306-9192/$ - see front matter � 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.09.007

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 2392 844251; fax: +44 2392 844037.E-mail addresses: Andy.Thorpe@port.ac.uk (A. Thorpe), Chris.Reid@port.ac.uk (C. Reid), Raymon.

vanAnrooy@fao.org (R. van Anrooy), Cecile.Brugere@fao.org (C. Brugere), Denis.Becker@port.ac.uk (D.Becker).

1 Tel.: +44 2392 844018; fax: +44 2392 844037.2 Tel.: +39 06 570 53031; fax: +39 06 570 56500.3 Tel.: +39 06 570 54410; fax: +39 06 570 56500.4 Tel.: +44 2392 844252; fax: +44 2392 844037.

386 A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400

conclude by proposing two strategies to enable the more effective integration of fisheries into thedevelopment agenda.� 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Asia; Fisheries; Content analysis; Trade; Consumption; Poverty

Introduction

International concern over the widespread nature of food insecurity in the developingworld has increasingly manifested itself in recent years. The 1996 World Food Summit(WFS) pledged to halve the number of undernourished individuals to around 410 millionby 2015, a commitment encapsulated within The Millennium Development Goals,adopted by the UN in September 2000 – which also promised a similar reduction in thenumber of individuals who subsisted on an income of less than US$1 a day [then estimatedat 1134 million – around 25% of the population of the developing world]. These concernshave been reflected in the programmes of multilateral donor institutions, most notably theIMF and World Bank who, since 1999, have made all concessional lending5 (and eligibilityfor HIPC debt-relief initiatives) conditional upon countries submitting Poverty ReductionStrategy Papers (PRSPs) prior to funds being released. These papers not only oblige coun-tries to encapsulate and quantify the multidimensional nature of domestic poverty, but arealso expected to advance comprehensive macroeconomic, structural and social policiesconsistent with poverty reducing outcomes. Significantly too, PRSPs are posited to emergefrom a highly participatory and transparent consultation process, thereby reducing thelikelihood of policy slippage over time by ensuring that the ensuing macro- and sectoraldevelopment strategies are country, rather than donor, driven.

Despite this emphasis on �national ownership� of economic reform agendas, doubtshave already being voiced as to whether the revised development strategies resulting willbe sufficient to meet the WFS nutritional target by 2030, let alone 2015.6 Equally, a key-note Report delivered by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, at the 2003 annual ses-sion of the UN Economic and Social Council stressed, inter alia, the need to create:

5 CocurrenPRSP

6 Jacthe nu

7 Unactiviti

‘‘an enabling macroeconomic policy environment that is conducive to poverty erad-ication and sustainable development in rural areas. . . by according high priority toincorporating broad integrated rural development strategies designed to reduce poverty

into the national planning and policy framework (Annan, 2003, p. 18, the italics areours).’’

Although the fisheries sector7 was not explicitly addressed as a distinct element withinthe rural economy by the Annan Report, the lead UN agency charged with supportingworld-wide rural development – FAO – atones for this within its 2000–2015 Strategic

ncessional lending refers to loans granted at below market-related rates. Of the six loan instrumentstly deployed by the IMF, for example, just one – the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility [which fundsborrowing] – offers concessional rates [presently 0.5% per annum].ques Diouf, Director-General of FAO, goes so far as to suggest that, on current trends, the goal of halvingmber of hungry will not be met until 2050 (ECOSOC Press Release 6054).less otherwise stated, the term �fisheries sector� includes capture fisheries, aquaculture and connectedes in fish processing and marketing.

A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400 387

Framework. A specific Major medium term Programme of the Framework [Programme2.3] is designed to facilitate and ensure the long-term sustainable development and utilisa-tion of the world�s fisheries and aquaculture, and embraces ongoing efforts to eradicatefood insecurity and rural poverty in coastal areas and main watersheds (FAO, 2002a,106ff). Specific regional bodies such as the Asia Pacific Fisheries Commission (APFIC)and the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Programme are also currently addressingpoverty alleviation and food security issues by applying various fishery and aquaculturedevelopment and management approaches. Yet, whilst these and other more locally basedprojects and programmes have delivered notable welfare-enhancing outcomes, most gov-ernments in developing countries generally do not regard fisheries as one of the sectorsthat could assist in the achievement of national food security and the reduction of poverty.

It is the task of this article then to redress this oversight. First, we outline two key rea-sons why the sector should not be peripheralised in Asian development thinking and plan-ning, deriving a framework that illustrates the relative national importance of the sector(�Why the sector should be incorporated�). Second, we examine the extent to which the sec-tor is currently included in such documents (�Has the sector been incorporated? – and, ifso, how?�). Finally, we compare said outcomes with the outcomes predicted by the analyt-ical framework in order to identify those Asian states in which the fisheries sector is rela-tively large in socio-economic terms – but is presently failing to insert itself effectively/substantively in national poverty reduction strategies (and those countries where the fish-eries sector is relatively small – but is currently accorded a pronounced importance innational poverty reduction strategies).

Growth and equity: grounds for inserting fisheries in PRSPs, National Development Plans

(NDPs) and Donor Support Strategies

We contend that the sector can have a particularly important role to play in thenational development process on two counts. First, when it either contributes – or couldpotentially contribute – to underlying growth processes in a substantive manner (what wechoose to term �the growth argument for fisheries inclusion into national development pro-cesses�). Second, in those instances where a substantial number and/or substantive percent-age of a countries fisheries-dependent population are enmeshed in poverty (what wechoose to term �the equity basis for fisheries insertion into national developmentprocesses�).

Fisheries: the growth argument for inclusion

A central component of the neo-liberal development strategy espoused by the mainmultilateral institutions during the 1980s and early 1990s, and one that carried over intomany of the poverty reduction strategies of the early years of the 21st century, has been theemphasis on export-led growth. For those countries not fortunate to count upon (deplet-able) natural resources in the shape of copper, oil, natural gas, diamonds and the like, agri-cultural exports have invariably formed the cornerstone of neo-liberal trade promotionstrategies. Other renewable resource sectors (forestry and fisheries) have generally beenaccorded much less attention given their respective contributions to export earnings,domestic employment and domestic consumption are relatively smaller – albeit with someexceptions.

388 A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400

Yet, while the fisheries sector may not be the principal motor of growth in many coun-tries it can, nevertheless, still play an important ancillary role in enhancing Asian growthrates over time through an:

� Exploitation of under-exploited marine and inland stocks (although this avenue hasbeen progressively closed over time).� Initiation and/or continued development of aquaculture and mariculture activities, the

two fastest growing food export activities in the world in value terms (IFPRI, 1997).� Improvement in value-added within the sector. This could be through the provision of

new infrastructure [landing facilities, processing, curing and canning installations] inorder to reduce domestic wastage rates, and/or strategies designed to exploit opportu-nities in the more profitable export market.� Integrating the sector more closely – where warranted – into tourism and coastal-zone

management programmes so as to derive benefits through eco-tourism and marine parkinitiatives, sport fishing and the like (FAO, 1996, p. 10).

While sectoral importance can be measured in a variety of ways (contribution to GDP,generation of resource rents, net or gross export earnings, licence fee receipts, inward invest-ment into the sector, the role of fisheries in contributing to food security, etc.) this paperselects two criteria for illustrating the current significance of the sector in growth terms.First, given the scarce capital and foreign-exchange constraints encountered by many devel-oping countries, we highlight the standing of the sector as a generator of foreign exchange,8

arguing that the larger is its contribution, the more likely is – or the greater the opportunitiesare for – its insertion into national policy formulation processes. Although gross exportearnings affords no great insights into the resource rent generating capacity – and hence effi-ciency of a particular national fishery, it does provide both a (rough) indicator of the sector�scapital accumulating capacity and a proxy for the presence of an important pressure groupwho can lobby for greater inclusion of sectoral interests in national policy documents.

Second, given that the sector plays a crucial role in underpinning nutritional standardsand/or food security in many countries – providing 15–16% of global animal proteinintake (FAO, 2003b, p. 5) – we also highlight national reliance upon the sector for provi-sion of animal protein needs. The greater the reliance upon fish protein, the greater thelikelihood that national development strategies will reflect this, embracing policiesdesigned to either safeguard or develop this protein source and/or reduce dependencethereon. In Vietnam, for example, where fish provides 37% of daily animal protein intake,the government announced a Sustainable Aquaculture for Poverty Alleviation (SAPA)Strategy and Implementation Programme as a part of a wider Hunger Eradication andPoverty Reduction (HEPR) Programme (Govt. Vietnam, 2001).

Fisheries: the equity argument for inclusion

Poverty, or rather, poverty reduction strategies, are increasingly being accorded a cen-trality in the development planning process. Concessional lending by the IMF and World

8 FAO (2003a) have, in fact, highlighted that ‘‘net export revenues from fish exports earned by developingcountries reached US$17.7 billion in 2001, an amount larger than for any other traded food commodity such asrice, cocoa, tea or coffee.’’

A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400 389

Bank, with its concomitant demands for countries to submit a PRSP prior to the release offunds, merely serves to underline this emphasis. But in order for the sector to fully availitself of the opportunities offered by the strengthened poverty focus encountered in con-temporary PRSPs, concrete evidence substantiating the endemic nature of poverty withinfishing communities must be provided. However, since Gordon (1954, p. 132) noted a half-century ago, that:

9 WehistoripeopleactivitpertainthrougpolicysignificEast A

‘‘In point of fact, fishers typically earn less than most others, even in much less haz-ardous occupations or in those requiring less skill.’’

The poverty of fishers and fishing communities has generally been taken as given. In fact,while much anecdotal evidence has been produced to support this hypothesis (see Macfa-dyen and Corcoran (2002) for a summary),9 some of the quantitative studies undertakenproduce somewhat contradictory findings. While the STREAM initiative (2000, p. 23), forexample, suggests that 88% of (very) low income households encountered in Tay Ninhprovince in Vietnam in 1999 were linked to the fisheries sector (compared to only 44%of high income households), Kotikula�s (2003) research in Thailand suggested local levelsof poverty (at 9.8%) within fishing communities were two and a half times lower thanthose encountered in the rural north-east. This literacy lacuna and the limited understand-ing of the underlying causal mechanisms linking poverty and fisheries is only now beingaddressed (see, for example, Allison and Ellis, 2001), prompting the FAO Advisory Com-mittee on Fisheries Research (ACFR) to recommend further research into the area. Unfor-tunately, the ongoing nature of such research dictates that at present we need to place ourtrust in the anecdotal evidence that suggests the sector harbours an above average relativequotient of the poor.

In consequence, this paper selects two criteria for proxying the significance of the sectorin equity terms. First, given the absolute absence of fisheries-specific national poverty sta-tistics, we use a headcount index of rural poverty as a second-best measure to reflect thelikely magnitude of poverty in the fisheries sector. This analytic oversimplification is jus-tified given that the vast majority of fishers are to be encountered in rural, as opposed tourban, areas. The more profound the nature of rural poverty then, the more likely it is thatpoverty reduction strategies will be targeted upon the sector, thereby benefiting the fisher-ies sector either directly [specific interventions in the fisheries field] or indirectly [by, say,reducing the costs of accessing rural credit for productive purposes]. Second, the potentialfor poverty-reducing, fisheries-specific, policies grows in line with the numeric size of thesector. The more [poor] fishers there are, the greater the potential for mobilisation – andthe more difficult it is for policy-makers to ignore such voices in the participatory dia-logues that underpin the PRSP process. The greater the magnitude of rural poverty andthe greater the number of fishers then, the greater the potential opportunities for inserting

are grateful to one of the external reviewers of this paper who pointed out that, in parts of the region,cal as well as current cultural and management contexts underscore a clearly defined link between poorand fishing as a component of livelihoods. In India, for example, fishing has for centuries been a low-caste

y, with important contemporary ramifications. In the sub-continent in general, where the caste issues India, Pakistan, Nepal and Myanmar tend to manage their river, canal, reservoir and pond fisheriesh leasing systems. Such systems are relatively resistant to policy change because of the paucity of nationalprocesses that give voice to poorer stakeholders, though this has begun to be addressed in limited butant ways in eastern Indian states and Pakistan in south Asia, as well as Cambodia and Vietnam in Southsia.

390 A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400

the fisheries sector into national development and poverty reduction strategies on equitygrounds.

The socio-economic importance of Asian fisheries

China is the largest Asian (indeed, global) fish harvester, landing over 41 million tonnesfrom capture fisheries and aquaculture in 2000. Other �major global fish harvesters�(Thorpe et al., 2005) are also to be found in the region – Bangladesh, India, Indonesia,Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam all recording har-vests exceeding one million tonnes (Mongolia, in contrast, recorded landings of just afew hundred tonnes). The region�s other unique feature is the contribution of aquaculture,which accounts for over one-third of fisheries production in seven countries (Bangladesh,China, India, Jordan, Laos, Nepal, and Syria) and exceeds capture fisheries in four (China,Jordan, Laos, and Syria).

The importance of the fisheries sector in terms of either growth [as measured by its con-tribution to exports and/or the domestic consumption of animal protein] and/or equity [asmeasured by the level of rural poverty and/or the numeric size of the sector] is illustratedin Table 1.

At the national level, scatter-plots can be employed to depict the association betweencontributions to: (i) trade and consumption and (ii) the number of fishers and the severityof rural poverty (Appendix 1 reports the individual data figures used). In the first instance,the value of each country�s fisheries exports as a proportion of the total value of agricul-tural exports (including fisheries commodities) during 2000 indicates the relative impor-tance of the sector as a foreign exchange source (FAOSTAT). National reliance uponfisheries for domestic nutritional purposes is measured by taking average per capita fishprotein consumption as a proportion of total daily animal protein, also at 2000 values(FAO Food Balance Sheets). Horizontal and vertical reference lines, set at 10% of agricul-tural trade and 10% of daily animal protein, divide the chart into four quadrants.

Fig. 1 shows Bangladesh exhibited the highest fisheries contribution (vis-a-vis the valueof agricultural exports) of the 12 countries situated in the Northeast quadrant – twice thelevel of Myanmar, Thailand, and Yemen. Fisheries accounted for a smaller proportion ofthe value of agricultural exports in Sri Lanka and India, the countries with the highestlevel of domestic consumption. Pakistan, despite harvesting over 600,000 ton in 2000,was the only country located in the Southeast quadrant as, on average, Pakistanis onlyconsumed some 0.7 g of fish commodities per day – half the volume consumed inneighbouring India. Fisheries commodities demonstrated a strong contribution to domes-tic consumption in Laos and Malaysia, the two countries in the Northwest quadrant.Malaysia was a significant producer in 2000, Laos less so. Production in the five countries

Table 1Asian fisheries: descriptive statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Fisheries exports as a percentage of agricultural exports 20 0.00 78.45 23.68 24.037Fish as a percentage of average daily protein consumption 20 1.82 56.41 26.68 19.1Fishers as a percentage of the/economically active population 20 0.00 4.99 1.33 1.22Rural poverty headcount index 15 4.60 57.20 33.88 15.07

Asia

Fisheries Exports/Agricultural Exports (%)

100806040200-20

Fis

h/D

aily

Pro

tein

Con

sum

ptio

n (%

)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

YEM

VNM

THA

LKA

PHL

PAK

MMR

MYSLAO

PRK

ID N

IN D

CHN

KHMBGD

Fig. 1. Trade against consumption.

A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400 391

in the Southwest quadrant averaged just over 10,000 ton per country during 2000 and,with the exception of Mongolia, each ran a fisheries trade deficit in the same year.

Second, we can plot the number of fishers as a proportion of the economically activepopulation against the rural poverty headcount index (although this is unfortunately onlyavailable for about half the countries examined).10 Here, given the significant range of fig-ures for fisheries employment and rural poverty, reference lines are set at 1% and 30%,respectively.

Fig. 2 indicates that, with the exception of Malaysia, countries in the Northeast (sevencases) and Southeast (two cases) quadrants with higher employment rates were stronglyexport oriented. All but Cambodia and Sri Lanka were major fishing nations. The associ-ation between fisheries employment and rural poverty was strongest in the Philippines andVietnam. Thailand, another major fishing nation, was on the cusp of the Southeast quad-rant, but was located with Yemen in the Southwest quadrant. Negligible employment ratesin landlocked Laos, Mongolia, and Nepal ensured their location in the Northwest quad-rant. Although there were a large number of fishers in Pakistan, their contribution toemployment did not exceed 1% of the labour force.

As is clear from the preceding analysis, there are substantive differences in the extent towhich countries are reliant upon the fisheries sector in regard to trade, domestic proteinconsumption, employment and rural poverty. Yet sectoral significance, in terms of eithertrade/consumption or poverty/employment, is no guarantor that the sector will be effec-tively incorporated into national development or donor discourses.

10 The number of fishers is derived from FAO Fishery Country Profiles, data for the total economically activepopulation from FAOSTAT. We have used the most recent estimates of the rural poverty headcount index fromthe World Bank (2001), the World Bank Poverty Monitoring Database, and IFAD (2001).

Asia

Fishers/Economically Active Population (%)

6543210-1

Rur

al P

over

ty H

eadc

ount

Ind

ex

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

YEM

VNM

THA

LKA

PHL

PAK

NPL

MNG

MYS

LAO

IDN

IND

CHN

KHM BGD

Fig. 2. Employment against rural poverty.

392 A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400

PRSPs, National Development Plans and the Fisheries Sector

The expectation that PRSPs provide a more comprehensive and integrated approach todevelopment planning does not negate the opportunity for specific sectors to advance theirown partisan interests in the problem identification and policy formulation discourse pre-ceding the adoption of a PRSP. That said, the extent to which the fisheries sector [orindeed, any sector] is incorporated into a PRSP – or indeed a National Development Plan(NDP)11 – will depend upon the economic, socio-political, structural and cultural contextsrelating to specific national environments. In the preceding section we identified countriesin which growth and equity considerations might feasibly ensure the sector�s incorporationinto the national development agenda. Here, we turn our attention to examining the extentof such incorporation through an ex-post analysis of PRSPs and NDPs for a selection ofAsian economies12 (�Has the sector been incorporated? – and, if so, to what extent?�) usinga variant of the assessment methodology suggested by Ekbom and Bojo (1997).

Assessment methodology

Ekbom and Bojo (1997), inspired by earlier work by Bojo and Chee (1995), WorldBank (1996) and Loksha (1996), elaborated an elementary filter of 13 criteria – grouped

11 Only nine Asian countries (Bangladesh, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka,Vietnam and the Yemen) presently participate in the PRSP process. For those �PRSP-exempt� states, theopportunity for (fisheries) sectoral insertion is conditioned by the sector�s ability to capture/influence keychannels of traditional (or novel) discourse within the policy formulation process.12 In addition to the nine PRSPs, we were able to access a further seven NDPs, giving a total of 15 in all (we were

unable to access the Bangladeshi Interim PRSP for technical reasons).

A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400 393

into five sequential sections – as an aide de memoir for evaluating the extent to which theenvironment had been incorporated into World Bank Country Assistance Strategy (CAS)documents. Not only did the exercise conclude that environmental issues had made someinroads into CAS documentation, but that there existed a �rich flora of inspiring examples�of effective environmental mainstreaming which were potentially transferable. Modifiedversions of Ekbom and Bojo�s assessment framework were later applied to examine theextent to which the environment had been integrated into CAS produced in the fiscal year1999 (Shyamsundar et al., 2001) and PRSPs (Bojo and Reddy, 2001), the studies oncemore highlighting a number of concrete examples of good practice. Oksanen and Mers-mann (2002) subsequently appropriated and adapted the methodology so as to evaluatethe extent to which a renewable resource sector – in this instance forestry – had beenincluded in Sub-Saharan African PRSPs, finding:

Bo

CrdoCrissCrinCrfisEa0 =1 =2 =3 =Thdoat

‘‘. . .in general the sector was incorporated in a rather modest and unsystematic man-ner. The analysis of the cause and effect linkages between the forest sector and pov-erty and the treatment of forest related issues was generally weak. Considering this,surprisingly many forest-related responses and actions were proposed in the povertyreduction programmes (2002, p. 123).’’

Our paper chooses to apply the renewable resource assessment methodology espousedby Oksanen and Mersmann (2002), in effect substituting �fish for forest�. Box 1 outlines theassessment methodology applied, and the scoring scale deployed to produce the resultsoutlined in the following sub-section.

Nine Asian countries have completed either a PRSP (Cambodia, Mongolia, Nepal, SriLanka, Vietnam, Yemen) or an interim PRSP (Bangladesh, Lao PDR, Pakistan) whileother key national policy documents were analysed for another seven countries (Bhutan,India, Jordan, Malaysia, Oman, Philippines, Thailand). The inclusion of fisheries related

x 1. Assessment methodology applied

iteria 1 (Issue): Were fisheries related issues included in the analysedcuments?iteria 2 (Causal Links): Were the causal linkages between fishery-relatedues and poverty related issues analysed in the documents?iteria 3 (Responses): Were fisheries related responses and actions definedthe documents?iteria 4 (Process): Were links between the document formulation process andheries related policy and planning processes detailed in the document?ch of the four criteria was given a numeric value where:no mentionmentioned, but not elaborated uponelaboratedBest Practice

is permits an average aggregate score to be computed for each analysedcument, values ranging from 0 (sector is not mentioned in the documentall) to 3 (best practice evident on all four counts).

Table 2Extent to which the fisheries sector is included in Asian PRSPs and National Development Plans

Criteria/value 1 2 3 Averagea

Issues Bhutan, India,Thailand, Vietnam

Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Yemen Cambodia, Oman,Philippines

1.27

Links Bhutan, India,Mongolia, Pakistan,Vietnam, Yemen

Cambodia, Philippines, Sri Lanka 0.8

Responses Bhutan, Laos,Mongolia, Thailand

India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka,Vietnam

Cambodia, Oman,Philippines, Yemen

1.6

Process Laos, Yemen Cambodia, Philippines, Thailand Sri Lanka 0.73

a The average is presently computed with reference to the 15 Asian countries for which we have PRSPs orNDPs. No NDP could be obtained for seven countries (China, Indonesia, Korea DPR, Lebanon, Myanmar,Qatar or Syria), while the Bangladeshi interim PRSP could not be analysed due to technical difficulties.

394 A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400

issues in Asian PRSPs and NDPs is to be reasonably expected given the regional contri-bution to aggregate fisheries data in the fields of captures [half of the world�s 12 largestfish harvesting nations are Asian], aquaculture production [top nine major producingstates], total population engaged in the fishery sector [85% of world total] and fleet size[84% of the world�s decked vessels, 51% of powered un-decked vessels and 83% of non-powered boats] (FAO, 2002b). However, although the Asian sample scored higher thanother regions with regards to almost all criteria (Thorpe, 2005), only in the case of�responses� does the regional average score climb significantly above one. Table 2 summa-rises our findings (Appendix 2 provides a detailed analysis of national policy agendas foreach country).13

Ten (66.7%) of the analysed sub-sample of 15 countries mention fisheries issues,although four do not extend the discussion beyond brief references to; the potential offly-fishing within the national tourism strategy (Bhutan), the rapid growth experiencedby the sector (Vietnam), the importance of food safety of fish products and the potentialimpact of port development projects on small-scale fisheries (India), or the consequencesof unsustainable fishing practices (Thailand). Five national policy documents touch uponfisheries issues in a somewhat more substantial manner. A comprehensive chapter on agri-cultural development in the 10th Malaysia Plan dedicates several paragraphs to the fish-eries sub-sector, aquaculture and fisheries development prospects. The Sri LankanPRSP discusses the impact of war on fisheries, noting that production in the north hasbegun to recover since the February 2002 ceasefire, and identifies severe coastal erosionas a pressing environmental concern, not least because of its negative impact on the live-lihoods of thousands of fishing families. The importance of effective coastal zone manage-ment is the key fishery-related issue discussed in the Yemeni PRSP, highlighting areas ofconcern as diverse as over-fishing, destructive fishing practices, water pollution due towaste and chemicals, as well as the damage inflicted on coastal zones and fishing commu-nities by tourist resort development.

Three outstanding accounts of fisheries issues within the Asian sub-sample, are pro-vided by the Cambodian PRSP, the Omani Sixth Five Year Development Plan, and the

13 It should be stressed that the purpose of this research is to measure fisheries incorporation into PRSPs, NDPsand donor support programmes. It is beyond the remit of this circular to ascertain whether the identified links,responses and processes subsequently impact in the manner intended on policy formulation or implementation.

A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400 395

Philippine Medium-Term Development Plan. The Cambodian PRSP addresses aquacul-ture, fisheries management and livelihood improvement, and community fisheries in sep-arate sections, with frequent other references helping to effectively mainstream fisheriesissues throughout the document. In contrast, the Omani and Philippine documents discussfisheries issues in distinct chapters. The Omani Plan provides a detailed evaluation of the(disappointing) performance of the sector under the preceding five year plan, this helpingto pinpoint the contemporary challenges faced by the commercial and artisanal fishing sec-tors. In the case of the Philippines, two separate chapters, discuss in detail: (i) the state,challenges and future of the agricultural and fishery sector and (ii) environmental issues(incl. fisheries resources) and responses (Best Practice).

Causal links between fishery related and poverty-related issues are mentioned in ninedocuments (60%), two-thirds of which refer – in a rather ephemeral manner – to theemployment and growth potential of the sector and/or its impact on local incomes (Bhu-tan, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Yemen), the significance of fish products in securing healthand nutrition objectives (India, Mongolia), the lack of access to fishery-productionenhancing opportunities for the poor (Vietnam), the effect of environmental degradationon the livelihoods of the poor (Yemen), and the fact that certain populations engaging infisheries are poor (India, Yemen). In contrast, while essentially commenting on the sameissues, the analysis contained in the Cambodian (growth and incomes, consumption, envi-ronmental degradation), Philippine (employment and income, fishers among the poor,environmental degradation) and Sri Lankan (growth and incomes, coastal fishing commu-nities are among the poorest) documents is somewhat more profound. Noteworthy are thediscussions of fish consumption expenditure and natural resource access of the poor in theCambodian PRSP, and the comments on vulnerability and the seasonal poverty of fishingfamilies in the Sri Lankan PRSP.

Twelve policy documents (80%) contained fisheries responses, although four of thesedocuments made only fleeting references – in terms of the need to establish hatcheriesto re-stock rivers (Bhutan), the diversification of rural livelihoods via the promotion offisheries (Lao PDR), the need to increase the supply of fish and fish products (Mongolia),and the demarcation of areas for the protection of aquatic fauna and local fishing areas(Thailand). Seven countries place rather more emphasis on fishery responses. India, withmultiple responses scattered across its rather lengthy 10th Five Year Plan, plans to pro-mote aquaculture to diversify rural incomes in �backward regions�, and to boost researchactivity in order to promote sustainable fisheries and aquaculture growth. The 8th Malay-sia Plan details a variety of interventions aimed at stimulating sustainable growth in fish-eries, aquaculture, fish processing and ornamental fish-rearing, including improved coastaland marine resource management, infrastructure provision (fishing complexes) and pro-motion of research activity, and reflects on the possibility of integrating sport-fishing activ-ities in tourism packages. Similar measures are announced in Vietnam�s PRSP, yet moreemphasis is placed here on narrowing the material gap between ethnic groups, and target-ing the sector via specific support programmes – such as the provision of productioninputs and subsidised credit, information, training, and risk-management capacity build-ing. Sri Lanka, basing its fisheries policy on its National Fisheries Development andCoastal Zone Management programmes, details strategies to ensure the sustainable devel-opment of the sector, combined with specifically targeted interventions to bring poor andsocially excluded groups, including fishers, into the economic mainstream, yet fails to pro-vide a fully articulated expenditure framework.

396 A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400

The most elaborate response strategies are outlined in the Cambodian and YemeniPRSPs, which include action/implementation matrixes detailing objectives, strategies, mon-itoring indicators and budgets – and the Omani Sixth Five Year Plan and the PhilippineMedium-Term Development Plan (MTDP). Rice-fish farming, aquaculture, and commu-nity-based fisheries management are identified as key components in Cambodia�s strategyfor equitable agricultural development. Particularly noteworthy interventions include aprogramme to promote improved resource access for poor families and communities, astudy examining the commercial importance of freshwater fisheries, and gender-specificextension programmes – to reflect the dominant role of women in traditional farming, fish-ing, and related commercial activities. The Yemeni PRSP aims for annual fisheries growthof 7.8% – without sacrificing stock sustainability – and details projects and programmes(Support to Research, Assessment of Fish Stock, Creation of an Integrated Marine Controland Inspection System, Creation of Quality Control Laboratories, Improvement of Tradi-tional Fishing in the Red Sea, Fisheries Production Promotion) aimed at achieving thistarget.

The Omani document outlines a series of objectives (including pursuit of averageannual growth of 3.9% and improving post-harvest activities) and the policies, mecha-nisms (encouragement of a youth ships programme, extending the provision of marinefishing licences, etc.) and investment programme expected to deliver such goals. Probablythe best response strategy is provided by the Philippine MTDP, however, which outlines acomprehensive strategy for agricultural and fisheries development, with the Agriculturaland Fisheries Modernisation Act of 1997 and the Fisheries Code of 1998 at its core.One central element of the strategy is the designation of Strategic Agricultural and Fish-eries Development Zones (SAFDZs) to protect the country�s agricultural and fisheryresources and ensure their economically and environmentally sustainable use. Further-more, the government plans to extend education and training services to marginal sectors,including fishers, by extending the National Agriculture and Fisheries Education Systemand strengthening its institutions, such as the National Centre and the Provincial Institutesof Agriculture and Fisheries (Best Practice).

Six national documents (40%) include references to the involvement of fisheries stake-holders in the policy process. While two countries merely mention the crucial role of women�sand youth mass organisations in the process of poverty reduction (Lao PDR) or signal inten-tions to promote community participation in the protection of natural resources (Yemen),four provide more details as to the ways in which such participation is to be achieved. Mostnotably, the Philippine document, developed with the participation of fisheries stakeholders,outlines the legal obligation of local governments to ensure such participation in the identi-fication of SAFDZs and the elaboration of related development plans. The CambodianPRSP too indicates that fishers representatives participated in the document forging process,and goes as far as to commit the government to move towards the co-management of fish-eries resources. Community participation is also placed firmly on the agenda in Thailand,the 9th National Economic and Social Development Plan outlining a series of measuresintended to improve local input into fisheries decision-making processes. The most elaborateaccount, however, is provided by Sri Lanka, which dedicates a whole section of its PRSP todetailing a variety of community-based coastal preservation and marine resource manage-ment projects to be implemented over a period of five years (Best Practice).

As expected, the regional importance of fisheries (in terms of production, aquaculture,employment and fleet) ensures aggregate scores under each of the four identified criteria

A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400 397

are slightly higher than those recorded in other geographic regions (Thorpe, 2005). Thatsaid, scores for individual countries vary considerably with two documents (Jordan,Nepal) failing to include fisheries issues altogether, a selection of countries offering aver-age-good coverage (India, Malaysia, Oman, Thailand, Vietnam and The Yemen), andthree countries (Cambodia, Philippines, Sri Lanka) achieving particularly high scores,indicating an extensive coverage of fisheries issues in relation to all criteria.

Conclusion

The September 2000 Millennium Development Compact and the subsequent 2002Monterrey Consensus call for concerted action on the major developmental challengesof the day. A central concern is human poverty [MDG – Goal 1] – as 54 countries arepoorer, 21 have more people going hungry, 34 have seen life expectancy decline and theHuman Development Index has fallen in 21 since 1990 (World Bank, 2003, p. 2). In2000, 1100.2 million people – 21.6% of the global population – survived on less thanUS$1.08 a day, although accelerated growth rates throughout much of the Asian regionsaw the numbers falling below this benchmark dropping by 208.7 million to 261.4 million(down 34%) in East Asia [including China] and by 34.4 million to 432.1 million (down7.4%) in South Asia. Notwithstanding these notable achievements, continued povertyreduction is likely to remain a crucial policy objective in the Asian development discourse.The question is, how does/can fisheries be integrated into this framework of PRSPs andNDPs?

We contend the sector can – in certain countries – have a particularly important role toplay in the national development process on two counts. First, in terms of its value as amotor of growth and/or improved domestic nutritional uptake. The establishment of200-mile exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and a development doctrine (neo-liberalism)that espoused the exploitation of natural comparative advantage prompted fleet expansionand the development of aquaculture across the developing world (Thorpe and Bennett,2001, 147ff). Fisheries growth – to the point where the developing economies now supplymore than 70% of total fish for food production (Delgado et al., 2003, p. 4) – was reflectedin a growing aquatic resource contribution to GDP, exports and domestic nutrient avail-ability in a number of countries. Equally (second), fisheries are a potential beneficiary ofthe move towards poverty-oriented development programmes in those instances whenindividuals, groups and communities linked to the sector are identified as inherently poorand/or latently vulnerable. These criteria then provide a convenient basis for identifying –and thereby differentiating between – countries according to the relative importance oftheir respective fisheries sectors in development terms.

Fisheries appear to be significant as a motor of growth – Fig. 1 – within 12 of the 20Asian states (Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Myanmar, Philip-pines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam and the Yemen). Although the sample is somewhatreduced (15 countries) for the equity scatter-plot (Fig. 2), seven nations exhibit pro-nounced levels of rural poverty and fisheries-related employment (Bangladesh, Cambodia,India, Indonesia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam) – all of whom also score highly onthe growth criteria. The question is: Does sectoral significance in growth and/or equityterms aid in mainstreaming fisheries into PRSPs and NDPs? (and, conversely of course,is the sector relatively neglected in those eight countries with a less significant fisheriessector?).

398 A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400

Four assessment criteria were identified (Issues, Causal Links, Responses and Pro-cesses) and, to facilitate comparison, a four-point scale (0–3) was used to rank the ana-lysed documents on these criteria, an absence of fisheries references in the documentmeriting a zero mark, whilst identified �best practice� gained the maximum three. Fivecountries provided examples of best practice, the majority (Cambodia, Oman, Philippines,and the Yemen) in terms of planned responses to sectoral shortcomings or needs. Cambo-dia and Oman also evinced best practice in terms of the issues criteria, with Sri Lankaoffering the only instance of best practice on the process criteria.

Mapping this analysis across to the scatter-plots throws up a number of scenarios.First, although the fisheries sector is deemed to be highly significant in either trade-con-sumption and/or poverty-employment terms in 12 countries, such significance onlytranslates into effective sectoral mainstreaming14 in five instances [Cambodia, Oman,Philippines, Sri Lanka and the Yemen – although relevant PRSPs/NDPs were unavail-able for a further five (Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Korea and Myanmar) countries].Second, there is a group of two countries – Thailand and Vietnam for whom the sectoris significant, yet this significance is not properly reflected in contemporary PRSPs/NDPs.

These findings suggest two possible avenues for future research into how fisheries (and,by extension, other sectors) might be more effectively incorporated into national develop-ment and poverty reduction strategies in the Asian region. First, a detailed analysis ofidentified examples of best practice so as to produce a synthesis of �best� best practice(as it were) – with a view to informing future efforts to integrate fisheries into nationalagendas. Second, a comparative study examining why certain countries with significantnational fisheries sectors such as Thailand and Vietnam have, nevertheless, to date �missedthe opportunity� to ensure more effective fisheries mainstreaming into development dis-courses – in contrast to Cambodia and Sri Lanka (where significance has been translatedinto best practice).

Acknowledgements

Financial support for the study provided under the normative component of the DFID-funded and FAO-executed Sustainable Fisheries Livelihood Programme and FAO�s Fish-ery and Development Planning Service is gratefully acknowledged. Comments from RolfWillmann, Fabio Pittaluga, Benoit Horemans and other participants at an internal FAOseminar on 20 February 2004 (Rome) were extremely valuable in helping us complete thisarticle. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not nec-essarily reflect the views of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, atdoi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.09.007.

14 Effective sectoral mainstreaming is equated, in this instance, with recording best practice under one or more ofthe assessment criteria identified.

A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400 399

References

Allison, E., Ellis, F., 2001. The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy 25(5), 377–388.

Annan, K., 2003. Promoting an integrated approach to rural development in developing countries for povertyeradication and sustainable development, Report of the Secretary-General to ECOSOC Substantive Sessionof 2003. Available from: <http://www.un.dk/doc/E.2003.51.pdf> (Accessed 2 July 2003).

Bojo, J., Chee, N., 1995. Environmental concerns in country assistance strategies, Office Memorandum (Mimeo),AFTES, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Bojo, J., Reddy, R.C., 2001. Poverty reduction strategies and environment: a review of 40 interim and full PRSPs,World Bank Environment Department. Available from: <http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/44ByDocName/PovertyandEnvironment> (Accessed 20 March 2003).

Delgado, C.L., Wada, N., Rosegrant, M.W., Meijer, S., Ahmed, M., 2003. 2020 Vision food policy report –Outlook for fish to 2020: Meeting Global Demand, IFPRI, Washington, DC. Available from: <http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/fpr/pr15.pdf> (Accessed 20 January 2005).

ECOSOC. 2003. �Economic and Social Council to Begin Annual Session on 30 June with High-Level Meeting onRural Development�, ECOSOC Press Release 6054, 26 June. Available from: <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/ecosoc6054.doc.htm> (Accessed 1 July 2003).

Ekbom, A., Bojo, J., 1997. Mainstreaming environment in country assistance strategies, environment group(Africa Region), Discussion Paper No. 1., World Bank, Washington, DC.

FAO Food Balance Sheets. Available from: <http://apps.fao.org/page/collections> (Accessed 16 September2003).

FAO Fishery Country Profiles. Available from: <http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/fcp.asp> (Accessed 16 September2003).

FAO, 2003a. Report of the workshop and exchange of views on fiscal reforms for fisheries – to promote growth,poverty eradication and sustainable management, 13–15 October, Rome. Available from: <http://www.one-fish.org/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND0xNjg2MjYmNz1lbiY2MT0qJjY1PWtvcw~~> (Accessed 10 January2005).

FAO, 2003b. �Strategies for increasing the sustainable contribution of small-scale fisheries to food security andpoverty alleviation�, Committee on Fisheries (Twenty-Fifth Session), 24-8 February, Rome.

FAO, 2002a. Medium-term plan 2002–2007, FAO, Rome. Available from: <http://www.fao.org/mtp/>(Accessed 7 July 2003).

FAO, 2002b. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture, FAO: Rome, Available from: <http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y7300e/y7300e00.htm> (Accessed 12 December 2003).

FAO, 1996. Policies for sustaining food and agriculture in the south pacific. Available from: <http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/Dodirect/DOEngCO2.htm> (Accessed 18 July 2003).

FAOSTAT. Available from: <http://apps.fao.org/page/collections> (Accessed 16 September 2003).Gordon, H.S., 1954. The economic theory of a common property resource: the fishery. Journal of Political

Economy 62, 124–142.Govt. Vietnam, 2001. Sustainable Aquaculture for Poverty Alleviation [SAPA] Strategy and Implementation

Programme. Available from: <http://www.streaminitiative.org/Library/pdf/DFID/scan/1-sapa-0-12-Eng.pdf> (Accessed 7 January 2005).

IFAD, 2001. Rural poverty report 2001, IFAD, Rome. Available from: <http://www.ifad.org/poverty/>(Accessed 20 August 2003).

IFPRI, 1997. Changing fish trade and demand patterns in developing countries and their significance for policyresearch. Available from: <http://www/ifpri.org/themes/mp07/other/fish.htm> (Accessed 17 July 2003).

Kotikula, A. 2003. Poverty mapping in fishing communities: a case of Thailand, Mimeo.Loksha, V. 1996. Integrating environmental and social issues into CAS: East Asia and South Asia Regions

(Mimeo), ASTEN, World Bank, Washington, DC.Macfadyen, G., Corcoran, E. 2002. Literature review of studies on poverty in fishing communities and of lessons

learned in using the sustainable livelihoods approach in poverty alleviation strategies and projects, FAOFisheries Circular No.979, FAO, Rome.

Oksanen, T., Mersmann, C. 2002. �Forests in poverty reduction strategies – an assessment of PRSP processes insub-Saharan Africa�, Forests in poverty reduction strategies: capturing the potential. In: Oksanen, T., Pajari,B., Tuomasjukka, T. (Eds.), European Forestry Institute Proceedings No. 47, 2003. Available from: <http://www.efi.fi/events/2002/forests_in_poverty/frame_seminar.htm> (Accessed 7 July 2003).

400 A. Thorpe et al. / Food Policy 31 (2006) 385–400

Shyamsundar, P., Hamilton, K., Segnestam, L., Sarraf, M., Fankhauser, S., 2001. Country Assistance Strategiesand the Environment, Environmental Economics Series Paper No. 74, World Bank, Washington, DC.

STREAM, 2000. Poverty and aquatic resources in Vietnam: an assessment of the role and potential of aquaticresource management in poor people�s livelihoods. Available from: <http://www.streaminitiative.org/Library/pdf/DFID/VietnamPovertyReport_23.pdf> (Accessed 17 July 2004).

Thorpe, A. 2005. Mainstreaming fisheries into national development plans and poverty reduction strategies:current situation and opportunities, FAO Fisheries Circular No. 997, FAO, Rome.

Thorpe, A., Bennett, E., 2001. Globalisation and the sustainability of world fisheries: a view from Latin America.Marine Resource Economics 16, 143–164.

Thorpe, A., Reid, C., van Anrooy, R., Brugere, C., 2005. When fisheries influence national policy-making: ananalysis of the national development strategies of major fish-producing nations in the developing world.Marine Policy 29 (3), 211–222.

World Bank. 2003. Millennium Development Goals: A Compact Among Nations to End Human Poverty,Human Development Report, World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank, 2001. World Development Report 2000/2001. Available from: <http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/wdrpoverty/report/tab4.pdf> (Accessed 16 September 2003).

World Bank, 1999. Voices of the poor. Available from: <http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/voices.htm>(Accessed 7 July 2003).

World Bank, 1996. Integrating Environmental Issues into CAS (Mimeo), DEC. World Bank, Washington, DC.World Bank Poverty Monitoring Database. Available from: <http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/dg/povertys.nsf>

(Accessed 15 September 2004).