Leading up to the Conference of African Ministers for Fisheries and Aquaculture (CAMFA) meeting in Durban, CFFA asked Tim Bostock, Senior Fisheries Specialist at the World Bank, to tell us his views about the wealth based approach. It is a concept that has become influential in policy documents leading up to the second CAMFA meeting and promoting improved wealth from fisheries is likely to be a strong message in the comprehensive reform strategy that Ministers will agree on. But the wealth based approach has been criticized by some for encouraging reform that may marginalize small-scale fishing communities. Here Tim Bostock clarifies the work of the World Bank and explains that the wealth based approach has been misunderstood by its critics. Interview with André Standing.
Fish trader, Dar es Salaam central fish market. Photo by A.Standing.
AS: The Wealth Based Approach has been advanced by the World Bank and also featured in background documents for informing the first CAMFA meeting. How would you describe the basic tenets of this, which distinguishes it from other policy approaches for reforming fisheries?
TB: In responding to these questions, I must stress from the outset that my comments are my own, personal views and do not necessarily represent those of the World Bank.
First I need to be absolutely clear on one thing. The World Bank takes no particular advocacy position on how fisheries should be managed at any level of operation. Like any banking or donor operation, what the World Bank does is provide responsive financial assistance to countries to enable them to take effective investment decisions based on the best available evidence. To help ensure our lending operations are as effective as possible, we do undertake and support analytical work to inform decisions. In undertaking this work, we collaborate very closely with specialist agencies including FAO, and with a wide range of other partners from both public and private sectors. In Africa, our important regional partners are NEPAD and AU. Our main publications are available on the Bank’s website at www.worldbank.org/fisheries
Second, the notion of ‘wealth based fisheries’ has only ever been presented as an approach in background papers and in our 2009 journal article entitled Wealth-based Fisheries Management: Using Fisheries Wealth to Orchestrate Sound Fisheries Policy in Practice. The paper provides comprehensive definitions and explains the features that distinguish this approach from more conventional management systems. I strongly urge interested readers to refer to this paper. I’d be happy to answer any questions arising from this.
Given its focus on economic efficiency, the paper has led to some interpretations which suggested that wealth based fisheries in the context of developing country fishing communities was simply about generating and extracting resource rent. I now welcome the opportunity to explore these further and hopefully set the record straight.
Before getting into more detail, however, I should point out that the springboard for emphasising wealth is the parlous state of many of the world’s fisheries, particularly those in which developing countries have –or potentially have– a stake. Successive editions of FAO’s publication SOFIA highlight the ever worsening picture of overexploitation and overfishing, despite efforts at national and international levels (for instance at WSSD in 2002). Why is this? Policies that continue to ignore the substantial value of fish resources and how this value could contribute sustainably to socio-economic and environmental objectives, generally have the unintended consequence of driving overexploitation.
Let’s now examine the paper’s focus on wealth and some of the perceptions that have arisen from this. The paper defines wealth based fisheries as a two-step process:
First, improving the management of fisheries (at all scales) to ensure its full potential value is realized from catching and throughout the value chain. As with farming or other land-based extractive industries, the aim is not to squander valuable resources such as fertilizer or water, but to conserve them and ensure good productivity, profitability and sustainable businesses. Fisheries are no different. Fish are a naturally renewing resource that, if properly managed, will provide income, livelihoods, and health benefits to local communities – all these are aspects of the term ‘wealth’.
Assuming greater productive value -or wealth- can be created through better fisheries management, the second step is to ensure this value is effectively and equitably distributed to all stakeholders. In other words, a “wealth based approach” to fisheries management aims to ensure fisheries not only contribute to economic growth, but also that the benefits from that growth are felt by those who are most in need.
While wealth from industrial fisheries may contribute directly to national economies, value generated at the community level can and should stay where it has the greatest impact – in the community…However determining how this would work in practice, what is ‘fair’ and ‘equitable’, and what constitutes an appropriate use of wealth within a society is a complex challenge for all of us.
Last but not least, at this point, I’d also like to mention some recent positive contributions to this thinking. A paper entitled Wealth, Rights, and Resilience: An Agenda for Governance Reform in Small-scale Fisheries by colleagues from WorldFish Center and International Food Policy Research Institute, recognizes that three diverse perspectives that have recently emerged in regard to reforms that are likely to affect small-scale fishers in developing countries - wealth, rights and resilience. The authors suggest these are complementary perspectives requiring balance in their application and which considered together can serve to guide policy responses. They correctly suggest, for example, that too much emphasis on wealth and efficiency, could sideline welfare functions including trade-offs between increasing resource rents and addressing livelihood loss; further, overemphasizing free and open access to fisheries by the poor can sideline the potential for wealth generation and rural development as well as ignoring the limits of resource productivity. This paper is definitely worth reading not least because it provides a good summary of the differences in approach for fisheries reform– one of the points you raised in your question.
AS: You define wealth here as encompassing not only income, but livelihoods and food security, and the overall aim of the WBA is to ensure wealth derived from fisheries is maximized for society. Governments have to balance decisions and they face trade offs – a policy that may maximize income or profits may not be the best for securing food security for the most food insecure populations. How do you think the WBA addresses these difficult decisions?
This is now getting into quite a complex area. Again, it’s worth browsing our paper which raises some of this. I agree that policies designed to maximize profitability may not automatically generate the societal benefits that we all seek. However, there are many factors to be borne in mind when considering trade-offs in policy decisions. First the whole industry, rather than just small scale fishers, needs to be considered; like agriculture, fisheries is a heterogeneous sector where no one size fits all. Policy choices will not only depend on context but also on scale. Moreover, the nature of government and the political economy is arguably the main factor influencing choice. For example, is government ‘public goods oriented’ or ‘rent seeking’ and corrupt? Rational choice for some governments will be very different from the choice of others….
To expand the point I touched upon earlier, we can take the hypothetical example of industrial fishing – say tuna- under wealth based management. While a proportion of the super-profit (rent – i.e. income over and above normal profit) can – depending on the country’s fiscal performance, policies and institutions - be captured by the resource ‘owner’ (i.e. government, via taxes, royalties etc.) and contribute directly to the macroeconomy, this is rarely the case for small scale fishers in developing countries, nor is this the aim. WBA calls not only for optimizing economic benefits to the extent possible (to avoid waste), but also to ensure economic gains are effectively distributed where they can have the greatest impact in contributing to [macroeconomic] socioeconomic goals.
Policy choices that opt, say, to maintain high levels of fishers to ensure jobs/livelihoods, or that focus simply on increasing production may have an economic efficiency penalty to pay. This is especially so when job creation represents an opportunity cost to the rest of the economy and in the context where fishing productivity is trending into decline. Policy choices that seek to optimize economic value (say through allocating rights to a limited number of fishers commensurate with the resource capacity) can indeed lead to social exclusion unless they include safeguards to ensure an effective means of sharing the wealth that will be created by better resources management. We know that fisheries wealth can act as a growth pole providing opportunities for investment say in value added processing or outside of fishing altogether. An important point here is that not just fishermen can benefit from a healthy and productive fishery.
Again, the WorldFish/IFPRI paper referred to earlier also presents some interesting discussion on such trade-offs. In general it is important for all stakeholders, not just governments, to define policies that identify these trade-offs and ensure these are scrutinized and well understood. As I have alluded, many of these factors and the implications of policy decisions are seldom properly understood by those making crucial decisions. This raises issues of accountability.
AS: There have been criticisms of the WBA, particularly the idea that it could lead to job losses and the marginalisation of small-scale fisheries and fish workers. What's your thinking on these criticisms and should small-scale fishing communities be concerned? How does this relate to rights-based management?
TB: Small scale fishers and associated communities are frequently associated with hardship, poverty and deprivation – a situation that has emerged in many places over recent decades as result of weak management and governance over resource access and use. Although poverty is a multifaceted problem which no single economic sector can be expected to deal with alone, there is no doubt that many fisheries can significantly increase their contributions to secure, sustainable livelihoods and poverty reduction both at a macroeconomic and local levels. For this to happen, enabling foundations of good management and governance need to be in place. This is the value proposition of wealth based fisheries reform.
I’ve already touched on some of the specific criticisms you mention in relation to labour and marginalization. So to take this question further, let’s begin by noting that successful outcomes in any fishery will largely depend on secure rights of access and use. The Bank supports FAO’s lead on this in the context of small scale fishers and associated communities. For example, their Guidelines note that “responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests applicable in small-scale fisheries is central for the realization of human rights, food security, poverty eradication, sustainable livelihoods, social stability, housing security, rural development, and social and economic growth.” NEPAD/AU’s objectives under the pan-African Strategy also reflect this key point.
And to be absolutely clear, when we refer to ‘rights-based management’ in the context of small scale fishers, we do so in a generic way. Our interest is to support action that helps small scale fishing communities improve the management of their fisheries, address destructive free and open access and poor governance, and improve and sustain productivity. We are at one with FAO on this and wish to see additional value and food being generated from fisheries by communities for communities. In so doing, this is a direct contribution to African economies.
Assuming we all agree that small scale fishers merit specific attention, requiring support tailored to varying contexts, I’m sure we can all appreciate the urgent need for a constructive dialogue and a positive message on cooperation if we are, collectively, to try and direct much needed resources into this often overlooked and maligned sector. Such a dialogue might include how to define and kick start new approaches and innovation with a focus on optimizing rather than wasting the productive value of fisheries; and how to ensure the value or wealth of fisheries can better contribute to increasing profitability, food security, sustainable livelihoods and of course healthy fish stocks to support all of the above.
We are talking here about not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. The goose needs tender loving care if those eggs are to keep appearing.
AS: Over the past few years there has been growing support for the human rights based approach to fisheries. How do you think the WBA relates to this and in what ways are they complimentary?
The wealth based approach is fully consistent with all aspects of human rights. As already mentioned, the WBA aims to protect and conserve wealth – the productive value of precious marine living resources for the good of people whose living depends upon them. The alternative is to continue with the status quo – in many places stocks are in decline. Fishers are struggling. Generating more value and productivity through better fisheries management that centers more secure access and use rights for small scale fishers will (and does) support food and livelihood security. We know this from emerging examples from around the world.
A well managed (aka wealth based) fishery can be thought of as a people’s bank in which the fish stock is a living financial asset – ‘natural capital’ with the added advantage of an ability to generate perpetual interest. Conversely, in poorly managed fisheries this asset is simply mined and capital value diminishes over time. Clearly, as fisheries develop and grow, and once fishers and communities are fully empowered to make decisions on future directions, it’s up to them to decide how to deploy the asset that they have built up – to support public goods such as schools and health centres, or to invest privately in new enterprises.
AS: What type of activities and measures would you like to see over the next few years in African countries to realise the WBA? (I.e. What needs to be done in the short to medium term?)
As I mentioned earlier, achieving wealth based fisheries is about unlocking the potential value of fisheries to ensure long term economic benefits – in others words, taking good care of that Golden Goose. Small scale fishers and others in the fishing communities are the primary beneficiaries. The challenge will be to work with these on a case by case basis to help define more effective management systems based on more secure access and use rights. There are no quick fixes, so how can we do this?
A useful starting point might be to define the fishery management unit –which fish stocks exactly do we want to manage? In the case of sedentary species such as lobsters or shellfish, the ecosystem and species range can be more easily defined than in the case of say pelagic stocks shared between adjacent communities or with foreign fleets. It is also be helpful to estimate the potential value of a fishery under different management and marketing scenarios. This information can be used to support decisions at local and national levels. In recent years, NEPAD’s Partnership for African Fisheries has been analyzing values in a range of African fisheries and has used this information to underpin the arguments for reform that are presented in the Pan-African Strategy.
Establishing the precise management arrangements is arguably the most challenging of requirements that calls for a concerted effort by all of us with an interest in sustainable fisheries. This needs to carefully consider how access and use rights are allocated. Such rights may already be in place as customary / traditional arrangements for small scale fishers. If appropriate these can be built upon and traditional rights secured and enforced rather than being sidelined. Great care is needed to ensure future systems are defined and agreed from the bottom up to ensure viability and ‘ownership’ by all participants in the fishery. Where customary rights might form the basis of local reforms, care is also needed to ensure these too are fair (at least insofar as ‘fairness’ can be defined) and commensurate with the human rights agenda and shared prosperity.
I believe there is a strong need for awareness building campaigns on the various forms of effective management and associated rights allocations and how these may impact on participants in a fishery. This is perhaps an area of attention that development agencies and civil society groups could work together on in the immediate future.
Once fisheries are better managed, they are likely to grow and generate increasing productivity. This risks attracting additional fishing effort including larger scale fishing and even foreign access, all of which could undermine community-based management systems. This is why it is essential for communities to ensure that robust institutions and rules –either local or national- are in place to manage this risk.
A final thought. I firmly believe we need to focus more on learning from success in other places around the world. In studying poverty in fishing communities and how to tackle it, we often get distracted by the poor performers rather than the success stories - fishers that might once have been poor, but are now better off owing to reform. If you want to establish a new farming business, you tend to look at the successful farmers rather than the less successful, and then try to emulate them or do better. Success is also something politicians espouse. Yet, the means of achieving successful, prosperous and sustainable fisheries is rarely understood at political levels. Work needs to be done to tackle this gap in understanding not least to ensure policies are underpinned by sound principles based on evidence of what works rather what does not.
AS: That’s an interesting issue – the importance of robust institutions and rules to respond to decisions that are at odds with community interests, including small-scale fishing communities. I suppose this is about improving democracy and ensuring governments are accountable to citizens for decisions on fisheries. But would you agree that there is a lack of participation in policy making based on adequate information sharing in many African countries, and if so what encouraging signs are there through the Partnership for African Fisheries and the work of the World Bank (or any other process) that this is being addressed?
Yes, it’s about democracy, but it’s also about ‘self-help’ if I can put it that way. There are examples around the world where fishing communities operate within a democratic vacuum, yet have been able autonomously to develop their own management rules that deal effectively with access.
In addition to ignoring the value / wealth of fisheries, I believe much policy making in fisheries is dysfunctional from this crucial participatory perspective –this is not just an African problem, but global. To be effective, policy visioning processes must involve all relevant stakeholders. This is not straightforward - in fact in many situations fishers and processors simply lack any expectation of engaging in policy dialogue or even consider it an ineffective waste of time. This is a mindset that is reinforced by the long heritage of ‘command and control’ roles adopted by most governments when it comes to fisheries. Changing this is a lengthy and arduous process. The good news is things are now beginning to move in the right direction, facilitated by shifting rights and responsibilities away from governments and towards fishers and communities.
You ask about PAF and the World Bank; I would also include the GPO, the (GPO-independent) Blue Ribbon Panel, and several like-minded donors. Development assistance is increasingly focused on building awareness of the broad economic and welfare opportunities offered by African fisheries, facilitating participatory analyses of how these opportunities may best be realized, optimized and sustained, and supporting pan-African and regional investments that can take this thinking forward.
AS: Briefly, can you indicate some of the success stories that serve as inspiration for the reform of Africa’s fisheries?
NEPAD (PAF) and the Bank are currently undertaking a series of case studies in fishing communities throughout the Continent looking exactly at this this issue. We are all painfully aware of the dearth of empirical evidence from within Africa on success stories at the level of small scale fishers. This lack of evidence is again due to weak policies and long-term neglect –more precisely tackling the wrong issues; trimming the foliage rather than tackling the roots. A workshop (shared Bank, NEPAD and FAO) to discuss the findings in detail will be held in later this year and reports of the various studies commissioned from a range of African and international researchers will be presented. If readers are interested in this work, I’d be happy to share more of the thinking this stage,
AS: Many thanks Tim for taking time to answer my questions. We hope this will encourage some further debate and people should post replies and questions for Tim in the comments section below.
[For an introduction to the literature and debates on the wealth based approach, see our wiki page here.]