Sri Lankan Tamils, 4.2 Indian Tamils, 9.2% Moors (2013), while the rest ...... fuel price hike and a fisher was also killed in Negombo when the police fired at the.
‘Tangled in their own (safety) – Nets’; Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability of fishing communities in the face of the world fisheries crisis.
Contract No. 12/283
Project No. PO/11035
Case Study- SRI LANKA
Oscar Amarasinghe Anuradhi Dulangi Jayasinghe
Department of Agricultural Economics University of Ruhuna Mapalana Kamburupitiya SRI LANKA March 2015
CHAPTER 1 Sri Lanka:
Land, climate, economy and people Situated in the Indian ocean, Southeast of India, Sri Lanka is a small country having a land area of 65,510 km2 lying within the latitude 6o-10o N and longitude 79o-82o E. Sri Lanka being close to the equator, the mean temperature on the plains ranges from 80-82oF. The country is pear-shaped, with a mountainous region in the centre of the island surrounded on all sides by coastal plains. From the central mountains originate 103 perennial rivers, which flow across the coastal plains in a radial manner to fall into the Indian Ocean. The island is only 150 miles wide and the heat of plains is therefore tempered by the sea breezes. The hill-country, which rises up to 6000 feet, has a cooler climate. Out of a total of 6.26 million hectares, only 2.50 m ha are considered as arable land while 1.52 m ha remain unsuitable for agriculture. Buildings and roads occupy a further .78 m ha while the forest cover of the country is approximately 1.54 m ha. Sri Lanka has a total population of 20.48 m (in 2013) consisting of 74.9% Sinhalese, 11.2 Sri Lankan Tamils, 4.2 Indian Tamils, 9.2% Moors (2013), while the rest consist of Burghers, Malays and others. Apart from being a multi-ethnic country, Sri Lanka's population is also characterised by its multi-religious nature; with Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims & Christians forming 70.2%, 12.6%, 9.7% and 7.6% of the population respectively (2013). Many social indicators of the population remain quite favourable for development. People are highly literate with a literacy rate of 95.6% (the highest in South Asia). The annual rate of growth of population is 0.8 %. With the extension of health facilities to even the remotest areas of the country, the crude death rate and infant mortality rate have fallen substantially, to levels of 5.9 and 9.4 per thousand respectively. The population enjoys a life span of 75.1 years, which is a quite high figure compared to that of many other Asian countries. Sri Lanka's economy is predominantly agricultural, where 31 percent of the economically active population is engaged in agriculture. The major agricultural products include paddy (domestic consumption), tea, rubber, coconut and minor export crops (pepper, cinnamon, cardamom, cloves, etc.), which are the major agricultural exports. Garments, minerals, rubber and petroleum products form the major industrial exports, The service sector, which is the largest sector of the country in terms of its contribution to the GDP (58%), is dominated by numerous financial and marketing services. The Gross National Product of the country in 2013 amounted to US $ 65.4 billion and the contribution of agriculture
forestry and fisheries to GNP was 11% in 2012. Per capita income stands at 3,191 US $ per year. The country is now classified as a lower-middle income country. About 96 percent of the population enjoys electricity facilities while 88.7 percent has access to safe drinking water. In respect of poverty, Sri Lanka has a Poverty Head Count Index of 6.5 (2012). The country enjoys a Human Development Index of 0.715 (2012), which gives it the rank of 92 among 187 countries.
The study scope The present study aims at improving our understanding about the ability of fishing communities to cope, adapt or transform in the face of declining fishery resources and increasingly restricted access to these resources. It also attempts at providing evidence of, and look into, some of the critical factors explaining individual and collective fisherfolks’ behaviours and their drivers in relation to the current fisheries crisis and to provide policy-relevant analysis about how to reconcile the need to reduce the overall fishing effort and the recognition that small-scale fisheries provide critical pro-poor functions in developing countries. One of the major research question of the study is to find out the relationships that exist between social resilience and wellbeing. More specifically, it is intended to find out whether a person truly be both resilient and well, or do elements of the former inevitably dictate a reduction, or compromise, in the latter. The study is carried out in two fishing villages in Southern Sri Lanka (see Map 1). Both these are small scale fishing villages where fishers are engaged in coastal fisheries with small motor boats and accompanying gear. One of the fishing villages is situated in the Matara district, while the other is located in the Hambantota district, both in the Southern Province of Sri Lanka.
Southern Province
Godawaya
Gandara
family ->community) and dimension (material ->relational and subjective). Take another example. Say as a long term [94]
strategy to cope with shocks (like fuel price hike resulting in increased cost of production and low profits) women take up alternative employment earning supplementary incomes. Now fuel price rise causes a wellbeing loss; low income threatening good family ties. But this shock has induced women in the household to engage in income generating activities, which is a wellbeing aspiration of women folk and also strengthen family economy and family ties. Now this is a case where there is a wellbeing loss to the fisher, but the household has gained in another front (women employment). This is a case which shows that, there could be individual wellbeing losses, while at the same time a gain in total family wellbeing. “In contrast to the strong scalar perspective in resilience thinking, scale is not explicitly addressed as such in the social conception of wellbeing. However, the material, relational and subjective factors and processes influence individual and collective behaviours, and thus the potential trade‐offs implicit in achieving wellbeing at different scales are recognized”.15 e) Accessibility exercise has shown us that accessibility of diverse wellbeing goals is different (high accessible, moderately accessible or poorly accessible). Therefore, at a particular moment in time, the total wellbeing of a person is composed of diverse wellbeing components, which will contribute differentially to this total wellbeing, depending on the accessibility. Over time a person’s access to diverse wellbeing components changes, either lowering, maintaining or improving the total wellbeing. As shown in figure…, other changes over time, such as changes in government policy, law (institutions), markets, etc. may al f) Although not dealt adequately with the role of ‘agency’ in this discussion, this has been implicit in some of the responses of the FGD participants when they were asked about the ‘what make them feel well’. Agency is generally understood to mean the capacity of individuals to act independently to make their own free choices. In fact, Agency is directly related to the adaptive capacity of an individual. Although, adaptive capacity is generally considered as an attribute of people: individuals, households, and communities16, we have also noted here some attributes of individual adaptive capacity; “creativity” and “courageousness”. Creativity, as explained by people at Godawaya, is the ability to innovate, using the available resources (given a particular stock of resources; livelihood capitals). Creativity was considered by people as an important quality 15
Armitage, D., Béné, C., Charles, A., Johnson, D. and E.H. Allison; The interplay of wellbeing and resilience concepts in applying a social-ecological systems perspective (unpublished) 16 Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2011.36:321-342. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by University of Manitoba on 11/24/11
[95]
of a person adding positively to wellbeing. Even temporary migration could be considered as an outcome of creativity of person, because such migration could be a component of that person’s “innovative” activity calendar. Creativity could also be considered as a quality that help you to develop more fruitful livelihood strategies by innovatively combining diverse livelihood capitals. The other important component of individual adaptive capacity is the “courageousness”, which was a wellbeing component (rank 6) mentioned by of women (under, ‘what they wanted to be’) in Gandara. This quality of an individual increases his ability to withstand stress, which has a positive influence on psychological impacts of shocks. In a situation of stress, this helps to ‘keep on’, ‘continue’, ‘stick with’ until the stress is effectively dealt with. Figure.18 gives a diagrammatic representation of the complex relationships between Resilience and Wellbeing that we have discussed above.
Policy / markets / resource accessibility SUBJECTIVE Transformation
Wellbeing Adaptation MATERIAL
RELATIONAL
Trade Offs / wellbeing reshuffling Coping
SHOCK
SHOCK
SHOCK
Resilience / Adaptations
Figure 18. Relationship between Resilience and Wellbeing [96]
Figure.. shows the dynamic nature of the process of adaptations (Resilience) and wellbeing. Both change over time, under varying situations of vulnerability, which are also multiple and overlapping. The circular arrows and those pointing to right show that, in this process of adaptations, people adjust their wellbeing aspirations by reshuffling (working out different trade-offs) among different components of wellbeing, among scales (individual, family and community) and between time (present and future). “The duel goals of fostering resilience and decision making around well-being may pull in different directions and involve trade-offs and hard choices” (Coulthard 2012).
B4. Get By or Get Out? Decades of experience in working with small scale fishing communities in the south reveals little change in these communities. Fishers who complained about resource decline, use of destructive techniques, inadequate income, etc. and said they would soon leave fisheries, are still living and continue to fish, but continue to complain. This prompt us to ask the question as to why do they still fish, if life is that ‘bad’ as they said. Is it because of lack of alternative employment opportunities, or is it because they are trapped in fisheries due to some reason. One thing which h is clear is that fishers in the south appear to ‘get by’ rather than ‘get out’ even at the face of all shocks that we have mentioned in this study. Answering these questions require a closer look at those ‘push’ factors and ‘pull’ factors that finally decide whether a fisher would opt to get out of fisheries. Push Factors: All what we have discussed in earlier chapters, the results of the present study highlight an array of factors in small scale fishing communities, that tend to push people out of fisheries. These are summarized in figure 19.
Push Factor
Risky environment
Description
Fishing is carried out in a hazardous environment. Risks and uncertainties are many. A fisher who puts out his boat in the sea does not know whether they will be fish to catch. He does not know
[97]
whether he will be able to come back safe with his craft and gear. All this makes fishing a risky vocation. Private insurance agencies are unlikely to emerge in fisheries due to informational asymmetries and high transaction costs. Therefore, some tend to believe that fishers have opted for this vocation as a last resort employment, which, on the other hand, also means that, provided with alternative opportunities, fishers might opt to leave the fisheries sector. Resource decline
Almost all fishers generally complain of resource decline (global fisheries crisis). Catch per boat is declining and some species have disappeared. Therefore fishing livelihoods are threatened. Another type of resource decline is the exploitation of near shore resources by deep sea fishers. This is quite true in Gandara, where large mechanised crafts use purse seines to catch shore seine and other varieties of fish. Many fishers say that there traditional fishing grounds of coastal fishers are increasingly been encroached by large scale fishers (offshore craft fishers).
Resource Mining
High rates of resource extraction by some fishers, such as the use of monofilament nets and dynamite, and also by intensively using the resources by effort increase, all contribute to resource degradation, finally threatening fishing livelihoods
Multiple Stressors
The occurrence of multiple shocks means that fishers are not given space and time to recover from a particular shock. About 55-75% of the fishers said that they felt ‘quite insecure’ or ‘very insecure’ at the face of the shocks studied. These uncertainties and insecurities also make planning quite difficult. All this are likely to push fishers into indebtedness, poverty and misery
Loss of assets
Nearly 90% of the fisher respondents reported loss of assets (either direct losses or through sales). Of course asset losses could be quite high in case of random shocks such as a strong storm. During past few decades a number of such incidences have been noted. Loss lives along the coastal areas and loss of property have been tremendous.
[98]
Crises of subsistence
Fishers are often confronted with crises of subsistence. More than 90% reported disruption in income and reducing household expenses. 63-73% reported reduction in food consumption.
Borrowing and indebtedness
Credit generally performs both a credit function and an insurance function (the latter in a situation of imperfect insurance markets). As we have noted, as a response to fishing-related shocks, a sizeable proportion of the fishing communities studied (25-70%) have borrowed from the private moneylenders and banks. Such credit is often lent with stringent interest/collateral requirements, which might perpetuate indebtedness among fishers.
Social Exclusion
Fishers are not happy about the extent of state intervention in fisheries. Although considered as a ‘very important’ relationship’, the Department of Fisheries is yet to develop strategies and mechanisms to assist them. They feel a that they are a ‘neglected’ category [they are not heard (consulted) in formulating policy].
Education
We have seen earlier that almost all fishers push their children into higher studies and reach high educational standards, with the hope that they will not take up fisheries. The other side of the coin is that, fishing is risky and therefore such livelihoods are non-sustainable. A good education, training (acquisition of skills) is necessary to take up employment outside. This is in fact, human capital, the access to which, contributes to the development of sustainable livelihoods.
Agency
Here what is referred to is the ‘innovativeness’ of people (in their own words). At the focus group discussions, people indicated that a person who is more ‘innovative’ will have a higher ‘adaptive or transformative capacity’. Therefore, agency is mediated through innovativeness which could be related to the ability of a person to make independent decisions, which are considered as more productive and effective than those of others.
Figure 19. Factors that tend to push fishers out of fisheries
[99]
Pull Factors: During the focus group discussions it was felt that, due to several factors, especially those associated with strong social relationships, fishing communities were characterized by the existence of certain ‘pull factors’ that kept people in fishing communities (getting by rather than getting out). Therefore, in one of the FGDs (with men at Godawaya), the participants were asked the following question and their responses were recorded. Question If you are affected by a certain shock badly and you feel that you are unable to recover from this shock within the fisheries sector, will you permanently leave the fisheries sector (if outside opportunities exist to cope with shocks)? The answer of all was a big “NO”. They all said that they may migrate temporarily, but will definitely come back to the village) Then the participants were asked to give 5 reasons that kept them in the fisheries sector (‘get by’, rather than ‘get out’). They were also asked to rank them (1,2,3,4,5) according to the strength of the ‘pull’) (see table 40). Table 40. Reasons for remaining in fisheries, at the face of unmanageable shocks Reason for ‘getting by’
Rank
1
Independent nature of the vocation (freedom!) (INDEPENDENCE). WE DO WHAT WE WANT!
1
2
We handle cash more frequently.” Api athe mudal nithara gavasenawa” (Sinhala).
2
Strong link with the coastal environment . Fishers spend most of the time on 3 the beach. They can not leave it! “we have to wet our feet in brine water” “Apita karijja pegenna thienna ona” (Sinhala)
3
The “thrilling and exciting” nature of the vocation. It is the confidence (‘hope’) 4 we have that, “If not today, we will have tomorrow”. “Ada nathath heta thiyenawa” (Sinhala)
4
5
Unity among people (closely knit nature of the society). Strong social relations! (Api harima ekamuthu prajawak) (Sinhala)
Source: FGD with men, Godawaya
[100]
5
Independence The most important ‘pull’ factor into fisheries appears to be the ‘independence’ in the vocation. This is described by fishers as the freedom they enjoy to make independent decisions concerning –when to fish, where to fish, what to fish, how to fish, how much to fish, without having any obligation to anybody and without being influenced by anybody. Of course, the degree of indebtedness to fish merchants, other lenders, family requirements, rules and regulations, laws, etc. mat exert pressure on the decisions of fishers. Yet, the ‘degree’ of independence enjoyed by fishers is quite high compared to many occupational categories of people who work on land. Frequent handling of money (Api athe mudal nithara gavasenawa) Unlike farmers, whose incomes are often seasonal, the fishers operate short production cycles (often one day). Therefore, they handle money daily. Fishers say that they handle money more often than many others engaged in other occupations. They wear the best of shirts, pants, sarongs, wrist watches and spend lavishly when they have money. They are not worried about sizeable cash expenditures because money keeps flowing in. This is also one of the reasons, why parents of fishing families find it difficult to prevent their young children from jumping into water to catch a few fish for sale. Although not frequent, ‘lucky catches’ or ‘bumper harvests’ is quite common in fisheries. For example, a fisher catching 15-20 kg of fish, might suddenly end up with a 2000 kg catch! This takes place randomly among fishers, and fishers always has this expectation in mind. Among other things, these bumper harvests help them to settle their past debts and improve their asset position. Strong affective ties to the coastal environment The oft-noted practice that, whenever fishers are awake, they either fish or chat on the beach and, if they are home, then they are asleep, is a reflection of fishers strong ties to the coastal environment. The beach is the arena of interaction for fishermen. Some fishers said that ‘if he can not feel sea water in his feet, he becomes sick’. He said “Apita karijja pegenna thienna ona” (Sinhala) (we want sea water under the feet). They said that not only fisheries associated activities such as drying of nets, mending nets, repairing of crafts, etc. is done on the beach, but all social activities- meetings, chats, planning work schedules, marketing strategies, and even ‘drinking’ is done on the beach. Fishermen said that this has developed a strong inseparable and affective relation between them and the coastal environment!
[101]
One should not forget also the hazardous nature of the sea environment, where fishers confront a range of shocks / stressors. The results of this study indicated that shocks have caused disruptions in income and household expenditure but not in family life, indicating that such stressors have been accepted by fishers and their families as part of their life. As women have indicated at Focus Group Discussions, fisher women face this reality with courage and perseverance.
The Joyous nature of fishing as a vocation The exact word used by fishers to explain this characteristic of fishing was “vinodakami bava”. There can be several meanings to this; ecstatic, euphoric, rapturous, exciting, etc. The uncertain nature of fishing makes it a kind of gamble. The ‘doubt’ in mind appears to be an incentive rather than a deterrent! In fact doubt adds to the exciting nature of fishing. During the FGDs it was evident that fishing is only partly attributed to the monetary gains involved. It is also appealing because of the emotional thrill of risking a fishing trip on the outcome of an event. “So a person that is highly excited by the emotions associated with taking big risks could similarly be very attracted to fishing for the sake of fishing more so than for the chance of monetary gain”17. On a different level, a person who is attracted to the psychological as well as physical reward associated with a fishing trip, which is tantamount to winning a bet, would experience a strong attraction to fish (ibid). Fishermen mentioned a number of reasons, why they call their vocation ‘thrilling and exciting” and they are summarized below. Uncertain catches and income, makes life exciting because in such an environment, a good catch gives so much of pleasure and excitement. Fishing is also characterized by ‘lucky catches’ (huge catches which occurs due to both skill and chance). A lucky catch could cover up all your debts and make you quite ‘rich’. The few big successes that occur are very memorable while all the times when nothing is caught/won are easily forgotten. The hazardous nature of fishing offers so many challenges and winning over them gives you a feeling of ‘conquering the mighty ocean’. Masculinity also plays an important role in fishing. In fact, by being a good fisher one demonstrates his masculine skills, bravery and ability to attract or manipulate mystical sources of luck and potency.
1717
http://press.anu.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ch062.pdf (accessed 5 June 2014)
[102]
Ownership of fishing crafts and gear also expresses a distinctly masculine identity in terms of one’s ability to physically withstand the rigors of a sea-going occupation, bravery and lifestyle18. Demonstrate masculine skills, bravery and ability to attract or manipulate mystical sources of luck and potency.. Boat ownership as a form of symbolic capital transcends its utility as a source of production, since it also expresses a distinctly masculine identity in terms of one’s ability to physically withstand the rigors of a sea-going occupation and lifestyle An icon of phallic aggressiveness that ‘pointed up the keen competition that existed among the fishermen’
The notion of ‘habit forming’ was also implicit in the responses of people. The risky environment and hazardous nature, the thrills of the vocation, the coast and ocean, gambling spirit, etc. have all made fishing a ‘habit forming’ vocation. Once you are deep in it, it is difficult to withdraw Another very important fact associated with the fluctuating and uncertain nature of fishing is the insurance (but peculiar!) that fishing offers, in guaranteeing a catch ‘tomorrow’ if there is nothing ‘today’. In the words of fishers, “Ada nathath heta thiyenawa” (Sinhala). No one is lucky or unlucky every day (you will have your day!). Unity among people (api harima ekamuthu prajawak) One cannot ignore the fact, there is a feeling of belongingness and ‘group solidarity’ among fishers of a certain community. This can easily be attributed to the fact that fishers belonging to a certain community, forms a cohesive group, where group members share their gains and losses and insure themselves against the vagaries of climate and other disasters. This gives rise to a strong feeling of camaraderie among fishers. Thus, it is difficult to leave such a group. They may remain locked-in in fisheries for no other reason than that their friends all "do it" and they don't want to feel left out. The cohesiveness of fishing communities is also due to the common arena of operation (the landing centre), and common culture- beliefs, taboos, customs, traditions, etc. Personal trust among fishing households is another factor that binds people into strong social capital. Such trust plays an important role in diverse reciprocal help, especially reciprocal credit (small loans exchanges among fishers), which is made possible because of the absence of catch covariance among small-scale fishers. The unity among people was earlier noted when we observed that people were willi.ng forego some of the individual wellbeing to ensure community wellbeing.
18
(http://ongambling.org/fishing-and-gambling. accessed 5 June 2014
[103]
Some of the responses of fishers, when the issue of getting out or getting was raised, were quite interesting. On the issue of transformation, fishers said that this was possible, but it takes place generally within the fisheries sector. For example a fisher may transform himself into a fish merchant. But this is a natural process and not a response to a shock. For example a small-scale fisher may own a craft and become a craft owner. Then he may acquire more crafts and some crafts may be hired out. Subsequently, he may get into fish buying (because he is guaranteed of a regular and good supply of fish from his own boats), which make him a ‘fish merchant’. Therefore, this type of transformation often takes place within the fisheries sector. This merchant may even start buying from other villages, making him a stronger fish merchant having links to regional or national markets. But he still enjoys his position in his own village, which facilitates him in meeting his diverse wellbeing goals. Most of the fish merchants operating today have histories of fishing. Due to the higher social status (and economic status) enjoyed by fish merchants and the fact that they wish to perpetuate the indebtedness of tied craft owners, they may fall out of the circle of active fishers and their families. Yet, this transformation still occurs within the fisheries sector. Does this mean that transformation does no take place outside the fisheries sector? The answer could not be found in the FGDs. For example, some young people who are educated but started fishing for lack of suitable employment opportunity, may opt to leave fisheries if they are offered outside opportunities. Of course we have experience of fishers trying to migrate to Australia (from Gandara), which means that they may opt out of fisheries if attractive opportunities are opened up. However, most of these young people are misguided and expect luxury life in Australia, which is untrue. Validity of Hypothesis 6 Following from the above, we accept the Hypothesis that “Fishing is not only a livelihood, but a way of life. Thus at the face of shocks fishers tend to ‘get by’ rather than ‘getting out’.”.
[104]
Chapter 7 General Conclusions
Unlike in the case of agriculture, fishing is affected by multiple shocks/stressors. Before a fisher recover from shockt-1, he is hit by shockt. In responding to shockt-1, he may he may adopt strategies, which may not be the same as he might adopt against shockt, This means at a certain point in time a fisher might have been affected by multiple shocks against which he would have adopted multiple strategies. This will definitely complicates the study of shocks and their recovery in Resilience studies. Complications also arise on the policy side, because it would be difficult to clearly identify type of interventions required to improve the resilience capacity of fishers. Shocks appear to cause disruptions in income, reduction of expenditures, etc. but have not caused any disruptions in family life, indicating that fishers have accepted fishing – related shocks as part of their life. Rather than a single or a few strategies, fishers appear to adopt a wide range of strategies at the face of shocks. The most common of them are tightening of belt (reducing consumption), borrowing (through social networks and financial institutions), changes in fishing strategies and temporary migration. However, at the face of severe collective shocks (very strong storms or Tsunami) and some idiosyncratic shocks, such as loss/damage of crafts and gear, assets losses could be colossal. Fishers were able to predict the occurrence of shocks with a certain degree of probability, but such knowledge, or predictability, had no significant relation to the severity of shocks. This an important implications for interventions in providing fishers with information and warnings. For some shocks, such as stormy weather and sudden increase in input prices, such interventions do not provide an adequate hedge. Rather what is required is to increase the adaptive capacity of fishers; to be resilient! Most of the strategies fall under coping, while the rest fall under adaptations/transformations. Adaptations were often found to be fishing related, with some adaptations associated with engagement in agriculture and city based jobs. But this was found to depend on factor endowment of the village and opportunities available. However, complete shift or transformations (fishers leaving fisheries) was hard to find. Therefore, Resilience, as we have observed in our fishing communities, involved a process where fishers adopt a wide range of coping and adaptation strategies against shocks, which would assist them and their families to cope with shocks and bounce back on the same landscape (that is fisheries). Among the coping strategies, borrowing from friends, relatives, other social networks (such as cooperatives), which can all be considered as social-capital based strategies, dominate [105]
over the rest of the strategies. Where well functioning fishers cooperatives exist (such as in Godawaya), fishers have readily borrowed from them. It also appeared that community cohesiveness is greater where such strong social networks exist. Change of fishing strategy is commonly practiced by fishers in dealing with shocks. Building up a a large portfolio of gear, which facilitate fishing under different sea and weather conditions could be considered as a good strategy. But fishing effort increase, by increasing the length of gill nets, long lines and also by increasing fishing times and days, will exert too much pressure on the ‘already over-exploited’ fisheries. Studies related to poverty have revealed that people who are vulnerable and poor are unable to secure the necessary livelihood capitals to effectively deal with vulnerability and, for them, the only way to survive may be to extract natural resources – such as fish stocks more intensively19. This exerts a negative effect on future returns and may thereby reinforce the state of poverty. Effort increase, in a context of already over-exploited resources, is a type of ‘resource mining’ leading to degradation of resources and even their collapse. Yet, state intervention in fisheries today, is increasingly aiming at effort reductions from open access equilibria where resource rents are completely dissipated under heavy fishing pressure, towards tolerable limits, which will bring in positive resource rents while improving the existing stocks of fish. The results of our resilience study challenges such interventions, which will go contrary to fishing effort expansion adopted to effectively cope with shocks. Surely, the aims of the two groups (the governors and those governed) differ and they do not move along the same direction. We will take up this matter later in this section. Our results are silent on the issue of fishers ‘choice of shock responses’. Transaction costs, which may include both financial and diverse social costs, could be an important factor in this choice. This is one area, where future resilience research should be directed at. We found the shock recovery process to be too complicated due to multiple-shocks nature and cumulative recovery process. This makes it difficult to study the impact shocks/stressors on fishing people. This is the very reason that we could not do a proper analysis of the shock recovery process. This needs a different methodological approach to resilience studies and different analytical procedures. We also found that wealth did not have a strong positive influence on shock recovery, although there was an indication that asset rich fishers were doing slightly better than relatively asset poor fishers, revealing that, there are other things which are more important in recovering from a shock, than one’s asset position. 19
Amarasinghe O. & Maarten Bavinck (2011)
[106]
Studies of wellbeing in fishing communities revealed that, the top ranking wellbeing aspirations of the people in the study areas were mostly of ‘relational’ dimension. Having a good wife, good children, helping others in distress, unity among people, were all highly valued by people, which contributed most to people’s wellbeing. The present study put ‘relationships’ at the centre of both resilience responses and wellbeing., which have very important implications for both resilience and wellbeing theory. The centrality of relationships means that what people do with what they have (relational wellbeing) and how they feel about what they have and do (subjective wellbeing) are both influenced by peoples relationship with others. Even resilience go beyond what things people do to be resilient- to include what prompted people do such things and how they felt about them. Relationships are also interwoven with culture, religion, etc. Relationships are mediated through culture, religion, history, social values, norms, traditions, etc., the reason why good relationships are necessary for living ‘well’. We found that one’s relationships with family members, friends, relatives, fellow fishers, community organisations, such as cooperatives, are all important for people and that they are quite satisfied about them. People’s decisions are strongly influenced by this social fabric of relationships which are also interwoven with culture and religion. The concept of centrality of relationships reveals that, decisions of people are socially constructed, meaning that ‘what people do and how they feel about what they do’ are all influenced by society, culture, religion, etc. What people feel that they can do or are able to be actually influence what they actually do and be. In turn, these feelings and perceptions are determined by people’s experiences as well as by the norms and values that are culturally and socially determined or constructed (see Deneulin and McGregor, 2010). The only relationship that is quite important, but extremely negative in respect of fisher wellbeing is their relationship with the Department of Fisheries. While fishers understand the potentially important role played by the Department of Fisheries, they thought that policy decisions made by the Department often clash with their wellbeing goals. There certainly appears to be a clash between ecosystem health goals and human development goals. Fishers think that this clash emerges from lack of understanding of village reality by the state officers. This is a very important issue that should receive the attention of authorities. What is required, is a close interaction of the state and non-state actors and to make policy making more ‘interactive’ (interactive governance). Results of wellbeing studies revealed that, people valued relational and subjective wellbeing more than material wellbeing. We have noted that, at the face of a shock, people are often confronted with material wellbeing losses- income, assets, reduced expenditure, reduced consumption, etc. However, it was noted that there is a tendency [107]
among people to sacrifice some material wellbeing in order to improve wellbeing in another front (say relational or subjective)- such as helping others in distress (say by pooling resources). This is similar to a trade-off of individual wellbeing to community wellbeing. This also has roots in the culture and traditions of the rural people. ‘Live and let live’ or, as Scott (1976) puts it, the ‘right to subsistence’ and the ‘norm of reciprocity’ are two moral principles of the peasant which guide his behaviour. The famous practice of ‘sharing off beard’, where poor families (ex. women headed or disabled) are allowed to remove a few fish from crafts when they land fish, all point towards this practice of helping others when in distress. Trade-offs may take place in another front. People may use part of the income to build up a portfolio of gear (as a precautionary or ex-ante strategy) which is a trade off between present and future. Thus it is evident, that there are various trade-offs; among different wellbeing dimensions, among scales (individual, family and community wellbeing) and between present and future. But the results of this study do not tell us under what conditions and to what extent such trade-offs exactly take place, which require more in-depth studies on these phenomena. One of the hypothesis that we wanted to test in this study was that ‘social capital is important in building resilience’. However, we did not define social capital at the beginning and therefore, could not separate out the exact influence of social capital on resilience. However, if we assume that social capital refers to social networks based on trust and reciprocity, which is a resource people can draw upon at times of distress, to be either resilient or to be well, or both, then most of the relationships that we have noted to play a central role in resilience and wellbeing can be considered as social capital. In this broader sense, social capital will include, groups of friends, relatives, fellow fishers, women groups, cooperatives, etc. We have definitely noted that when strong social capital exists, such as well functioning fisheries cooperatives, the community becomes more cohesive with stronger ties based on trust and reciprocity. This we have noted in Godawaya which had a good fisheries cooperative. People in this village drew upon increasingly from social networks than those in Gandara, where such strong cooperatives did not exist. This has strong implications for policy. If relationships are central to resilience and wellbeing and if such relationships often fall under ‘social capital’, then one way of helping people to build up their adaptive capacity against shocks and to make them feel ‘well’ is to work towards strengthening relationships. One way of doing this is to promote strong community organisations, such as fisheries cooperatives. In finding answers to the question of why fishers tend to ‘get by’ rather than ‘get out’ at the face of shocks (say global fisheries crisis), we noted a number of push factors and pull factors that influence the choice of the appropriate strategy. Most of the push [108]
factors were of material dimension while the pull factors were more relational and subjective. The daily production cycles (of small scale fishers), frequent handling of money, and the possibility of bumper harvests have made fishers quite happy about their vocation. Working with short time horizons and short term planning, it appeared that accumulation of wealth was not the major goal of many, but to manage day to day affairs. In this respect, cash was not a ‘scarce resource’ for the fishers although they did not possess mounds of them. Some fishers thought that they ‘under-estimate’ the value of cash, because of its frequent availability. However, the independent nature of the vocation, unity among people and the particular ‘thrilling and joyous’ nature of the vocation appear to weigh heavily for fishing. Unity too is highly valued, reflecting the centrality of relationships. Habit formation and strong links to the sea environment also make exit difficult. All this show that, fishers continue to fish, confront shocks, adapt strategies and try to ‘get by’ because fishing not only helps them to earn a living, but help them to meet a number of their wellbeing aspirations. This does not mean that, they don’t need to be supported with equipment, technology, training, credit, etc. But, any intervention in fisheries, should take into consideration this reality, that fishing is not all about catching fish and earning incomes, but also a way of life, in which fishers meet their diverse wellbeing aspirations. Governance and Management The fact that, shocks/stressors are multiple and responses are diverse and cumulative, indicate the changing nature of the risk environment. Coping, adaptations and transformation all change with the changing risk situations, which have implications for wellbeing. Thus shock responses and resilience as well as wellbeing adjustments are affected not only by this dynamism in the risk environment, but also by changes in state policy, markets, resource status, and even people’s aspirations, etc. which change over time. “Indicators of resilience that are appropriate for the current regime may become useless as ecological structures and social expectations shift” (Carpenter et al 2001). This requires that fisheries management be “adaptive” to changing situations if we are to ensure effective intervention in addressing the clash between ecosystem health goals and human development goals. If governance is ‘doing the right thing’ and management is ‘doing the thing right’, both governance and management will have to be ‘adaptive’ “Because the stability landscape is constantly changing, the “adaptive” part of both governance and management is required in all phases of the adaptive cycle” (Walters, 1986). When both shock environment and the responses are complex, what is expected of governance and management is not directing adaptations along any specific path, but to increase the adaptive capacity of people.
[109]
We have also noted the issues that emerged from lack of interaction between the governors and the governed. Studies on legal pluralism have clearly described the clash among different legal systems (see Bavinck et al, 2013) and the need to ensure that such clashes are properly addressed. Social justice is a prime concern of most nonstate legal systems in fisheries (Jentoft, 2013), while state agencies have generally become involved in resource allocation (resource health or sustainability concerns). Relationships among legal systems in a context of legal pluralism are political in that the type of relationship depends on the relative power, influence and legitimacy of the authorities representing different systems (Sikor and Lund, 2009). Many believe in the dominance of the state in this regard- “most fisheries department officials remain convinced that government alone is in charge of fisheries” (Bavinck et al, op cit). However, scholars studying South Asian fisheries have challenged this notion, pointing out that the state is often a recent, and relatively marginal, actor in the field (Bavinck, 2003). Many of them, through research in South Asia, have shown that, in a context of plural existence of laws, what is required is an effective non-state and state collaboration. This brings us to an important governance theory- Interactive Governance. Governance takes place through interactions between the Governors and the Governed, which occurs through various modes of governance (Kooiman et al. 2008), which define the institutions and processes through which the governors and the governed relate to one another (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2013:344). Our study highlights the importance of both; the fisheries governance and management to be ‘interactive’ and ‘adaptive’.
[110]
REFERENCES
Acheson, J., (1988): The Lobster Gangs of Maine. University Press of New England, Durham, NH. Amarasinghe O. (1989); "Technological Change, Transformation of Risks and Patronage Relations in a fishing community of South Sri Lanka", Development and Change, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp 684-734. Amarasinghe N. J. De S. & Oscar Amarasinghe (2005): “A General Description of Fisheries in Sri Lanka”, in O. Amarasinghe (editor), Modernization and Change in marine small-scale fisheries of Southern Sri Lanka, Navamaga Printers, Colombo, pp 1-51. Amarasinghe O. , P.H.M. Dharmasena & Athula Wickramakaluthota (2005): Marketing of Fish: the role of the fish merchant in the south os Sri Lanka, Modernization and Change in marine small-scale fisheries of Southern Sri Lanka, Navamaga Printers, Colombo Amarasinghe O., W. A. G. Wanasinghe & S. P. M. Jayantha (2005); “Risks and Uncertainties in Fisheries and their management: Fisheries Insurance”, in O. Amarasinghe (editor), Modernization and Change in marine small-scale fisheries of Southern Sri Lanka, Navamaga Printers, Colombo, pp. 103-180. Amarasinghe O. & Maarten Bavinck (2011): Social capital and the reduction of vulnerability: the role of fisheries cooperatives in southern Sri Lanka. In, jentoft Svein & Arne Eide (eds), Poverty Mosaics: Realities and Prospects in SmallScale Fisheries, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 383–406. Annu.
Rev. Environ. Resourc. (2011): 36:321-342. Downloaded www.annualreviews.org by University of Manitoba on 11/24/11
from
Armitage, D., Béné, C., Charles, A., Johnson, D. and E.H. Allison; The interplay of wellbeing and resilience concepts in applying a social-ecological systems perspective (to appear in Ecology & Society) Bavinck Maarten, Derek Johnson, Oscar Amarasinghe, Janet Rubinoff ,Sarah Southwold, and Kaleekal T. Thomson (2013): From Indifference to Mutual Support – A Comparative Analysis of Legal Pluralism in the Governing of South Asian Fisheries, European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 25 (4), pp 621-640.
[111]
Béné C., Evans, L., Mills, D., Ovie, S., Raji, A., Tafida, A., Kodio, A., Sinaba, F., Morand, P., Lemoalle, J. and Andrew, N. (2011): Testing resilience thinking in a poverty context: experience from the Niger river basin. Global Environmental Change 21, 1173-1184. Bourdieu, P. (1983): Forms of capital. In J. C. Richards (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J. M. Anderies, and N. Abel. (2001): From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4:765-781 Carter Michael R., Peter D. Little, Tewodaj Mogues, and Workneh Negatu (2007): Poverty Traps and Natural Disasters in Ethiopia and Honduras, World Development Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 835–856, 2007 Central Bank of Sri Lanka (2013); Economic and social statics of Sri Lanka, 2013, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, Colombo. Chuenpagdee, R. & Jentoft, S., (2013): Assessing Governability: what’s next? In M. Bavinck et al., eds. Governability of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Theory and Practice. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 335–349. Coleman, J. S. (1988): Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, American Journal of Sociology. 94 (Supplement), 95-S120. Coleman, J. S. (1994): Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge. Mass, Harvard University Press.
Coulthard S., D. Johnson & Allister McGregor (2011): Poverty, sustainability and human wellbeing: A social wellbeing approach to the global fisheries crisis, . Global Environ. Change (2011), doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.003 Coulthard, S. (2012): Can we be both resilient and well, and what choices do people have? Incorporating agency into the resilience debate from a fisheries perspective. Ecology and Society 17(1): 4. Deneulin, S. and J. A. McGregor. (2010): The capability approach and the politics of a s ocial conception of wellbeing. European Journal of Social Theory 13(4): 501-519 Doyal, L. and Gough, I. (1991): A Theory of Human Need. London: MacMillan
[112]
FAO/UNDP (1977a): General Description of Marine Small-scale Fisheries- Sri Lanka (Development of Small-scale Fisheries in Southeast Asia, FAO/UNDP project, Colombo Fernando, C. (1986): ‘Fisheries Strategies and Policies in Sri Lanka, Planning and Programming’, Ministry of Fisheries, Colombo, Sri Lanka Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. In Smith, M. K. (2007), Social capital, the encyclopaedia of informal education, 67, (pp.130-138). http://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm. Accessed December 2008. Hanifan, L. J. (1920). The Community Center, Boston: Silver Burdett. In Smith, M. K. (2007), Social capital, the encyclopaedia of informal education, 67, (pp.130-138), http://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm. Accessed December 2008 Hoddinott, J., S. Dercon, and P. Krishnan. (2009): “Networks and Informal Mutual Support in 15 Ethiopian Villages: A Description.” In Institutional Economics Perspectives on African Agricultural Development, in J. F. Kirsten, A. R. Dorward, C. Poulton, and N. Vink (eds.) pp, 273–286. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute Jentoft, S., McCay, B.J., Wilson, D.C., (1998): Social theory and fisheries comanagement, Marine Policy 22 (4–5), 423–436 Jntoft, S. (2013): Social justice in fisheries – A governability challenge. In: M. Bavinck, R. Chuenpagdee, S. Jentoft and J. Kooiman (eds.) Governability of Fisheries – Theory and Applications. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer Kooiman, J. et al., (2008): Interactive Governance and Governability : An Introduction. The journal of transdisciplinary environmental studies, 7(1). Lemarchand, R. & K. Legg (1972): ‘Political Clientelism and Development’, Comparative Politics, Vol. 4, 149-178.
Long, N., and A. Long. (1992): Battlefields of knowledge: the interlocking of theory and practice in social research and development. Routledge, London, UK. McGoodwin, J.R., (2001): Understanding the Cultures of Fishing Communities: A Key to Fisheries Management and Food Security. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 401.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 287 pp
[113]
McGregor Allister (2006); Researching Wellbeing: from concepts to methodology, WeD Working Paper 20, ESRC Working Group on Wellbeing in Developing Countries, IDS, University of Bath, UK. Migdal, J. (1974): Peasants, Politics and Revolution (Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J.). Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (2014); Statistics 2013, Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Colombo (www.mfar.gov.lk) National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA) (1998): Sri Lanka Fisheries Year Book-1998, (NARA, Colombo, Sri Lanka). Ostrom, E. (2000). Social Capital: A Fad or Fundamental Concept? In Dasgupta, P. & Seragilden, I. (Eds.), Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, (pp. 172-214), Washington DC: World Bank. Pitt-Rivers Julian (1954) The People of the Sierra (1954) Platteau J-Ph. (1995): ‘A Framework for the Analysis of Evolving Patron-Client Ties in Agrarian Economies’, World Development, Vol. 23, 5, 767-786 Platteau, J-Ph & A. Abraham (1987): ‘An Inquiry into Quasi-Credit Contracts: The Role of Reciprocal Credit and Interlinked Deals in Small-scale Fishing Communities’, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 23, 4, 461-490. Platteau, J-Ph. & J. Nugent (1992): ‘Share Contracts and their Rationale: Lessons from Marine Fishing’, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3, 386-422 Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ. Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78. Scott, J. C. (1972a): ‘Patron-Client Politics and Political Change in Southeast Asia’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 66, 91-113. Scott, J. C. (1972b): ‘The Erosion of Patron-Client Bonds and Social Change in Rural Southeast Asia’, The Journal Of Asian Studies, Vol. XXXII, 1. Scott, J. C. (1976): The Moral Economy of the Peasant (Yale University Press, New Haven & London).
[114]
Seki E. (1999): ‘Self-governing institutions as multi-task groups and role of social status norms: A Survey’, Mimeo, Department of Economic Analysis, Facultes Universitaires Notre Dame De La Paix, Namur, Belgium Sikor, T. and Lund, C. (2009); Access and property: A question of power and authority. Development and Change 40(1): 1–22. Thomson, P.R., Wailey, T., et al., (1983); Living the Fishing. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London and Boston. van Ginkel, R. (2007); Coastal cultures: an anthropology of fishing and whaling traditions. Spinhuis, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. (2004); Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2): 5 Walters, C. J. (1986);. Adaptive management of renewable resources. Collier Macmillan, New York, New York, USA White, Sarah C.(2010); 'Analysing wellbeing: a framework for development practice', Development in Practice, 20: 2, 158 — 172 Wolf, E. R. (1966): ‘Kinship, Friendship, and Patron-Client Relations in Complex Societies’, in M. Banton (ed.) The Social Anthropology of Complex Societies (Tarristock, London). Woolcock Michael (2001); The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes, Development Research Group, The World Bank, and Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
[115]
