Dr. Ratana Chuenpagdee
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada and Coastal Development Centre, Thailand
General description
Small-scale and large-scale, commercial fisheries have co-existed since the major modernization of fishing gears and technology in the beginning of the 20th century, which enabled the rapid and widespread development of large-scale fishing sector. The existence of these two fishing sectors is, however, not even. In many parts of the world, large-scale fisheries dominate in terms of catches and revenues. Yet, the significant contribution of small-scale fisheries to food security and livelihoods of millions of people is generally acknowledged. This paper examines the relationship between small-scale and large-scale fisheries, and the conditions for their coexistence. Specifically, it asks what natural and social environments, and governance arrangements, are required to support the viability, and the coexistence, of both sectors.
Background
In current fisheries discourse, we refer to fishing and fisheries mostly in the modern time, without due attention to the fact that fishing is a form of primary production that is as old as humankind (Gabriel et al., 2005). Major changes have taken place throughout the history of fishing, affecting aquatic environments, fishing people, and society at large. The distressing state of world fisheries today is likely a reflection of disconnect between fisheries policy and present reality, and the history of their development (McGoodwin, 1990). Without a proper examination of the changes, also of fisheries institutions and governance systems, and how they affect the existence of, and relationship between, small- and large-scale fishing sectors, we may be endorsing policies that inhibit the sustainability of small-scale fisheries, as well as limit their ability to adapt to environmental and economic changes.
According to Gabriel et al. (2005), small-scale fishing has long existed well before the establishment of the first large-scale fisheries in the Middle Ages in Europe with bulk demands for salted cod and herring and whale oil. Later in the late 1700s, steam engine was introduced to enable fishing at greater depths, further offshore, with bigger and heavier gear, thus marking a major transformation in fisheries, which later spread to other parts of the world (Smith, 2000). The ocean was then considered an inexhaustible source of wealth that could easily handle the ‘blue revolution,’ shown for instance in tropical fisheries (Bailey, 1985), the United States of America (McEvoy, 1986), India (Bavinck, 2001), and Southeast Asia (Butcher, 2004). By the time studies suggesting overfishing and unsustainable fishing practices started to emerge, it was much too late.
Large-scale, industrialized fisheries have, literally and figuratively speaking, gained important grounds. As shown in Pauly et al. (2003), fishing areas have expanded over the past 50 years, farther from shore and into deeper waters.
In The Closing of the Frontier, Butcher (2004) provided a vivid and comprehensive description of how fisheries in Southeast Asia went through a series of changes. As in other areas of the world, the abundance of resources in the sea was the main impetus for the intensification of fish harvesting and major developments in fishing technology, which led to the ‘great fish race,’ and the eventual closing of the frontier. But even before the mechanization of fishing boats and technological advancement in fishing methods, fishing areas were expanded to increase catch levels, thus supporting the view that small-scale fisheries can also cause resource degradation, if equipped with effective and non-selective fishing gears. The most drastic change in the South China Sea area was caused by the introduction of trawls from the 1950s to the late 1970s; first in the Philippines, then later in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, which contributed to over-exploitation of fisheries in the region.
In the book, Fish for Life (Kooiman et al., 2005), we identified ecosystem health as one of the key concerns facing world fisheries. This issue well illustrates how small-scale fisheries are compromised by their large- scale counterpart. Large-scale, industrialized fisheries cause greater ecological impacts than small-scale fisheries, with the high volume of fish they remove from the sea, and severe habitat damages and high percentage of by-catch and discards when certain gears are employed (Chuenpagdee et al., 2003). Although thousands of small-scale fishing units may cause equivalent damage to a few large-scale fishing vessels, the latter still dominate world fisheries, taking in over 70% of the total production. The poor health of the oceans
creates more hardship to small-scale fishers due to their high dependency on fisheries resources, and their limited options to improve their efficiency or alter their fishing activities, like fishing further offshore.
There is considerably less documentation of what happened to traditional small-scale fishers and their communities, who dominated fisheries prior to the blue revolution. Although large-scale fisheries came into existence much later and have managed to take over the small-scale counterpart in many cases, small-scale fisheries are still very important, especially in developing and less-developed countries. As reported by the FAO (2010), only about 2% of fishers and fish farmers are in Europe and North America, but their average annual production per capita is about 24 tonnes in Europe and 18 tonnes in North America. In contrast, Asia has about 85% of the world’s fishers and fish farmers, whose individual production averages about one-tenth of those in the North. Put simply, large-scale, industrial fisheries dominate in developed countries, while small-scale fisheries hold prominence in other parts of the world.
In sum, while small- and large-scale fisheries have long coexisted, their relationship has never been straightforward. In a few places where fisheries consist mainly of either industrialized fisheries enterprises or traditional subsistence fisheries, sector interaction (in harvest and post-harvest activities) is minimized. For the most part, mid- to large-size and small-scale, commercial and livelihood fishing sectors coexist in a complex relationship since they share fishing grounds, use similar gears that differ in power and efficiency, often target the same species, and sometimes compete in the same markets. These issues are important to examine and discussed in fisheries governance.
Issues
The livelihood dependency of small-scale fishers to fisheries is generally high. When resources become scarce, and other livelihood options are not available, small-scale fishers are under pressure to modernize their gears, increase the power of their vessels, take high interest loans, sell at low prices, or employ illegal and/or destructive gears. These are short-term solutions at best since, in the long run, they contribute to pushing small-scale fishers into the vicious circle of poverty, rather than improving their well-being. As illustrated in Chuenpagdee and Jentoft (forthcoming), there are several conditions throughout the fish chain, i.e., in the aquatic environment, harvest and post-harvest activities, that make small-scale fishers vulnerable to poverty.
These include natural disasters, unfavorable environmental conditions, perturbations affecting fisheries productivity caused mainly by large-scale fishing gears, as well as climate change. Other issues related to safety at sea, cost of fishing, market accessibility, inappropriate post-harvest handling, and poor processing facilities worsen the situation of small-scale fishers. Moreover, it is far too common in developing countries that small-scale fishing people are at the mercy of moneylenders, who have full control over the prices and marketing of their products. The difference between small- and large-scale fisheries is obvious with regards to access to major domestic and international fish and seafood markets. Only in some niche markets, such as those catering to cultural-based tourism supporting local harvests, are small-scale fisheries well positioned to benefit.
Pauly (1997; 2006) has long argued that small-scale fisheries fare much better than the large-scale sector in several key areas, such as contribution to job and food security, fuel consumption, and environmental sustainability. Yet, they are largely marginalized, not only socially and economically, but also institutionally.
If the FAO recognizes that small-scale fisheries contribute more than half of the world’s fisheries catch and that the majority of the world’s fishers are small-scale, we must ask why there is no comparable data collection system to that of large-scale fisheries, and thus no official statistics that properly differentiate the two sectors. The general omission of the roles of women in fisheries is even more disturbing. The reasons may be related to the characteristics of small-scale fisheries, that they are highly diverse and numerous, are often located in remote areas, with poor infrastructure, and that records of their fishing activities and marketing do not always exist. Nevertheless, these reasons are not sufficient to abandon any attempt to verify this work.
Some efforts have indeed been made to systematically document and examine the extent of small-scale fisheries (see, for instance, the global database of small-scale fisheries by Chuenpagdee et al., 2006), but more can be done, especially by intergovernmental organizations like the FAO, to help provide policy balance to these fisheries sectors.
“Fishing is a living occupation” (Gabriel et al., 2005, p. 2). This statement emphasizes how changes take place throughout history. Although it may not alter how fish is caught, as in some traditional small-scale fisheries, the efficiency of catching and handling fish has greatly improved, particularly in the commercialized and industrialized sector, both large and small. This also implies that what dominates fisheries economies today, like trawl fishing, may lose significance in the future with increasing oil prices and other policies to reduce carbon emissions. Concurrently, small-scale fishing gears and devices employed in some parts of the world are
71
becoming more sophisticated with the use of global positioning systems (GPS), and almost everywhere information technology, especially mobile phones, has enabled efficient marketing of small-scale fisheries catches. In the same way that small-scale fishers are affected by different conditions throughout the fish chain, which may result in increasing their marginality, restoring balance in fisheries requires an understanding of the entire fish chain, as well as anticipated changes, for effective governance interventions.
Some governance arrangements, regardless of their original intention, serve in favor of large-scale fisheries.
Government subsidies for modernization of fishing vessels and gears, as well as for offsetting fishing costs (e.g., fuel subsidies) have encouraged the growth and expansion of domestic and distant water fleets. Despite implementation challenges, removal of subsidies and reducing fishing capacities has already been suggested as the way forward (see Swan and Gréboval, 2004; Sumaila et al., 2008). Channelling these subsidies to support sustainable fisheries, whether large or small, is another option. The challenge is in determining what sustainable fisheries, or the contrary, look like.
Recommendations
Fisheries governance is a main area of research and policy development that can support the viability of small- scale fisheries and their coexistence with large-scale fishing sector. The interactive governance theory posits that careful examination of the underlying values, principles and images held by public and private actors in the state, market and society is required (Kooiman et al., 2005). This departs from the existing approach of applying indicators to assess various dimensions of sustainability, in that it encourages interaction among actors in the deliberation of what these meta-elements may be, and how best to negotiate them when they do not align. In other words, interactive governance focuses on process more than tools, and outcomes more than outputs, and it pays close attention to interactions among fisheries stakeholders and between stakeholders and the natural environment. Making values, principles and images explicit is essential in dealing with fisheries issues because of the broad range of stakeholders with divergent, if not conflicting, interests. It helps provide transparency to management and decision-making, thus encouraging stakeholder participation in the process.
Governance is obviously not only about these meta-elements. Fisheries managers are often occupied with first- order (daily actions and problem-solving), and occasionally with second-order (design and setting of institutions) governance issues. Spending time discussing meta-order governance may be considered too much of a luxury, especially when crisis management is a permanent feature. The argument for moving governance discussion to the meta-level is based on the premise that knowledge about values, principles and images can help make fisheries more governable, thus easing the governing tasks. Put differently, knowing what matters to small-scale fishers and large-scale fishing industries can help reduce tension and misunderstanding between them, and build legitimacy into management decisions.
What should a governance arrangement that fosters the coexistence and viability of small-scale and large- scale, commercial fisheries look like? In saying that fisheries governance is a wicked problem (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2009), we suggest that there is no simple answer to this question since there is no one size fits all solution or technical quick fix. But, talking about governance as a holistic concept that goes beyond management does not imply that governments have no roles to play. Instead, it calls for small- and large-scale fishers, fishing communities, industries, environmental organizations and governments to take part in governance, playing different roles and having various levels of engagement, according to the conditions, demands and challenges that they face. Power differential between these governing actors needs to be recognized and adjusted to enable marginalized groups to fully participate in a democratic, transparent and accountable process. This implies that governance may not yield outcomes that are equally acceptable to all involved. Further argument can be made that governance performance cannot be judged as good or bad.
Measurement instruments useful in examining governance are those that illuminate both potentials and limitations of governance arrangements, and suggest innovative ways to enhance its performance. The importance of exploring other livelihood opportunities to either replace or supplement fisheries means that a broad framework like integrated coastal management needs to be drawn upon.
References
Bailey, C. (1985). Blue revolution: The impact of technological innovation on Third World fisheries. The Rural Sociologist, 5(4), 259–266.
Bavinck, M. (2011). The Mega engineering of Ocean Fisheries: A Century of Expansion and Rapidly Closing Frontiers. In S. D. Brunn (Ed.), Engineering earth: the impacts of mega engineering projects (pp.
257-273). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Butcher, J. G. (2004). The closing of the frontier-a history of the marine fisheries of Southeast Asia c. 1850- 2000. Leiden: KITLV Press.
Chuenpagdee, R., Jentoft, S. (forthcoming). Situating Poverty: A Chain Analysis of Small-Scale Fisheries. In:
Jentoft and Eide (eds.) Poverty Mosaics: Realities and Prospects in Small-Scale Fisheries.
Amsterdam: Springer.
Chuenpagdee, R., Liguori, L., Palomares, M. L. D., and Pauly, D. (2006). Bottom-up, Global Estimates of Small-Scale Fisheries Catches. Fisheries Centre Research Report, 14(8). 110p.
http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/.
Chuenpagdee, R., Morgan, L.E., Maxwell, S.M., Norse, E.A., and Pauly, D. (2003). Shifting gears: assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in the U.S. waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(10):517-524.
FAO (2010). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Gabriel, O., Lange, K., Dahm, E., and Wendt, T. (2005). Fish catching methods of the world, 4th edition.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Jentoft, S. and Chuenpagdee, R. (2009). Fisheries and coastal governance as wicked problems. Marine Policy 33: 553-560.
Jentoft, S., Eide, A., Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R., and Raakjær, J. (forthcoming). A Better Future: Prospects for Small-Scale Fishing People. In: Jentoft and Eide (eds.) Poverty Mosaics: Realities and Prospects in Small-Scale Fisheries. Amsterdam: Springer.
Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S. and Pullin, R. S. V. (Eds.). (2005). Fish for Life: Interactive Governance for Fisheries. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
McEvoy, A. F. (1986). The fisherman’s problem – Ecology and law in the California fisheries 1850–1980.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGoodwin, J. R. (1990) Crisis in the World's Fisheries: People, Problems, and Policies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Pauly, D. (1997) Small-scale fisheries in the tropics: marginality, marginalization and some implications for fisheries management. In Pikitch, E. K., Huppert, D. D. and Sissenwine, M. P., eds., Global trends:
fisheries management. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society Symposium.
Pauly, D. (2006). Major trends in small-scale marine fisheries, with emphasis on developing countries, and some implications for the social sciences. Maritime Studies (MAST) 4(2), 7-22.
Pauly, D., Alder, J., Bennett, E., and Christensen, V. (2003). The future for fisheries. Science, 302, 1359–
1361.
Smith, H. D. (2000). The industrialization of the world ocean. Ocean & Coastal Management 43:11–28.
Sumaila, U. R., Teh, L., Watson, R., Tyedmers, P. and Pauly, D. (2008) Fuel prices, subsidies, overcapacity, and resource sustainability. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65(6), 832-840.
Swan, J. and Gréboval, D. (comps.) (2004). Report and documentation of the International Workshop on the Implementation of International Fisheries Instruments and Factors of Unsustainability and
Overexploitation in Fisheries, Mauritius, 3-7 February 2003. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 700. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization.
73
Annex 5