poverty reduction strategy papers and the fisheries sector: an opportunity forgone?

Journal of International Development

J. Int. Dev. 18, 489–517 (2006)

Published online 8 August 2005 in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jid.1245

POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY PAPERSAND THE FISHERIES SECTOR: AN

OPPORTUNITY FORGONE?

ANDY THORPE,1* CHRIS REID,1 RAYMON VAN ANROOY,2 CECILE BRUGERE2

and DENIS BECKER3

1Department of Economics, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK2Fisheries Department, FAO, Rome, Italy

3Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK

Abstract: This article examines the extent to which the fisheries sector has been main-

streamed into the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) published by fifty nations by the

end of 2003. Applying content analysis techniques we find that there is little overt relationship

between the extent of such mainstreaming and the significance of the sector (as either a

contributor to food security, a generator of foreign exchange, a provider of employment or as a

refuge of the poor). Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1 INTRODUCTION

Food insecurity in the developing world is a central developmental concern. The 1996

World Food Summit vowed to halve the number of undernourished individuals to around

410 million by 2015, an undertaking subsequently embraced within the Millennium

Development Goals [MDG], adopted by the UN in September 2000—which promised a

similar reduction in the number of individuals subsisting on an income of less than US$1 a

day (around 25 per cent of the population of the developing world—an estimated 1134

million individuals).

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

*Correspondence to: Dr Andy Thorpe, Department of Economics, University of Portsmouth, Richmond Building,Portland Street, Portsmouth PO1 3DE, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

Abbreviations: All abbreviations in the ‘documents’ column refer to Full Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers(PRSPs) with the exception of; IPRSP (Interim PRSP)—Bangladesh, Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, CongoD.R., Djibouti, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lao. PDR, Lesotho, Macedonia FYR, Moldova,Pakistan and Sierra Leone; PRSR (Poverty Reduction Strategy Progress Report)—Albania, Burkina Faso,Niger, Tanzania and Uganda; APR (Annual Progress Report)—Honduras and Nicaragua; AR (AnnualReview)—Malawi; PRSIR (Poverty Reduction Strategy Implementation Report)—Mauritania andMozambique.The Gambian PRSP, the Mauritanian Implementation Report 2003 and the Ugandan Progress Report #32003 were not analysed due to technical problems.

These considerations have influenced the agendas of multilateral donor institutions, most

notably the IMF and World Bank who, since 1999, have made all concessional lending1

(and eligibility for Heavily Indebted Poor Country [HIPC] debt-relief initiatives) condi-

tional upon countries producing Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers [PRSPs]. These policy

documents, which are ‘expected to be framed against the backdrop of the MDGs’ (IMF,

2003, p. 4), are expected to enunciate clearly presented (and costed) macroeconomic,

structural and social policy priorities to alleviate poverty—along with a series of

intermediate and final targets, associated indicators, and the intended monitoring systems.

Significantly too, PRSPs are posited to emerge from a highly participatory and transparent

consultation process, thereby reducing the likelihood of policy slippage over time by

ensuring that the ensuing macro- and sectoral development strategies are country, rather

than donor, driven. The relative novelty of the PRSP process, allied to the need for urgency

in order to prevent delays for countries intent on seeking debt relief under the HIPC

Initiative, saw provision made for the formulation of Interim PRSPs. Interim PRSPs detail

the country’s current poverty reduction strategy and set out a road-map and accompanying

timeline for the completion of a full PRSP. To date (end December 2003), 50 countries

have produced a PRSP—37 countries completing a full PRSP, with a further 13 having

submitted an Interim PRSP.

The transparent and participatory modus operandi favoured in the formulation of such

PRSPs cuts across traditional discourse channels, and offers civil society organisations a

potentially greater opportunity to ensure the insertion of desired sectoral goals and

strategies into the final diagnostic policy document. Attempts have already been made

to examine how gender (Zuckerman, 2002), sustainability (DFID, 2000; Bojo and Reddy,

2002; DFID/EC/UNDP/World Bank, 2002) HIV/AIDS (World Bank, 2001), and forestry

(Oksanen et al., 2003) have been ‘mainstreamed’ into national poverty reduction

strategies. Although FAO (2002) have also explored the extent to which food security,

agricultural and rural development issues were encompassed within PRSPs, the fisheries

sector2 was surprisingly overlooked. Yet fisheries can be a significant employer (con-

stituting 8.3 per cent of direct employment in Chad), source of foreign exchange (gen-

erating 76 per cent of primary commodity export revenues in Bangladesh), and

consumption staple (providing 65.8 per cent of daily animal protein needs in Ghana) for

a number of developing countries. The only fisheries-related research on the theme to date

originates from the FAO/DFID/SFLP-funded regional poverty alleviation programme for

small-scale fisheries in West Africa—and suggests an opportunity forgone rather than an

opportunity seized. Although opportunities were available—the sector generally being

represented at most consultative levels [task force, thematic working group, community

level] in the 11 countries reviewed—participation did not translate effectively into policy,

and the final report concluded:

The main outcome of this [analysis] clearly showed that small-scale fisheries are

rarely taken into account in PRSPs formulation (FAO/DFID/SFLP, 2002:ii).

This paper extends such analysis and seeks to explain why this may be so. We

conjecture that those countries which largely depend on fisheries for growth and/or

1Concessional lending refers to loans granted at below market-related rates. Of the six loan instruments currentlydeployed by the IMF, for example, just one—the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility [which funds PRSPborrowing]—offers concessional rates [presently 0.5 per cent per annum].2Unless otherwise stated, the term ’fisheries sector’ includes capture fisheries, aquaculture and connectedactivities in fish processing and marketing.

490 A. Thorpe et al.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Int. Dev. 18, 489–517 (2006)

poverty alleviation are more likely to have most effectively mainstreamed fisheries into

their PRSPs. To examine this hypothesis, we firstly devise and apply a methodology that

enables us to quantify the degree to which the fisheries sector (small-scale and industrial)

has been mainstreamed into the fifty PRSPs produced by the end of 2003 (Section Two).

Section three then identifies the degree of dependence on fisheries—as a source of growth

and a refuge of the poor—for the sampled countries and compares fisheries dependence

with the degree of PRSP mainstreaming encountered. A concluding section summarises

our findings and suggests potential areas for further research.

2 MAINSTREAMING OF FISHERIES IN PRSPS: A CONTENT ANALYSIS

There is no one recommended method for what a PRSP should contain or how it should be

compiled. While the World Bank has produced a 1,070 page PRSP Sourcebook that

provides ‘guidance on getting started on key issues in the context of preparing a poverty

reduction strategy (2001; p. 2)—it is instructive rather than prescriptive, and with the

exception of the environmental section, only makes a few isolated references to the

fisheries sector or fisheries examples.3 Consequently, PRSPs vary markedly in both length

(12 pages in the case of Sao Tome and Prıncipe to 234 pages in the case of the Cameroon),

structure (the Pakistani PRSP identifies three pillars for accelerating economic growth, the

Burundi document signals six themes and priorities considered imperative for achieving

the long-term development of the country) and ultimately content (the Zambian PRSP

devotes a whole chapter to tourism potential and treats HIV/AIDS as a cross-cutting issue,

in contrast the Bolivian PRSP fails to mention HIV/AIDS and makes only intermittent

references to tourism opportunities). Thus, an appropriate assessment methodology needs

to be sufficiently flexible so as to accommodate the analysis of such distinctive documents.

2.1 Assessment Methodology

A useful technique in such circumstances is content analysis, a systematic, replicable data

reduction technique (Stemler, 2001) that can be used to determine the presence of a

particular concept (in this case, fisheries and its related terminology—such as aquaculture,

mariculture etc.) within a body of text (in this case, the published PRSPs). Ekbom and

Bojo (1997), inspired by earlier work by Bojo and Chee (1995), World Bank (1996) and

Loksha (1996), elaborated an elementary filter of 13 criteria grouped into five sequential

sections as an aide memoire when analysing how environmental issues had been

mainstreamed into World Bank Country Assistance Strategies [CAS]. Applying this filter

in undertaking a ‘content analysis’ of 34 CAS, they concluded that not only had

environmental issues made some inroads into CAS documentation, but that the filter

was, moreover, a useful analytic tool for reviewing the extent to which the environment

had been successfully incorporated. Modified versions of Ekbom and Bojo’s assessment

framework was subsequently applied in examining the magnitude of environmental

mainstreaming to be found in thirty-seven CAS produced by the World Bank in fiscal

year 1999 (Shyamsundar and Hamilton, 2000), and forty Full or Interim PRSPs (Bojo and

3This is most likely attributable to the Bank’s own strategy for fisheries development now being over a decade old(Loayza et al., 1992).

PRSPs and the Fisheries Sector 491


Reddy, 2001). The framework was then appropriated and adapted by Oksanen and

Mersmann (2003) who employed four criteria, measured on a four-point scale, to evaluate

the extent to which the forestry sector was integrated into sub-Saharan Africa PRSPs.

Their findings were then compared to two broader factors—the degree of forest cover

remaining in the country AND the existence of an ongoing national forestry policy and

sectoral planning process—the latter appearing influential in ensuring forestry represen-

tation in PRSPs, as did modest forest cover.

This paper amends the framework espoused by Oksanen and Mersmann, in effect

substituting ‘fish for forest’4 (Box 1), and employs content analysis techniques to analyse

the extent to which the fisheries sector has been integrated into the fifty PRSPs completed

by the end of 2003.5

2.2 PRSPs and Fisheries: A Content Analysis6

While 36 (72 per cent) of the PRSPs analysed acknowledge fisheries-related issues

(Table 1), in two-thirds of these documents the sector is merely mentioned. The actual

issues mentioned are varied, from the current contribution of fisheries (along with farming

and forestry) to GDP, exports and local employment (Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi), to

the regional and/or national potential of fisheries (Armenia, Bangladesh, Guyana, Mali),

the threat posed by the spread of water hyacinth (Rwanda), overfishing (Albania, Sao

Tome and Prıncipe, Zambia), and an EU ban on fish imports (Uganda). A more profound

4We choose to do this on the grounds that not only is their methodology relatively straightforward to apply (hencereducing the possibility of errors), but that it also permits cross-sectoral comparisons vis-a-vis the effectiveness ofdifferent sector’s incorporation into PRSPs—although such comparisons are beyond the scope of this paper.5It should be stressed that the purpose of this research is to measure fisheries incorporation into PRSPs. It isbeyond the remit of this article to ascertain whether the identified links, responses and processes subsequentlyimpact in the manner intended on policy formulation or implementation.6Appendix 2 provides a detailed synopsis—by country, and by each of the identified criteria—of the 50 analysedPRSPs.

Box 1. Assessment Methodology Applied

Criteria 1 (Issue): Were fisheries related issues included in the analysed PRSPs?

Criteria 2 (Causal Links): Were the causal linkages between fishery-related issues and

poverty related issues analysed within the PRSPs?

Criteria 3 (Responses): Were fisheries related responses/actions defined in the PRSPs?

Criteria 4 (Process): Were links between the PRSP formulation process and fisheries

related policy and planning processes detailed in the PRSP itself?

Each of the four criteria was given a numeric value where;

0¼ no mention

1¼mentioned, but not elaborated upon

2¼ elaborated

3¼Best Practice

This permits an average aggregate score to be computed for each analysed PRSP (See

Table 2), values ranging from 0 (sector is not mentioned in the document at all) to 3

(best practice evident on all four counts).



exposition of fisheries issues is encountered in ten PRSPS. In such instances, an historic

overview of fisheries development, regulatory change and sectoral constraints are gen-

erally provided (Mauritania, Senegal, Yemen), although state-specific concerns may also

be expanded upon (adverse effects of war on the sector in the case of Sri Lanka, pollution

of the Caspian Sea-Bay of Baku in Azerbaijan). Cameroon and Cambodia, however,

provide the best examples of mainstreaming fisheries issues, providing detailed sectoral

Table 1. Summary of scores by criteria (fisheries in 50 PRSPS)*

Criteria/ 1 2 3 Ave.Value

Issues

(36 States)

Africa: Cape Verde, Chad,

Congo D.R., Cote d’Ivoire,

Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar,

Malawi, Mali, Niger, Rwanda,

Sierra Leone, Tanzania,

Uganda, Zambia.

Asia: Bangladesh, Lao

PDR, Vietnam.

SIDS: Guinea-Bissau,

Guyana, Sao Tome

and Prıncipe.

Transition: Albania, Armenia,

Kyrgyzstan.

Africa: Benin, Ghana, Guinea,

Mauritania, Mozambique,

Senegal.

Asia: Sri Lanka,

Yemen.

SIDS: Cape Verde.

Transition: Azerbaijan.

Africa: Cameroon.

Asia: Cambodia.

1.0

Links

(29 States)

Africa: Burkina Faso, Chad,

Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia,

Guinea, Mali, Mauritania,

Mozambique, Senegal, Sierra

Leone, Zambia.

Africa: Benin, Ghana,

Madagascar, Malawi.

Asia: Cambodia, Sri Lanka.

Transition: Azerbaijan

Africa: Cameroon 0.8

Asia: Mongolia, Pakistan,

Vietnam, Yemen.

Latin America: Bolivia,

Honduras.

SIDS: Guyana.

Transition: Albania, Armenia,

Georgia.

Responses

(36 States)

Africa: Benin, Cape Verde,

C.A. Republic, Chad, Congo

D.R., Djibouti, Ethiopia,

Gambia, Guinea-Bissau,

Kenya, Niger, Uganda,

Zambia.

Africa: Cameroon, Cote

d’Ivoire, Madagascar, Mali,

Mozambique

Asia: Sri Lanka, Vietnam.

Latin America: Honduras.

SIDS: Cape Verde.

Africa: Ghana,

Guinea, Malawi,

Mauritania, Senegal.

Asia: Cambodia,

Yemen.

1.22

Asia: Bangladesh, Mongolia.

Latin America: Nicaragua.

Transition: Albania,

Azerbaijan.

SIDS: Guinea-Bissau.

Transition: Armenia.

Process

(18 States)

Africa: Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana,

Mali, Mozambique, Uganda.

Africa: Cameroon,

Madagascar, Senegal.

Africa: Guinea,

Malawi, Sri Lanka.

0.6

Asia: Bangladesh, Lao PDR,

Yemen.

SIDS: Guyana.

Asia: Cambodia.

Transition: Albania,

Azerbaijan.

*The average is computed with reference to the fifty countries completing either full or interim PRSPs.



summaries, with the former going so far as to identify national comparative advantage in

both industrial and artisanal fisheries, while the latter nests fisheries-related issues (fiscal

losses due to illegal fishing, inappropriate government interventions, gender bias in the

post-harvest sector) throughout the document.

Commentary on causal linkages between the fisheries sector and poverty-related issues

was much more superficial (29 PRSPs, 58 per cent), and tended to allude to, rather than

analyse such, linkages. Hence the sector is seen as: underpinning subsistence lifestyles,

providing low incomes and/or being a refuge of the poor (Bolivia, Chad, The Gambia,

Yemen), and being a critical provider of national protein requirements (Cote d’Ivoire,

Guinea, Georgia, Mongolia). Mention is also made of the role [unelaborated] that the

sector could play in alleviating poverty and vulnerability (Albania, Armenia, Guyana,

Honduras, Mali, Mozambique, Pakistan, Vietnam). More substantive detail is proffered in

the Azerbaijani, Cambodian and Malawi documents on the lineal relationship between

over-fishing, environmental degradation and poverty, while the Ghanaian PRSP delineates

reasons clarifying why traditional fishers are considered vulnerable. Once more, the

Cameroonian PRSP provides a case of best practice, establishing links between poverty

and the fisheries sector through a programme of public consultations, a series of remedial

measures emerging as a result.

Thirty-six PRSPs also remark on government policy responses vis-a-vis the fisheries

sector. Exactly half of these however do no more than simply note government intent,

for example, to: design micro-credit and sectoral action programmes (The Gambia),

support environmentally sound fishing (Armenia, Chad), increase fisheries production

(Lao PDR) and apply new fisheries laws (Nicaragua and Guinea-Bissau), re-stock

ponds and fisheries (Niger), improve fisheries research (Uganda) and upgrade sanitary

procedures (Djibouti). Eleven of the PRSPs go further and elaborate upon what the

government precisely proposes to do—whether it be developing infrastructure to aid

both industrial and artisanal fishers (Benin), promoting the expansion of shrimp

farming and the training of fish farmers (Madagascar), equipping women’s wholesale

fish trading associations (Mali), preventing further coastal erosion (Sri Lanka),

enhanced surveillance mechanisms to reduce illegal, unregulated and unreported

[IUU] fishing (Cape Verde), or improve fisheries management measures (Albania).

Seven of the documents (five African, two Asian) provide examples of best practice—

specifying activities/strategies to be undertaken AND costings/monitoring indicators of

the proposed interventions. The Cambodian document, for example, assigns US$1.2

million for the development of a three-year (2002–05) fresh and marine aquaculture

project encompassing nine Cambodian provinces, while the Guinean document plans to

train 1,050 people in fishing and processing technologies, business management and

micro-finance over a three year period (2002–04) at a cost of one billion Guinean

francs.

The process criterion was much less in evidence—somewhat surprisingly, perhaps,

given the participatory modus operandi favoured in drawing up a PRSP—18 (36 per cent)

national documents scoring on this count. In the main, links between sectoral stakeholders

and the document formulation process extended to no more than consultation with

stakeholders so as to allow the voicing of their concerns (nine cases). There were few

obvious connections between voiced stakeholder demands and the ensuing policy analysis

and/or response—as evidenced in the Mozambican and Cote d’Ivoire PRSPs, for

example. A third of these 18 documents did elaborate upon such processes—although

in the main they contented themselves with revealing how such consultation processes



influenced the final policy document (Cameroon, Senegal and Cambodia). In contrast, the

most effective policy documents not only accorded stakeholders a bigger influence within

the ongoing consultative process, but also pledged to create new institutional mechanisms

intended to increase the community and/or sectoral voice in subsequent policy-making

(Guinea, Malawi, and Sri Lankan PRSPs).

It is clear from the above that fisheries are certainly not ignored in currently published

PRSPs. The degree of mainstreaming could be improved however as, under each of the

four identified criteria, fisheries tends to receive merely a cursory acknowledgement,

rather than benefit from a detailed elaboration of the potential of, and constraints facing,

the sector. That said, there are marked differences in the treatment of fisheries within the

respective national policy documents (Table 2).

In regional terms, the presence of fisheries is most pronounced in Asian PRSPs (average

score 1.056) and, to a lesser extent, African documents. Despite the Azerbaijani PRSP

portraying a relatively high fisheries profile, the majority of transition economies largely

fail to incorporate the sector into their national development strategies. Latin America and

the Small Island Developing States [SIDS] score equally badly, although the poor showing

of the SIDS is partly due to the abbreviated length of the respective PRSPs (12, 37 and 46

pages for Sao Tome and Prıncipe, Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde respectively, although

Table 2. Summary of scores by nation state (fisheries in 50 PRSPS)

State\Agg. Score Zero Under 1 1 to 1.75 2 or Above

Africa Lesotho Chad (0.75) Madagascar (1.75) Cameroon (2.5)

(26 States) Uganda (0.75) Mauritania (1.5) Guinea (2.25)

Ave Score: 0.981 Zambia (0.75) Mozambique (1.5) Malawi (2.25)

Congo D.R (0.5) Benin (1.25) Ghana (2.0)

The Gambia (0.5) Cote D’Ivoire (1.25) Senegal (2.0)

Niger (0.5) Mali (1.25)

Sierra Leone (0.5)

Burkina Faso (0.25)

C.A. Republic (0.25)

Djibouti (0.25)

Ethiopia (0.25)

Kenya (0.25)

Rwanda (0.25)

Tanzania (0.25)

Asia Nepal Bangladesh (0.75) Yemen (1.75) Cambodia (2.5)

(9 States) Lao PDR (0.5) Vietnam (1.0) Sri Lanka (2.25)

Ave Score: 1.056 Mongolia (0.5)

Pakistan (0.25)

Latin America Honduras (0.75)

(3 States) Bolivia (0.25)

Ave Score: 0.417 Nicaragua (0.25)

SIDS Guyana (0.75) Cape Verde (1.0)

(4 States) Guinea-Bissau (0.5)

Ave Score: 0.625 Sao Tome and Prıncipe (0.25)

Transition Econ. Macedonia FYR Armenia (0.75) Albania (1.5) Azerbaijan (2.0)

(8 States) Moldova Georgia (0.25)

Ave Score: 0.594 Tajikistan Kyrgyzstan (0.25)



Guyana is somewhat more extensive at 109 pages) which inhibits extensive discussion of

sectoral needs and opportunities.7

At the national level, the sector is most effectively mainstreamed into the Cameroon and

Cambodian PRSPs. Both provide an extensive discussion of fisheries issues via succinct

and comprehensive sectoral summaries, the latter going a little further and nesting fisheries

related issues across the whole document. The Cambodian response is a little more explicit

(two components of the equitable agricultural development pillar are fish-related, these

being discussed and costed with some precision), whereas the Cameroonian document

more actively teases out causal linkages between the sector and the incidence of poverty. A

further six countries record aggregate average scores of 2.0 or better. Ten countries post

averages superior to one, although only Mauritania and the Yemen are adjudged to present

examples of best practice—in each case in terms of response—under one of the four

analysed criteria. Mauritania, for example, proposes both the construction of a pelagic port

(cost US$930 million) and a three-year US$550 million programme for training/re-

training in the small-scale fisheries trade, while the Yemen intends to improve fish quality

and post-harvest losses in the Red Sea fishery through a two year investment programme

costing US$596 million.

Over half (27; 54 per cent) of the examined PRSPs simply allude to the fisheries sector

under one or other of the criteria. Only Honduras—in terms of response—actually goes as

far as to elaborate on same, commenting on the proposed establishment of an integrated

programme to support artisanal fishing. Five countries (Lesotho, Nepal, Macedonia FYR,

Moldova and Tajikistan) singularly neglect the fisheries sector in their PRSPs. It is no

coincidence that all of these have no coastline, and only limited inland water bodies. We

hypothesize then that effective fisheries mainstreaming is most/more likely in PRSPs

produced by those countries with substantive fisheries sectors (either currently or

potentially).

3 THE IMPORTANCE OF FISHERIES TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY

Although the participatory modus operandi underpinning PRSPs allows specific sectors to

advance their own partisan interests in the problem identification and policy formulation

discourse that precedes the adoption of the final PRSP document, there is no guarantee that

such discussions will be reflected, let alone prioritized, in the final document. Instead, we

hypothesize that the extent to which the fisheries sector [or indeed, any sector] is integrated

into PRSPs will depend upon the economic, socio-political, structural and cultural

contexts relating to specific national environments. Specifically, we contend, the prospects

for mainstreaming are improved in those instances where the sector is either a potential

motor of growth and/or a refuge for the poor.

3.1 Fisheries as a Motor of Growth

In terms of policy challenges, strong growth was recognised as key to poverty reduc-

tion (IMF/World Bank, 2002, p. 9).

7For this reason we did consider deflating the criterion scores to reflect document length. However, as there is nospecified length for a PRSP—countries have the liberty to submit as lengthy or short a document as they wish—we felt such downscaling would be invalid.



A central component of the neo-liberal development strategy espoused by the main

multilateral institutions during the 1980s and early 1990s, and one that has carried over

into many of the poverty reduction strategies of the early years of the 21st century, was an

emphasis on export-led growth. Drawing its inspiration from neo-classical trade theory

(Corden, 1974; Krueger, 1982), the new development paradigm argued for exchange rate

and trade regime liberalisation (tariff and export subsidy reductions), with unambiguous

welfare gains expected as resources were allocated more efficiently. As exports and

imports adjusted to reflect international comparative advantage, trade became ‘an engine

of growth’.

For those developing economies not fortunate to count upon depletable natural

resources in the shape of copper, oil, natural gas, diamonds and other minerals,

agricultural exports have been the cornerstone of neo-liberal trade promotion strategies

(Thrupp et al., 1995; Quiroz, 2000; Wobst, 2001; Takane, 2002). As FAO (2002, p. 29)

note: ‘all PRSPs recognise the important role that agriculture and rural development can

play . . . in terms of broad based economic growth’.

Fisheries, as with forestry, has generally been accorded much less attention. However,

the sector can help sustain/accelerate the rate of economic growth in a number of ways,

most particularly, through; the exploitation of any remaining under-exploited marine and

inland fish stocks; the initiation and/or continued development of aquaculture and

mariculture activities;8 improvements in value-added within the sector (the provision of

infrastructure to reduce post-harvest losses, for example); and closer integration with

tourism and coastal-zone management programmes so as to derive benefits through eco-

tourism and marine park initiatives, sport fishing and other water-based activities (FAO,

1996, p. 10).

While this contribution can be measured in a number of ways (sectoral contribution to

GDP, fishing licence fee receipts, etc.) we select two criteria to illustrate the current

significance of the sector as a motor of growth. First, we highlight the standing of the

sector as a generator of foreign exchange. FAO (2003) for example, have highlighted the

fact that ‘net export revenues from fish exports earned by developing countries reached

US$17.7 billion in 2001, an amount larger than for any other traded food commodity such

as rice, cocoa, tea or coffee’. We therefore conjecture that the larger the export

contribution, the more likely is—or the greater the opportunities are for—inserting

fisheries-related agendas into national policy formulation processes. Although gross

export earnings affords no great insights into the resource rent generating—and hence

efficiency—capacity of a particular national fishery, it does provide both a (rough)

indicator of the sector’s capital accumulating capacity and a proxy for the presence of

an important pressure group who can lobby for greater inclusion of sectoral interests in

national policy documents. Second, given that the sector plays a crucial role in under-

pinning nutritional standards and/or food security in many countries—providing 15–

16 per cent of global animal protein intake (FAO, 2003a, p. 5)—we also highlight national

reliance upon the sector for provision of animal protein needs. We therefore hypothesize

that the greater the national reliance upon fish protein, the greater the likelihood that

development strategies will reflect this, and advance policies designed to either safeguard

this protein source and/or reduce dependence thereon.

8IFPRI (1997) have noted that aquaculture and mariculture are the two fastest growing food export activities inthe world in value terms.



Figure 1 demonstrates fishing’s contribution to trade and consumption. Fishing’s

contribution to food security is represented by the average daily per capita fish consump-

tion during 2000 as a proportion of total animal protein (FAO, 2003; World Resources

Institute, 2003), while the value of fisheries exports during 2000 as a proportion of the total

value of agricultural exports (including fisheries) indicates the sector’s export orientation

(FAO, 2003). Data are presented in Appendix 1. Horizontal and vertical reference lines

divide the chart into four quadrants. Reference lines are set at twenty percent for both

series, approximating to the sample averages.9 Countries in which trade or consumption

exceed these threshold levels exhibit a greater than average dependence upon fisheries.

Ten countries located in the Northeast quadrant exhibited a high propensity to export

and consume, accounting for some 3.19 per cent of world fisheries production and

4.13 per cent of world exports. The concentration of export earnings and consumption

was strongest in Sierra Leone, where they accounted for approximately two thirds of

export earnings and daily animal protein. Three countries (Mauritania, Nicaragua, and the

Yemen) positioned in the Southeast quadrant exhibited a high propensity to export

accompanied by low domestic consumption. However, while nominally export-oriented,

1 = BFA, MKD, MDA, NPL, NER

2 = ARM, BOC, DJI, ETH, GEO, MNG

Percent of Agricultural Exports

806040200-20

Perc

ent o

f A

nim

al P

rote

in C

onsu

med

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

ZMB

YEM

VNMTZA

LKA

SLE

SENSTP

MOZ

MRT

MDG

LAO

GMB

CIV

ZAR

CPV

KHMBGD

UGA

TCD/MLI

NICGNB/KEN

BEN

CAF

ALBHND/PAK

AZE

GINGUY

CMRMWI

12

GHA

• Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Rwanda, and Tajikistan are excluded due to a lack ofexport data.

Figure 1. Trade against consumptionSource: See Appendix 1

9These correspond closely to the values encountered by Thorpe (2004), who computed the average contribution offisheries to agricultural exports at about 18.5 per cent for 127 developing countries, and at about 19.4 per cent vis-a-vis daily animal protein consumption for 129 countries.



these countries accounted for barely 0.3 per cent of global production and 0.5 per cent of

global exports. Twenty-two countries (0.9 per cent of production and 0.4 per cent of

exports) are situated in the Southwest quadrant, indicating below average propensities

to export and consume. Twelve of these are landlocked economies with limited inland

fisheries production. Finally, eleven countries (1.35 per cent of production and 0.8 per cent

of world exports) are positioned in the Northwest quadrant, indicating an orientation

towards supply for the domestic market.

3.2 Fisheries as a Refuge of the Poor

Gordon’s 1954 seminal article did much to establish the academic notion that the sector is

a refuge for the poor, noting:

In point of fact, fishers typically earn less than most others, even in much less hazar-

dous occupations or in those requiring less skill (Gordon, 1954, p. 132).

While there is a growing fisheries literature linking poverty and fisheries, the majority of

the evidence—as Macfadyen and Corcoran (2002) have corroborated—is, however,

largely anecdotal. Notable exceptions to this are the Vietnamese work undertaken under

the aegis of the STREAM initiative (2000, p. 23), which found that 88 per cent of the very

low income households encountered in Tay Ninh province in 1999 were linked to the

fisheries sector (whereas only 44 per cent of high income households were similarly

linked), and Bene et al.’s (2000, p. 7) research on the Cameroonian floodplains which

discovered the poorest households in the chosen research regions were more likely to be

dependent on fishery activity.

Accepting the premise that the fisheries sector may well harbour an above average

quotient of the poor, we select two criteria intended to capture the significance of the

sector as a poverty refuge. First, given the absence of fisheries-specific national poverty

statistics, we employ rural poverty data as a second-best measure to reflect the likely

magnitude of poverty in the fisheries sector. Such an analytic oversimplification can be

somewhat justified on the grounds that the vast majority of fishers are to be encountered in

rural, as opposed to urban, areas10 and so aggregate rural poverty statistics are more likely

to capture (albeit only partially) poverty within the sector. Hence the more profound the

rural poverty, the more likely it is that poverty reduction strategies will be targeted at rural

areas, thereby benefiting the fisheries sector either directly (specific interventions in the

fisheries field) or indirectly (by, say, reducing the costs of accessing rural credit for

productive purposes). Second, if poverty is indeed endemic within fisheries communities

as anecdotal evidence has suggested, then the potential for poverty-reducing, fisheries-

specific, policies grows in line with the numeric size of the sector. The more (poor) fishers

there are, the greater the potential for mobilization—and the more difficult it is for policy-

makers to ignore such voices in the participatory dialogues that are increasingly informing

national development processes.

Figure 2 plots the association between number of fishers as a proportion of the

economically active population in 2000 and the level of rural poverty. Employment and

10Moreover, as fishers are often involved in multiple activities in order to sustain their livelihoods, rural povertystatistics are also likely to incorporate rural households whose main or secondary incomes are derived fromfishing (see Bailey (1994), Salagrama (2000), and Payne (2000, p. 4)).



poverty are less effectively enumerated than production, consumption, and trade. Employ-

ment data, taken from FAO Fishery Profiles, may significantly underestimate actual

participation in the sector as fishing gives rise to substantial onshore employment in

processing, marketing, distribution, and maritime trades. Rural poverty statistics are from

PRSP documents and World Bank poverty assessments (FAO, 2003; World Bank, 2003,

World Bank, 2003a; IFAD, 2003; IMF, 2004). Data are presented in Appendix 1.

Reference levels of employment and rural poverty are set at one and fifty per cent by

reference to the mean values.11

Six countries, accounting for approximately 5 per cent of world fisher employment, are

located in the Northeast quadrant. All are low-income African economies bar Bangladesh.

Eight countries (4.5 per cent of world employment) are in the Southeast quadrant,

consistent with high levels of fisheries employment and below average rural poverty. Of

these, Cape Verde, Guyana, and Sao Tome and Prıncipe are Small Island Developing

States, above average employment reflecting a comparative advantage in fishing. Vietnam

is second only to Bangladesh in the sample in terms of the absolute number of fishers,

1 = BFA, CMR, GIN, KEN, LAO, LSO, UGA

2 = ARM, AZE, CIV, ETH, NPL

Percent of Economically Active Population

1086420-2

Rur

al P

over

ty H

eadc

ount

Ind

ex

100

80

60

40

20

0

STP

MKD

GEO

TCD

CPV

VNMLKA

BENGHA

MDAALB

GUYKHM

BOL ZAR/ZMB

SENMDG/MLI/SLEHND

MWI/NIC

PAK/TZA

BGD

GNB/GMB/MRTCAF

12

• Djibouti and Mongolia are excluded due to the absence of data on fishernumbers, Tajikistan due to the absence of rural poverty data.

Figure 2. Employment against rural povertySource: See Appendix 1

11Thorpe (2004) found average employment values of the order of 1.3 per cent for 129 countries, and an averagerural poverty level of 44.3 per cent (63 countries).



having substantial capture fisheries and an extensive aquaculture sector. Fifteen economies

(1.6 per cent of world employment) are in the Southwest quadrant. The presence of most

transition economies in this quadrant is notable, with the tendency towards rising post-

Soviet rural poverty clearly discernable. Finally, eighteen countries (1 per cent of world

employment) are in the Northwest quadrant with below average employment and above

average poverty. Although Figure 2 appears to suggest a weakly inverse association

between levels of fisheries employment and rural poverty, the underlying relationship is

almost certainly more complex, as Macfadyen and Corcoran (2002), Bene (2002) and

Thorpe (2004) have noted.

3.3 PRSP Mainstreaming and Fisheries Dependence

From the above analysis, we would anticipate the strongest representation for the sector in

the PRSPs of Bangladesh, Senegal, and Sierra Leone, where fisheries make an above

average contribution to exports, food security and employment, and where rural poverty is

also high (Table 3 below synthesizes the findings from Figures 1 and 2). Seven further

countries score highly on trade-consumption grounds, with a further three having

relatively high fisheries employment and rural poverty rates. In contrast, as exports,

consumption, employment and rural poverty are rather less significant in Armenia,

Azerbaijan, Ethiopia, Georgia, Macedonia, Moldova, Nepal, and Pakistan (all located in

the South-West quadrants of both Figures 1 and 2), we would expect fisheries would

receive little acknowledgement in the development plans of these countries.

However, although the sector does indeed receive little attention in the PRSPs of the

majority of these latter states,12 only Senegal appears to have seized the opportunity of

including its fisheries sector in proportion with its importance in the national economy.

Indeed, the majority (32, 64 per cent) of countries only fleetingly allude to the fisheries

sector, with just eight states (Cameroon, Guinea, Malawi, Ghana, Senegal, Cambodia, Sri

Lanka and Azerbaijan) providing substantive coverage of fisheries issues, responses etc. in

12The exception is Azerbaijan, which although not supplying any instances of ‘best practice’, nevertheless scoresconsistently well across each of the four criteria.

Table 3. Countries in which Fisheries is highly significant in trade and Consumption and/orpoverty and employment terms*

Region Trade/Consumption Rural poverty/Employment Both

Africa The Gambia Chad Senegal

Mozambique Madagascar Sierra Leone

Mali

Asia Cambodia Bangladesh

Vietnam

Latin America

SIDS Cape Verde

Guyana

Sao Tome and Prıncipe

Transition Economies

*Fisheries is deemed as being ‘highly significant’ in those countries whose trade/consumption and/or ruralpoverty/employment coordinates fall within the north-east quadrants of the respective regional scatter-grams.



their respective PRSPs (Table 2). It seems, from the evidence available to date, that the

participatory mechanisms endorsed by the PRSP process have not been fully exploited by

fisheries stakeholders so as to ensure effective sectoral representation.

4 CONCLUSION

With the call for concerted action towards the alleviation of human poverty [MDG—

Goal 1], poverty is likely to remain a crucial—if not the fundamental—policy objective in

the international development discourse. This increased international preoccupation with

poverty has manifested itself in the emergence of PRSPs, completion of which is

obligatory for low-income countries intent on accessing IMF and/or World Bank

concessional lending facilities. While studies have examined the extent to which gender,

sustainability, HIV/AIDS, food security, agricultural and rural development issues, and

forestry were mainstreamed into such documents, the fisheries sector—a mainstay for a

number of developing economies—was somewhat surprisingly overlooked. The excep-

tion was an exploratory review of the relationship between small-scale fisheries and

PRSPs in a 2002 SFLP sponsored study across 11 sub-Saharan African countries which

found that—with the exception of a few countries—the ‘situation is not very satisfactory’.

Worse, few fisheries-related responses and actions appeared in the final documents, as

sector-pertinent issues were generally ‘diluted within proposals from the agriculture or

rural development sector’ (SFLP, 2003:3). While the study was understandably strong on

process given the envisaged outcomes of the SFLP work programme,13 it unfortunately

failed to produce a unifying qualitative methodology that would permit the synthesis of

individual country findings. We have redressed this oversight, using a content analysis

methodology to ascertain the extent (and nature) of fisheries sector mainstreaming within

the fifty PRSPs produced by the end of 2003.

This analysis has suggested that, for many countries, the inclusion of fisheries sectors in

PRSPs is an opportunity forgone (rather than seized). While Senegal and Cambodia score

highly under our content analysis AND have significant fisheries sectors, six states

(Bangladesh, Chad, Sierra Leone, The Gambia, Guyana and Sao Tome and Prıncipe)

have markedly failed to reflect sectoral significance in their respective PRSPs (Madagas-

car, Mali, Mozambique and Vietnam have integrated fisheries, though not to the degree we

might expect given the sector’s importance on the national plane). Conversely, six

countries (Cameroon, Guinea, Malawi, Ghana, Sri Lanka and Azerbaijan) have conceded

a greater than expected prominence to the sector in their respective PRSPs.

Reasons for this are not immediately clear. Although it could be hypothesized that three

of the four African countries in the latter grouping (the exception is Malawi) have

benefited from SFLP support in this sphere, two14 of the other six states (Chad and Sierra

Leone), are also supported by the SFLP, yet have singularly failed to take advantage of

such support to date. Why too does the Bangladeshi fisheries sector, which provides

13These include; increasing the capacity of communities and their partners to participate in planning andmanagement; guaranteeing that fisheries communities needs are reflected in national poverty alleviation planning,and ensuring that policies, institutions and processes are informed by SFLP experiences and knowledge (SFLP,2003a, p. 1).14Although The Gambia and Sao Tome and Prıncipe are also part of the SFLP 25 country programme, theirPRSPs were published in the SFLP’s first year of operation (November 1999–October 2000) when the SFLPemphasis was on establishing an appropriate institutional framework, rather than activities in the field.



76 per cent of agricultural export earnings and just over half of daily animal protein

requirements, fare so badly in the published PRSP?

Influence, and hence the opportunity to ensure the effective mainstreaming of fisheries

into national agendas, may ultimately depend upon a number of country-specific factors

such as the distribution of power within the fishing activity (artisanal fishers versus

industrial companies or cooperatives), the internal organization of the sector, the inter-

dependence between the fisheries sector and other industries, and the nature of external

influence (international agreements, foreign ownership of fishing companies, donor

support programmes) upon national development discourses. To this end a case study

approach which identifies the local institutions and policy-making processes which have

enabled some countries to effectively mainstream fisheries into the national development

discourse, despite the sector’s negligible importance on growth/poverty grounds, could

suggest avenues for change in countries with more substantial fisheries sectors but which

have—to date—‘missed the opportunity’ to effectively mainstream fisheries into their

development discourses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

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 Rolf

Willmann, Fabio Pittaluga, Benoit Horemans and other participants at an internal FAO

seminar on 20 February 2004 (Rome) were extremely valuable in helping us complete this

article. Needless to say, responsibility for any remaining errors rests with the authors.

REFERENCES

Bailey C. 1994. Employment, labour productivity and income in small-scale fisheries of South and

Southeast Asia, Proceedings of the Seminar Socio-economic Issues in Coastal Fisheries Manage-

ment, Indo-Pacific Fisheries Commission, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific; Bangkok.

Bene C. 2002. Poverty in small-scale fisheries: a review and some further thoughts. Small-Scale

Fisheries, Poverty and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Proceedings of the DFID/

FAO/Cemare Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme (SFLP) International Workshop,

Cotonou (Benin), November 2001.

Bene C, Mindjimba K, Belal E, Jolley T. 2000. Evaluating livelihood strategies and the role of inland

fisheries in rural development and poverty alleviation: the case of the Yaere floodplains in North

Cameroon. CEMARE Research Paper 153, Portsmouth.

Bojo J, Chee N. 1995. Environmental concerns in country assistance strategies. Office Memorandum

(Mimeo), AFTES. World Bank: Washington, DC.

Bojo J, Reddy RC. 2001. Poverty reduction strategies and environment: a review of 40 Interim and

Full PRSPs, World Bank Environment Department. http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/

envext.nsf/44ByDocName/PovertyandEnvironment (Accessed 20 March 2003).

Corden WM. 1974. Trade Policy and Economic Welfare. Clarendon Press: Oxford.

DFID. 2000. Integrating sustainability into PRSPs: the case of Uganda. Key Sheet on Sustainable

Development No. 4.



DFID/EC/UNDP/World Bank. 2002. Linking poverty reduction and environmental management:

policy challenges and opportunities (consultation draft). http://info.worldbank.org/etools/eWork-

space/ews004/groupware/GI_Viewdfb4.html (Accessed 20 March 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. 2003. Food balance sheets. http://apps.fao.org/page/collections (Accessed 16 September 2003).

FAO. 2003. FAOSTAT. http://www.fao.org (Accessed 16 September 2003).

FAO. 2003a. Strategies for increasing the sustainable contribution of small-scale fisheries to food

security and poverty alleviation. Committee on Fisheries (Twenty-Fifth Session), 24–28 February,

Rome.

FAO. 2003b. Status and important recent events concerning international trade in fishery products

including the World Trade Organisation. Committee on Fisheries: Sub-Committee on Fish Trade:

Ninth Session; Bremen, 10–14 February.

FAO. 2002. A Review of Food Security, Agricultural and Rural Development Issues in PRSPs

(FAO), Mimeo.

FAO/DFID/SFLP. 2002. Report of the consultation on integrating small-scale fisheries in poverty

reduction planning in West Africa, Cotonou. 12–14 November (GCP/INT/735/UK), http://

www.sflp.org/eng/003/ongoingact4.htm (Accessed 20 March 2003).

Gordon HS. 1954. The economic theory of a common property resource: the fishery. Journal of

Political Economy 62: 124–142.

International Fund for Agricultural Development. 2003. Rural Poverty Report 2001. http://www.i-

fad.org/poverty/chapter2.pdf (Accessed 15 September 2003).

IFPRI. 1997. Changing fish trade and demand patterns in developing countries and their significance

for policy research. http://www/ifpri.org/themes/mp07/other/fish.htm (Accessed 17 July 2003).

IMF. 2003. Poverty reduction strategy papers—detailed analysis of progress in implementation,

international monetary Fund and International Development Association. http://www.imf.org/

external/np/prspgen/2003/091503.htm (Accessed 20 December 2003).

IMF/World Bank. 2002. Review of the PRSP experience: an issues paper for the January 2002

Conference. http://www.imf.org/external/np/prspgen/review/2002/conf/issues.pdf (Accessed 10

July 2003).

Krueger AO. 1982. Trade and Employment in Developing Countries. University of Chicago Press:

Chicago.

Loayza E, Sprague A, Lucian M. 1992. A strategy for fisheries development. World Bank Discussion

Paper No. 135. World Bank: Washington, DC.

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. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 979. FAO: Rome.

Oksanen T, Pajari B, Tuomasjukka T (eds). 2003. Forests in poverty reduction strategies: capturing

the potential. European Forestry Institute Proceedings No. 47. http://www.efi.fi/events/2002/

forests_in_poverty/frame_seminar.htm (Accessed 7 July 2003).

Oksanen T, Mersmann C. 2003. Forests in poverty reduction strategies—an assessment of PRSP

processes in sub-Saharan Africa. Forests in Poverty Reduction Strategies: Capturing the Potential,

Oksanen T, Pajari B, Tuomasjukka T (eds). European Forestry Institute Proceedings No. 47. http://

www.efi.fi/events/2002/forests_in_poverty/frame_seminar.htm (Accessed 7 July 2003).

Payne I. 2000. The Changing Role of Fisheries in Development Policy. ODI Natural Resource

Perspectives 59: 1–4.



Quiroz JA. 2000. Agriculture and the macroeconomy in Latin America during the nineties. Inter-

American Development Bank: Washington, DC. http://www.iadb.org/sds/doc/RUR%5FJQuir-

oz%5Fe.pdf (Accessed 16 February 2004).

Salagrama V. 2000. Sustainable coastal livelihoods project: draft india literature review. http://

www.ex.ac.uk/imm/SCL%20India%20Literature%20Review.pdf (Accessed 17 July 2003).

SFLP. 2003a. Reducing poverty in the fisheries communities of West Africa through the sustainable

livelihoods approach. http://www.sflp.org/eng/007/pub5/index.html (Accessed 20 October 2003).

SFLP. 2003. The PRSP approach: an opportunity to improve livelihoods in small-scale fisheries.

Bulletin 10. http://www.sflp.org/eng/007/pub1/101.htm (Accessed 20 October 2003).

Shyamsundar P, Hamilton K. 2000. An environmental review of 1999 country assistance strategies:

best practice and lessons learned. Environmental Economics Series Paper No. 74. World Bank:

Washington, DC.

Stemler S. 2001. An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation

7(17). http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v¼7&n¼17 (Accessed 23 September 2003).

STREAM. 2000. Poverty and aquatic resources in Vietnam: an assessment of the role and potential

of aquatic resource management in poor people’s livelihoods. http://www.streaminitiative.org/

Library/pdf/DFID/VietnamPovertyReport_23.pdf (Accessed 17 July 2003).

Takane T. 2002. Smallholders and non-traditional exports under economic liberalization: the case of

pineapples in Ghana. Paper presented at the International Conference on ‘Regions in Globaliza-

tion’, Kyoto, October. http://www.ide.go.jp/Japanese/Research/pdf/takane_ttext.pdf (Accessed 12

February 2003).

Thorpe A. 2004. Fishery sector incorporation in national development and poverty reduction

strategies, policies and programmes: current situation and opportunities. FAO Fisheries Circular

No. 997. Rome (in press, 2005).

Thrupp LA, Bergeron G, Waters WF. 1995. Bittersweet Harvests for Global Supermarkets:

Challenges in Latin America’s Agricultural Export Boom. World Resources Institute: Washington, DC.

Wobst P, IFPRI. 2001. Structural adjustment and intersectoral shifts in Tanzania: a computable

general equilibrium analysis. IFPRI Research Report 117. Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2003a. World Bank poverty monitoring database. (http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/dg/

povertys.nsf (Accessed 15 September 2003).

World Bank. 2003. Millennium Development Goals: A Compact Among Nations to end Human

Poverty, Human Development Report. World Bank: Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2002. World Development Report 2000/2001. World Bank: Washington, DC. http://

www.worldbank.org/poverty/wdrpoverty/report/tab4.pdf (Accessed 16 September 2003).

World Bank. 2001. AIDS and the PRSP: marrying key parts of the development agenda. PRSP

Review Seminar Series. 13 December, World Bank: Washington, DC. http://www.worldbank.org/

poverty/strategies/review/semseries/aids.htm (Accessed 2 January 2004).

World Bank. 1996. Integrating environmental issues into CAS (Mimeo). DEC, World Bank:

Washington, DC.

World Resources Institute. 2003. Earth trends environmental information portal. http://earthtrends.

wri.org/text/COA/data_tables/data_table1.htm (Accessed 16 September 2003).

Zuckerman E. 2002. ‘Engendering’ Poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSPs): the issues and the

challenges. Gender and Development 10(3): 88–94.

Full and Interim PRSPs (and accompanying progress reports etc.) were obtained from either the IMF

(http://www.imf.org/external/np/prsp/prsp.asp) or World Bank (http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/

strategies/index.htm) websites.

All Plans were accessed between 24 September 2003 and 29 April 2004.



APPENDIX

1.

Trade,

Consumption,EmploymentandRuralPoverty

Dataset

Economy

Code

Quadrant:

Fisheriesexports

Fishas

aQuadrant:

Fishersas

aRuralpoverty

Ruralpoverty

Ruralpoverty:

figure

1as

apercentage

percentageof

figure

2percentageof

headcount

assessment

source/comment

ofagricultural

Averagedaily

theeconomically

index

year

exports

protein

consumption

activepopulation

Albania

ALB

SE

19.10

2.09

SW

0.10

30.00

2000

WorldBank

Arm

enia

ARM

SW

0.83

0.54

SW

0.01

44.80

1998–99

WorldBank

Azerbaijan

AZE

SW

6.34

1.04

SW

0.04

42.00

2001

PRSP

Bangladesh

BGD

NE

76.02

50.82

NE

1.90

53.00

2000

WorldBank

Benin

BEN

SW

1.23

18.28

SE

2.18

33.00

1999–00

PRSP

Bolivia

BOL

SW

0.01

1.72

NW

0.23

81.70

1999

WorldBank

BurkinaFaso

BFA

SW

0.00

5.00

NW

0.15

50.70

1998

WorldBank

Cam

bodia

KHM

NE

54.79

46.83

SE

1.15

40.10

1997

WorldBank

Cam

eroon

CMR

NW

0.26

32.00

SW

0.40

49.90

2001

WorldBank

CapeVerde

CPV

NE

67.80

29.20

SE

7.70

46.10

1994

WorldBank

Central

African

CAF

SW

1.80

8.22

NW

0.31

57.30

1995

Interim

PRSP

Republic

Chad

TCD

SW

0.00

15.04

NE

8.30

67.00

1995–96

WorldBank

Congo,DR

ZAR

NW

1.44

43.59

NW

0.52

84.00

2001

Interim

PRSP

Cote

d’Ivoire

CIV

NW

6.32

37.36

SW

0.30

42.00

1998

Interim

PRSP

Djibouti

DJI

SW

0.86

2.33

86.50

1996

WorldBank

Ethiopia

ETH

SW

0.00

1.64

SW

0.02

45.00

1999–00

WorldBank

Gam

bia

GMB

NE

27.32

56.91

NW

0.30

61.00

1998

WorldBank

Georgia

GEO

SW

0.46

1.65

SW

0.07

9.90

1997

WorldBank

Ghana

GHA

NW

12.29

65.75

SE

2.42

34.30

1998

WorldBank

Guinea-Bissau

GNB

SW

5.01

10.99

NW

0.46

60.90

1991

WorldBank

Guinea

GIN

NW

10.93

47.06

NW

0.26

52.50

PRSP

Guyana

GUY

NE

23.14

44.35

SE

2.05

36.70

Interim

PRSP

(Ruralcoastal)

Honduras

HND

SW

10.54

2.76

NW

0.87

75.00

1999

PRSP



Kenya

KEN

SW

3.67

10.98

NW

0.38

53.00

1997

PRSP

Kyrgyzstan

KGZ

0.28

NW

0.01

69.70

1999

WorldBank

Lao

PDR

LAO

NW

0.08

35.64

SW

0.57

48.70

1997–98

PRSP

Lesotho

LSO

1.35

NW

0.01

53.90

1993

WorldBank

Macedonia

MKD

SW

0.23

4.62

SW

0.90

25.10

1998

Interim

PRSP

Madagascar

MDG

SE

19.17

17.29

NE

1.09

76.70

1999

WorldBank

Malaw

iMWI

NW

0.03

30.77

NW

0.79

66.50

1997–98

WorldBank

Mali

MLI

SW

0.13

15.15

NE

1.26

75.90

1998

WorldBank

Mauritania

MRT

SE

74.27

9.82

NW

0.67

61.20

2000

WorldBank

Moldova

MDA

SW

0.00

4.21

SW

0.00

26.70

1997

WorldBank

Mongolia

MNG

SW

0.24

1.82

33.10

1995

WorldBank

Mozambique

MOZ

NE

62.54

21.62

NW

0.21

71.20

1996–97

PRSP

Nepal

NPL

SW

0.14

4.35

SW

0.46

44.00

1995–96

WorldBank

Nicaragua

NIC

SE

23.85

8.40

NW

0.73

68.50

1998

WorldBank

Niger

NER

SW

1.78

4.71

NW

0.16

66.00

1994

PRSP

Pakistan

PAK

SW

12.29

2.98

SW

0.52

35.90

1998–99

WorldBank

Rwanda

RWA

8.33

NW

0.14

67.90

2000

PRSP

Sao

Tomeand

STP

NE

66.11

46.51

SE

5.09

40.00

1994

Interim

PRSP

(population)

Prıncipe

Senegal

SEN

NE

60.38

44.78

NE

1.33

72.00

2001

PRSP

(est.72–88%)

SierraLeone

SLE

NE

67.89

63.10

NE

1.10

76.00

1989

WorldBank

SriLanka

LKA

NW

11.93

51.80

SE

1.71

27.00

1995–96

PRSP

Tajikistan

TJK

0.01

Tanzania

TZA

NW

17.15

29.90

SW

0.51

38.70

2000–01

00–01:WB

Uganda

UGA

NW

10.60

37.61

SW

0.51

48.20

1997

97:WB

Vietnam

VNM

NE

40.38

33.78

SE

2.45

19.70

2002

prsp2002

Yem

enYEM

SE

37.45

17.31

SW

0.22

45.00

1998

98:PRSP

Zam

bia

ZMB

NW

0.53

22.47

NW

0.54

83.10

1998

98:PRSP

Sources:FAO

(2004);WorldBank(2003a);IFAD

(2003);WorldResources

Institute

(2003).



APPENDIX 2. The extent to which the fisheries sector is integrated into Full and Interim PRSPs

Document/ Criteria Value RemarksDate

AFRICAN Economies

1. Benin PRSP/Dec2002 Issues 2 Large fisheries resources which have not been fully

exploited.

Small-scale activity, lack of controls leads to clogging of

waterways and inapprop. techniques.

Links 1 Poverty levels higher in prim. sector [inc. fisheries] than

sec.

Inapprop. Fisheries [þ ag.] tools and tech.¼main cause of

pov.

Responses 2 Govt Obj.—promote emerg. of ind. fishing, sust. devt of

artis.

Fisheries Code due—June 2004

Govt support promised for infrastructure [fish ponds,

reservoirs]

2. Burkina PRSP/May2000 Links 1 Food insecurity and poverty led farmers to overexploit soil

Faso (PRSPR2001) and other natural resources [inc. fish-farming).

3. Cameroon PRSP/Apr2003 Issues 3 Succinct and comprehensive summary [background, con-

straints, potential] of the sector given.

Cameroon comparative advantage in ind. and art. fisheries

noted and growth prospects discussed (tax reforms affect

sector too).

Links 3 Document recognises that fisheries [livestock and agric.]

are crucial to wealth creation—as well as augmenting food

security.

Links between poverty and fisheries sector identified in

participatory consultations and recommendations made.

Responses 2 Constraints identified which impede artisanal sector and

aquaculture—and detailed govt strategies for each are

given.

Fisheries is a component of integrated rural devt strategy

proposed by govt.

Fishery and aquaculture actions/measures identified in

implementation matrix.

Process 2 Fisheries communities involved in particip. assess. of

poverty.

Particip. approach leads to identification of ways govt

could tackle poverty in fishing communities.

4. C.A. Repub. PRSP/Dec2000 Responses 1 Suggestion that policy responses will be based on 1999–

2006 agriculture master plan (not detailed).

5. Chad PRSP/June2003 Issue 1 Cont. of farming, stockbreeding and fishing to GDP, EAP,

exports mentioned.

Links 1 Suggestion that those working in primary sector [inc.

fisherfolk] head the poorest households.

Responses 1 Govt. promise to support growth of environ. sound fishing.

6. Congo D.R. IPRSP/Mar2002 Issues 1 Signals supp. for private init. in poss. growth sectors [inc.

fish.]

Responses 1 Cautions on need for prelim. evaluation before formalising

strat.

Continues



APPENDIX 2. Continued


7. C. d’Ivoire IPRSP/Jan2002 Issue 1 Notes rural devt. strategy includes devt./diversif. in fishing.

Links 1 High fish import dependence for national protein intakes.

Responses 2 Govt identifies six steps necessary to develop the sector.

Process 1 Particip. of the southern fishing communities in articulating

devt. shortcomings in sector.

8. Djibouti IPRSP/Jun2001 Responses 1 Formulate a long-term fisheries devt. prog. promised.

Intent. signalled to improve fish export sanitation proce-

dures.

Allusion made to planned promotion of sport fishing.

Form. of female prodn cooperatives programmed.

9. Ethiopia PRSP/July2002 Responses 1 Fisheries briefly mentioned in context of water resources

strat.

NGO comment that PRSP ignores fisherfolk

10. The Gambia PRSP/Ap2002 Links 1 Allusion to average incomes being lowest in ag./fisheries.

IPRSP/Oct2000 Responses 1 Govt is designing progs. to address income poverty—in

case of fisheries, via action program and micro-credit

11. Ghana PRSP/Feb2003 Issue 2 Over-exploit of marine stocks noted.

Gender divide in fisheries identified [though no gender-

aware fish-specific strategies detailed].

Links 2 Trad. fishermen [and food crop farmers] identified as very

poor and reasons for their vulnerability advanced.

Responses 3 Food security to be improved by inc. in local fish

consumption.

Detailed strategies supplied wrt maximising economic

benefits from a rational use of fish and aquacultural

resources.

Govt. programmes to rehabilitate fish hatcheries included

and costed in det. policy matrix [prodn and gainful employ.

theme].

Emphasis on aquacultural expansion given marine over-

fishing.

Process 1 Govt pledge to offer support for organisation of fisher

groupings through Capacity Building Project.

12. Guinea PRSP/Jan2002 Issues 2 Fomi dam create opportunities for inland fisheries.

Strategic audit of ministry responsible for fishing.

Main challenges viewed as conservation and enhancement

of marine/freshwater fisheries—and requisite tasks identi-

fied.

Links 1 Food security to be improved by inc. in local fish

consumption.

Responses 3 Govt to focus on capacity-building, raising quality

standards, and diversifying/developing the highest growth

activities.

Four Priority Objectives (vis-a-vis fisheries) identified,

tasks broken-down and costed in Policy Matrix

Process 3 Recog. of profess. fisher orgs. and their role in PRSP devt

proc.

Establish regional and national structure for info. on fish,

creation of devt. admin. in the sector and dev. inland/marit.

fishing villages.

Continues





13. Kenya IPRSP/July2000 Response 1 Govt promise to facilitate fish marketing and processing.

14. Lesotho IPRSP/Dec2000 No mention of fisheries sector whatsoever.

15. Madagascar PRSP/July2003 Issues 1 Global Objective 1 (includes) ensuring food security and

opt. use of fish resources.

Links 2 Intent to increase fish consumption to 8 kg p.a.

Est. of funding systems access. to the poor wrt fisheries

credits.

Responses 2 Govt proposes encouragement of shrimp farming [art. and

industrial], develop maritime fisheries and promote inland

fisheries—plus amplify health controls to ensure access to

[EU] markets—license based regimes advocated for all

activities.

Five fisheries actions ident. under rural develop. strategic

focus.

Train 50 wholesale fish farmers.

Harmon. of legis. to ensure respons. sustain. shrimp

harvesting

Process 2 Capacity building in inland fisheries (including environ.

decent. and integrated CZM).

16. Malawi PRSP/Apr2002 Issue 1 Note on contribution of fisheries and forestry to GDP.

(AR2000/3) Underexploit. of aquaculture and deep-sea fisheries identi-

fied.

Links 2 Fish identified as main national protein source—although

overexploit. has led to consumption decline.

Environmental degradation cited as cause for poor’s over-

reliance on exploitation of natural resources [inc. fisheries].

Responses 3 Detailed strategies/activities/costings for fisheries identi-

fied under the six sub-goals of the ‘sources of Pro-poor

growth’ pillar in the Action Matrix. AR documents

progress to date.

Intention to develop [fish] processing clusters.

Recog. of female role in sector included in plans proposed.

Process 3 Intent to create Community Based Natural Resources

Management groups to encourage local manag. of [fish]

resources—beach village cmttees along coast.

Expans. of fisheries curricula in schools and dissem. of

materials

17. Mali PRSP/May2002 Issues 1 Potential of Mopti region for devt. of fishing activity.

Links 1 Although govt cites fisheries as a sector for devt. given high

prepond. of poor, no concrete devt strategy is detailed wrt

this.

Responses 2 Specific govt objectives include devt of 30þ water bodies

for prodn and the equip. of women’s wholesale fish trading

assns.

Process 1 Need for fisheries-related activities in fight against poverty

mentioned in participatory process.

18. Mauritania PRSP/Dec2000 Issues 2 Brief overview of historic fisheries development, regulatory

PRSIR/Mar02 change and projected sectoral growth [ind. And

PRSIR/03 non-industrial fishing] trends.

Links 1 Success of PRS depends on favourable mkt trends for fish

and improved EU Agreement terms.

Continues





Responses 3 Plans to optimise economic rent from sector via long-term

(10 year) strategies for both the industrial and artisanal/

coastal sectors with priority areas identified.

Policy matrix identifies role of private sector and manage-

ment and mainstreaming strategies (all costed)—with emp.

on growth.

Creation of a Fisheries Products Export Prom. Centre

promised.

19. Mozambique PRSP/Apr2001 Issues 2 Fisheries seen as complement, not fundamental area

PRSIR/Au03 of action.

Sust. devt. of fisheries depend on reg. control of territ.

waters.

Recog. of spec. needs of s/s fisherman and environ.

constraints.

Links 1 Fisheries seen as ‘imp. Sector’ in struggle against poverty.

Responses 2 Objectives and measures outlined to support trad. and large

scale nat. producers, aquaculture and qual. lab. provn and

territ. cont.

No mention of sector in 2003 Implementation Report.

Process 1 Fishing communities active in document formulation—

though no mention of their specific inputs.

20. Niger PRSP/Jan2002 Issues 1 Sector priorities fall under the National Water Programme.

PRSR1/De03 Responses 1 Document alludes to plan for stocking ponds and fisheries.

21. Rwanda PRSP/July2002 Issues 1 Notes the need to eliminate water hyacinth as impedes

fishing.

Fishing industry in Kibungo has unexploited potential.

Policy Matrix promises action [unspec.] to increase fish

prodn.

22. Senegal PRSP/Nov2002 Issues 2 Economic growth driven [in part] by fisheries and its role

recog.

Identifies constraints affecting fisheries development.

Links 1 Suggests fish revenues favours gps most affected by

poverty

Responses 3 Strat. for wealth creation targets poor and so prioritises

fisheries.

Policies identified to reverse/remove constraints facing

sector.

Planned activities identified in Policy matrix [partially

costed].

Process 2 Policies defined in conjunct. with players involved for all

cycles of fish. Activity

23. Sierra Leone IPRSP/Jun2001 Issues 1 Inland fisheries prodn. slumped due to the crisis.

Links 1 Govt prior. is to imp. livelihood of [farm] and fishing

returnees.

24. Tanzania PRSP/Jan2000 Issues 1 PRSR1 alludes to National Fisheries Strategy

PRSR1/Aug01 [not detailed].

PRSR2/Mar03 PRSR2 notes employ. training prog. included fisheries

sector.

25. Uganda PRSP/Mar2000 Issues 1 PRSR1 and PRSR2 notes EU ban on Ugandan fish imports.

Continues





PRSR1/Mar01 Responses 1 Promise of research into inc. fishing incomes once

PRSR2/Mar02 data is avail.

PRSR3/Mar03 PRSR2 notes strategic export strat. [inc. fish] under disc.

Processes 1 Unavail. of fisheries inputs mentioned as constraint by

particip. in consultation process.

26. Zambia PRSP/Mar2002 Issues 1 Zambian basic food basket does not include meat or fish.

Anglers and fish traders a priority group in HIV/Aids prog.

Wildlife [fish and game] depletion seen as a problem.

Links 1 Allusion to fishing prov. nutrit./livelihoods for rural comm.

Responses 1 Fisheries mentioned in context of Comm. Based Nat.

Resource Management Prog.

Costed prog. [no details] to train comm. in fshing/bee-

keeping

ASIAN Economies

27. Bangladesh IPRSP/Jun 2003 Issues 1 Fisheries noted as maj. policy thrust area (divers. away

from ag.)

Poor qual. of ag. extens. vis-a-vis fisheries (plus other

sectors).

Brief mention of fisheries overexploitation.

Responses 1 Policy to help those in most affected areas (coasts/river

erosion)—inc. rural devt policies.

Process 1 Consult. highlights need to diversify into fisheries/greater

commerc. of fish products.

28. Cambodia PRSP/Dec 2002 Issues 3 Separate sections discussing aquaculture, fisheries manage-

ment and livelihood improvement, community fisheries. Also

fisheries related issues raised throughout the document, incl.

—State loses US$100m/yr. due to corruption, incl. illegal

fishing

—Women dom.e fisheries sector post-catch to marketing

(75%).

—Natural res. depletion (fish) increases conflicts among

user gps.

—Inappr. govt. market interventions hinder fisheries devt.-

change of corp. culture needed to build competitive,

market responsive sector.

Incorporating fishing villages into eco-tourism strategy

would help to supplement local incomes

Links 2 Fisheries are a key area for securing rural livelihoods with

implications for other aspects of poverty. 1993–2001 agric.

accounted for 46.4 per cent of GDP, 30 per cent thereof

fisheries. Sharp increases in trade, incl. fish, over past decade

noted-imp. of agri-exports for pov. reduct. recognised.

Natural resource destruction aggravates the situation of the

poor. Constrained access to natural (fishery-related)

resources results in increased food insecurity for growing

number of families.

Fish accounts for 30 per cent of national animal protein

intake, 40–60 per cent in rural areas, 70–75 per cent in areas

close to the Tonle Sap Great Lake/rivers—larger share fish

in consumpt. expend. among poor

Continues





Responses 3 Two out of 9 components of Equitable Agric. Devt. are

fisheries related (rice-fish farming and aquaculture; comm.-

based fisheries mgmt.)-components and implementation

strategies detailed-govt. measures identified and costed and

monitoring indicators defined in implementation matrix.

Includes fishing-lot reform prog. to prom. resource access

of poor families/comms.

Industr. policy to promote processing industries for exist.

natural resources, incl. fish.

Some progress in reforming natural resource management

(incl. fisheries)—one of 8 priorities of Governance Action

Plan (GAP)

Advances made in tackling corruption in fisheries.

Trade related sector studies incl. freshwater fisheries

published.

Impl. matrix incl. gender specific ext. programmes to take

account of dominant role of women in traditional farming,

fishing and marketing.

Process 2 Poor reps. of fisheries sector participated in PRSP work-

shops.

Intended change to co-management of fishery resources

includes empowerment of local people.

29. Lao PDR IPRSP/Mar 2001 Responses 1 Agricultural devt. policy oriented towards achieving

household/community food security by diversifying rural

livelihood approaches with, inter alia, increased fisheries

production (refl. in policy matrix)

Process 1 National women’s/youth org. assigned key role in promot-

ing income-generating/prod. activities amongst women

(incl. fish ponds) and devt. of skills in youth (incl. cross fish

breeding)

30. Mongolia PRSP/Sep 2003 Links 1 Table detailing devt. of adult foodstuff consumption since

1990. All food-stuff (except meat and milk) consistently

below recommended level. Figs shown for fish/fish

products part. low.

Responses 1 Implement. matrix signals need for cooperation with other

countries to increase supply of fish and fish products to

meet domestic demand

31. Nepal PRSP/Oct 2003 No mention of fisheries sector whatsoever

32. Pakistan IPRSP/Nov 2001 Link 1 Potential of govt. action (prov. of inputs) aimed at

promoting fisheries in generating add. income and employ.

for the poor.

33. Sri Lanka PRSP/Dec 2002 Issues 2 War had adverse effects on fisheries (excl. from prod. fishing

zones, transport, access to markets, expensive inputs,

displacement) but output in north has begun to recover

Severe erosion of coast affects thousands of fishing

families.

Links 2 Coastal fishing comm. amongst the poorest in the rural

sector, suffering from social excl. (poor access to social

services).

Continues





Vulnerability of maj. of rural pop. (incl. fishermen): moving

in-out of pov. acc. to season/clim./other ext.factors (mkt

prices).

Potent. role of ag. growth (incl. fisheries) for pov. red.

stressed.

Responses 2 Fisheries policy based on National Fisheries Development

Program and Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP).

Key strategies pursued include prov. of inputs/technologies,

infrastructure devt., state sector reform and private sector

partnerships, aquaculture devt. and community hatcheries,

commercialisation and export prom. (yet lack of fully

articulated expenditure framework)

Coastal Preserv.: Series of measures to tackle coastal

erosion incl. ban on use of coral reef lime, coastal repairs

and protect. structures, prom. of community based resource

management, reform/amendments to regulatory/institu-

tional environment (Coast. Conserv. Action., Fish. Aquatic

Resource Act, CZMP).

Spec. targeted interventions to bring poor/soc. excl. groups

(incl. fishermen) into econ. mainstream (housing pro-

grammes, infrastr. devt., Promotion of self-employment

among poor fisher-women). Reconstruction effort includes

issuing of inputs (incl. fishing nets, boats) to fishermen,

rehab. of fish harbours and cooling plants.

Process 3 Section details measures to enable and foster wide-ranging

and effective community participation in management of

maritime resources and coastal preservation. Also inc. in

action matrix.

34. Vietnam PRSP/May 2002 Issues 1 Advances in transformation of agric. prod.-rapid growth of

fishery and aquaculture noted.

Links 1 Key role in econ. growth and pov. red. effort assigned to

devt. of agricultural prod., fishing and aquaculture

Many poor can’t access prod. enhanc. serv., viz: fishery

extens.

Responses 2 Gov. role in promoting off-shore fishing and intensifying/

diversifying aquaculture (incl. integr. shrimp-rice, fish-rice

areas) outlined (provision of infrastructure, constr. 6

national breeding/environmental alert centers, R&D, mod-

ern. processing ind., sales, marketing, environmental

protection). Support policies targeting poor families

promised, incl. prod. inputs, information, extension ser-

vices, training, subsidised investment, technology transfer,

capacity-building in risk-management, prevention and

recovery. Harnessing targeted prom. of agric. forest. And

fish prod. to narrow gap between ethnic groups.

35. Yemen PRSP/May 2002 Issues 2 Rapid growth of fisheries sector (9.4 per cent p.a.) betw.

1995–2000-among the ‘most promising’ sectors in strife for

econ. growth

Continues





Coast and marine environment threatened by lack of adeq.

monitoring/control systems, (illegal) over-fishing, inappr.

fishing practices, tourism devt., chemicals and waste

pollution.

High percent of women working in informal sect., incl.

fisheries.

Links 1 Majority of labourers in fisheries sector are poor

Imp. of agr. and fisheries sector for the poor recognised

Environ. degrad. neg. affects livelihoods of poor fishing

comm.

Responses 3 Objective-fisheries growth of 7.8 per cent p.a. while

protecting fish stocks. Strategy, programs/projects ident.

(incl. research, creation of marine control system, law and

regul. revis., quality control labs., finance for inputs,

infrastructure devt.) and costed.

Weak/vague on spec. pro-poor interventions-with Agric.

Prod. and Fisheries Promotion Fund (APFPF) to reduce

burden of rising input prices to enable benef. to continue

activities and improve efficiency.

Process 1 APFPF activit. to be undertaken ‘in participation with

community efforts’.

Establ. of a Union for fishermen’s cooperatives planned

Intention to disseminate successful self-help initiatives of

poor communities in devt. and protect. of natural resources

signalled.

LATIN AMERICAN Economies

36. Bolivia PRSP/Mar2001 Links 1 Lowland indig. people at subsist. level rely on hunting/

fishing

37. Honduras PRSP/Sept2001 Links 1 Norms needed to stop exploit. of youth fishing underwater

(APR/Nov2002) Increase policy activities that support s/scale fishing

Responses 2 Devt. border towns to aid trade/service provn to supp. fish.

devt.

Integrated programme to support artisanal fishing.

38. Nicaragua PRSP/July2001 Responses 1 App. new Fish. Law to satisfy reqts of Nat. Strat. Devt

(APR/Nov2002) for Sust.

Implement projects in fisheries/seafood farming to promote

broad-based economic growth

SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES (SIDS)

39. Cape Verde IPRSP/Sep2000 Issues 2 Size of sector and importance in forex terms identified

Responses 2 Eight point policy programme detailed in general terms

Commit. to enhance surveill. mechanisms to reduce IUU

fishing.

Expans. targets for sector indic. and extens. services

promised.

40. Guinea- IPRSP/Sept2000 Issues 1 Fisheries seen as a source of foreign exchange.

Bissau Responses 1 Publication of a Fisheries Law imminent to strengthen

policy so as to aid growth and fight poverty.

41. Guyana PRSP/Mar2002 Issues 1 Fishing occurs in area of Rupununi development project,

but is not focus of devt plan.

Continues





Links 1 Sustaining income generation in fishing requires vibrant

private sector in post-harvest activities in order to

contribute to PRS.

Processes 1 Allusion to tracking poverty reducing public spending in

artisanal fishery/aquaculture in Appendix

42. Sao Tome PRSP/Ap2000 Issues 1 Sensitivity of s/s coastal fisheries to over-fishing noted.

and Prıncipe

TRANSITION Economies

43. Albania PRSP/Nov 2001 Issue 1 Bad fishing water resource management as cause

PRSR/Jun 2003 of steadily declining fisheries production.

Fishery and sustainable resource management assigned

imp. role in general framework for rural sector devmt.

Links 1 Increase in incomes from agric., forestry and fishery

identified as key instrument for econ. and social dvmt.

Damages to fisheries constit. obstacle to pov. red. effort

Responses 2 Actions aimed at improving fishery resources management

(legal meas., database to monitor fish reserves, General

Fishing Committee for the Mediterr. (GFCM/FAO) incl. in

impl. matrix

Spec. support policies for the sector (e.g. facil. access to

inputs/fuel, rehab. of fishing ports), incl. in impl. matrix

Prom. of aquaculture activities (incl. establishment of high-

value pilot aqua. schemes in fresh and seawaters) noted in

impl. matrix

Increase level of processing of agric./fishery products,

measures proposed in impl. matrix (PRSP) and realis.

matrix (PRSPR).

Process 2 Damages to fisheries identified in participatory process as

factor obstructing growth and/or pov. red.

Introd. of joint management of sea resources by rural

comm. planned-national and regiona; fisherman associa-

tions are being set up/promoted.

44. Armenia PRSP/No 2003 Issue 1 Fishing as one of three reasons for strat. signif. of Lake

Sevan.

Links 1 Fishing is most imp. income source for pop. around Lake

Sevan

Responses 1 Environmental policy will rehabilitate and protect Lake

Sevan’s ecosystem and promote rational use (no spec. ref.

to fisheries).

45. Azerbaijan PRSP/My 2003 Issues 2 Pollution of Caspian Sea-Baku bay area biolog. dead

Links 2 Livelihoods of large sections of population depend on

Casp. Sea (oil and fisheries).

Public sector employees in agric., forestry and fishing

amongst the poorest paid public servants, earning less than

the absolute pov. line (US$25.8/m)

Poverty aggravates environ. probl., incl. over-fishing in

Casp. Sea, whereas pollution of Casp Sea neg. affects living

standards.

Continues





Responses 2 Measures to protect Casp. Sea from further poll./biomass

reduction (limit. on fishing, commun. particip.)

Subst. wage/salary increases for publ. employees in agric.,

forest. and fishing promised (2003–05)

Subst. increase in expend. on econ. services, incl. fisheries,

to promote econ. growth (Capital exp. and supp. programs

for the poor) promised.

Process 2 Mobilising community level resources in protecting,

monitoring environment (publ. educ. on environm. issues,

establ. appropr. monitoring indic. and decentr. of govt.

policy direction)

46. Georgia PRSP/Jun 2003 Links 1 Share of meat, fish and dairy products in food energy

consumption varies across the population between 7–

20 per cent, around 10 per cent for people living in extreme

poverty.

47. Kyrgyzstan PRSP/Dec 2002 Issues 1 Red Book of the Republic protects inter alia 2 fish species

(one was included after 1985).

Favourable future for devt. of fishing in Son-Kul Lake.

Potential of profit. sectors poultry breeding and fish farming

recognised.

48. Macedonia, IPRSP/No 2000 No mention of fisheries sector whatsoever

FYR

49. Moldova IPRSP/Ap 2002 No mention of fisheries sector whatsoever

50. Tajikistan PRSP/Jun 2002 No mention of fisheries sector whatsoever



poverty reduction strategy papers and the fisheries sector: an opportunity forgone?

Documents