Ca 8402 en

FAO
ISSN 2070-7010
FISHERIES AND
AQUACULTURE
TECHNICAL
PAPER
652
Securing sustainable
small-scale fisheries
Showcasing applied practices in value chains,
post-harvest operations and trade
Cover illustrations:
Manuela DÁntoni (©FAO)
Securing sustainable FAO
FISHERIES AND
AQUACULTURE
TECHNICAL
PAPER
Showcasing applied practices in value chains, 652

post-harvest operations and trade
Edited by
Joseph Zelasney
Fishery Officer
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department
Rome, Italy
Alexander Ford
Small-scale Fisheries Consultant
Rome, Italy
Lena Westlund
International Fisheries Analyst
Rome, Italy
Ansen Ward
Post-harvest loss and fish value specialist
Rome, Italy
and
Omar Riego Peñarubia

Fishery Officer
Rome, Italy
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Rome, 2020
Required citation:
Zelasney, J., Ford, A., Westlund, L., Ward, A. and Riego Peñarubia, O. eds. 2020. Securing sustainable small-scale fisheries: Showcasing
applied practices in value chains, post-harvest operations and trade. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 652. Rome, FAO.
https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8402en
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country,
territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dashed lines on maps represent
approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers,
whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of
a similar nature that are not mentioned.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.
ISSN 2070-7010 (Print)
ISSN 2664-5408 (Online)
ISBN 978-92-5-132350-2
© FAO, 2020
Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence
(CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode/legalcode).
Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is
appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services.
The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons
licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was
not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this
translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.
Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of
the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property
Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are
responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of
claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.
Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased
through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries
regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.
iii
Preparation of this document
This FAO technical paper on Securing sustainable small-scale fisheries: showcasing

applied practices in value chains, post-harvest operations and trade was prepared under
the auspices of the FAO Umbrella Programme for the Promotion and Application of the
SSF Guidelines – Enhancing the Contribution of Small-Scale Fisheries to Food Security
and Sustainable Livelihoods (SSF Umbrella Programme), which was established
following endorsement of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale
Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines) by
the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 2014.
The SSF Umbrella Programme supports the development of policies to achieve
implementation of the SSF Guidelines by promoting knowledge sharing and exchange
of experiences. This technical paper supports that objective by showcasing a diverse
selection (both topically and geographically) of initiatives designed to promote and
improve market access by enhancing value chains, post-harvest operations and trade in
small-scale fisheries, based on the recommendations contained in Chapter 7 of the SSF
Guidelines.
Further impetus for this technical paper comes from recommendations of FAO
governing bodies, including COFI, the COFI Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (COFI:FT)
and the Committee on World Food Security. COFI and COFI:FT have requested
guidance on how to overcome challenges in complying with public and private
requirements in small-scale fisheries, including certification and traceability. Likewise,
they have recommended that FAO provide guidance for achieving equitable market
access and distribution of benefits for small-scale fishers, including for products from
inland fisheries. In addition, the two governing bodies have called for further work to
strengthen capacity of post-harvest operators and their organizations in order to reduce
post-harvest losses and improve processing techniques.
In June 2015, the Committee on World Food Security held a High-Level Forum
on Connecting Smallholders to Markets1 to discuss challenges and consider lessons
learned from examples of smallholders that have built sustainable linkages to markets.
This meeting led to the endorsement of a set of policy recommendations, Connecting
Smallholders to Markets,2 at the Committee’s 43rd Session in 2016. The recommendations
focus on the reduction of inequalities by addressing the challenges behind unequal
access to markets, land and other natural resources. This document seeks to reinforce
those recommendations by providing examples from a fisheries-specific context.
Finally, the technical paper seeks to support achievement of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development – specifically SDG Target 14.b: “Provide access for small-
scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets”; and SDG Target 2.3: “By 2030
double the agricultural productivity and the incomes of small-scale food producers,
particularly women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers,
including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and
inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and
non-farm employment”.
1
http://www.fao.org/3/a-mo212e.pdf.
2
http://www.fao.org/3/a-bq853e.pdf.
iv
Abstract
The Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context
of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines) recognize the rights of fishers
and fishworkers, acting both individually and collectively, to improve their livelihoods
through enhanced value chains, post-harvest operations and trade. To achieve this, Chapter
7 of the SSF Guidelines recommends building capacity of individuals, strengthening
organizations and empowering women; reducing post-harvest losses and adding value to
small-scale fisheries production; and facilitating sustainable trade and equitable market
access. This document includes nine case studies that showcase applied practices and
successful initiatives to enhance small-scale fisheries value chains, post-harvest operations
and trade, illustrating the recommendations contained in the SSF Guidelines. The case
studies constitute a rich selection of experiences that are diverse, not only with regard to
their geographical setting, but also in the topics covered and approaches employed. Each
case study presents critical analysis of the relevant enabling conditions and discusses the
challenges and opportunities in relation to replicating the respective initiative in other
fisheries and development contexts. The studies were chosen for their potential to inform
an international audience of development and fisheries professionals and stakeholders,
with the intention of supporting national and international policies and policy processes
to enhance small-scale fisheries value chains, post-harvest operations and trade.
v
Contents
Preparation of this document iii

Abstract iv
Boxes, tables, figures vi
Acknowledgements viii
Abbreviations and acronyms ix
SHOWCASING APPLIED PRACTICES IN VALUE CHAINS, POST-HARVEST

OPERATIONS AND TRADE 1
Background 1
The Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines 2
Chapter 7 of the Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines: value chains,
post-harvest and trade 2
Overview of case studies 3
Discussion 8
Conclusion 18
References 19
CASE STUDIES 21
1. The Central Fish Processors Association: Collective action by
women in the Barbados flyingfish fishery 23
2. The Kodiak Jig Initiative: Ensuring viability of the small-boat
jig fleet through market and policy solutions 39
3. The FAO-Thiaroye processing technique: Facilitating social organization,
empowering women, and creating market access opportunities in
West Africa 55
4. Fish traders and processors network: Enhancing trade and market
access for small-scale fisheries in the West Central Gulf of Guinea 71
5. Seafood direct marketing: Supporting critical decision-making in
Alaska and California 85
6. Fair Trade: Certification of a yellowfin tuna handline fishery in
Indonesia 105
7. Madagascar’s mud crab fishery: How fishers can earn more while
catching less 123
8. State-led fisheries development: Enabling access to resources and
markets in the Maldives pole-and-line skipjack tuna fishery 141
9. Fishery Improvement Projects: In the context of small-scale fisheries
value chains, post-harvest operations and trade 157
vi
Boxes
1 Case study selection 3
5.1 National Sea Grant College Program 86
6.1 Fair Trade USA 107
6.2 Fair trade fisher spotlight 112
7.1 A typical day for a mobile demonstration unit 135
9.1. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and Fishery Improvement Projects 159
Tables
1 Summary matrix: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 652 4
1.1 Participatory research conducted with Central Fish Processors Association
members 27
1.2 Summary of good practices for Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines
implementation 34
2.1 Entry level longline fishery allocation 45
2.2 State-water Pacific cod jig effort, harvest level and harvest, 2002–2018 46
3.1 Top ten regionally traded fish species 56
3.2 Comparative analysis of different fish smoking systems 61
4.1 Comparative analysis of different fish smoking systems 76
7.1 Process of identifying post-harvest good practices 126
7.2 Post-harvest mortality in the crab sector in Madagascar 127
7.3 Brief description of the ten good practices published by SmartFish 129
7.4 Description of the awareness-raising toolkit 130
7.5 Mortality rates: progression between 2013 and 2015 132
7.6 Production and exports of crabs between 2012 and 2017 133
7.7 Average catches and earnings of pirogue fishers in 2011 and 2015 –
Boeny region 134
7.8 Additional monthly income earned thanks to the reduction in mortality
(national average) 134
7.9 Distribution of crab catches in 2012 and 2017 (in tonnes) 134
8.1 Formal sector post-harvest employment 150
9.1 Amount of seafood in Fishery Improvement Projects 2015/2019, by
tonnage and by percentage of total recorded marine catch 158
Figures
1.1 Map of Barbados highlighting the primary landing site from which the
Central Fish Processors Association operates 25
1.2 Occupations by gender along a typical Barbados fisheries value chain 25
1.3 The flyingfish fishery value chain 26
1.4 Constituent primary fisherfolk organizations of Barbados National Union
of Fisherfolk Organisations 29
1.5 Central Fish Processors Association members at work in the processing
hall at the Bridgetown Fisheries Complex 31
2.1 Map of Kodiak Archipelago 41
vii
2.2 Kodiak jig fisherman with baited circle hooks and jig machine in
background 43
2.3 F/V Marona, a 46-foot community-based jig vessel owned and operated by
Darius Kasprzak 43
2.4 Kodiak Jig Seafoods Logo 48
3.1 Map showing the locations where the FAO-Thiaroye processing technique
is being used, according to (FAO, 2019b) 57
3.2 In clockwise order, the drum kiln, the Chorkor kiln, the FAO-Thiaroye
processing technique kiln in Ghana and the FAO-Thiaroye processing
technique kiln in Equatorial Guinea 58
3.3 The FAO-Thiaroye processing technique-Thiaroye kiln with apparatus 58
3.4 Bar graph comparing the level of PAH4 emitted by the FAO-Thiaroye
processing technique and Chorkor kilns with the European Union maximum 60
3.5 Bar graph comparing the different levels of PAH4 produced through the
combustion if different fuel types in the FAO-Thiaroye processing
technique-Thiaroye kiln 60
3.6 Map showing the trade flows of frozen and smoked fish in West Africa 62
4.1 Fishery Committee for the West Central Gulf of Guinea contracting parties
and member states of the Fishery Committee for the West Central Gulf of
Guinea Fish Traders and Processors Committee 72
4.2 Identified fish trade corridors in the Fish Trade Project in Africa (Western,
Southern, Eastern and Central Africa) 73
5.1 Alternative markets at a glance 87
5.2 Map of the North American West Coast highlighting the American states
of Alaska (AK) and California (CA), where the Sea Grant Extension Program
model has been applied for seafood direct marketing 88
5.3 Functions assumed by fishers under Seafood direct marketing 90
5.4 Example of a regional seafood poster created by California Sea Grant
Extension Program advisors and colleagues to educate consumers and the
broader public about California wild-caught and cultured seafood 94
6.1 A total of 38 Fisher Associations are located on Buru Island, Seram Island,
North Maluku islands, Halmahera Island, and in the Toli-Toli district 106
6.2 Capture fisheries standard infographic 108
6.3 Capture fisheries standard infographic 109
6.4 2015 and 2016 household survey results 113
6.5 Household survey results with Y0–Y2 representing the survey year 113
7.1 Simplified map of the mangrove zones in Madagascar 125
7.2 Growth of mangrove crab catches in Madagascar since 1985 126
7.3 Practices associated with a high level of post-harvest mortality 128
7.4 Demonstration in the village and distribution of the comic 132
7.5 Examples of good practices 138
8.1 Total catch of skipjack tuna in the Indian Ocean compared to the catch
of skipjack tuna from pole-and-line vessels in the Maldives, 1950–2017 143
8.2 Value chain mapping Maldives skipjack tuna 144
8.3 Infographic for the Maldivian pole-and-line concept vessel 147
8.4 Pathway to Marine Stewardship Council certification for skipjack tuna in
the Maldives 151
8.5 Replicable state-led practices of the Maldives for meeting Small-Scale
Fisheries Guidelines 153
9.1 Active and completed Fishery Improvement Projects by region 162
viii
Acknowledgements
This technical paper on Securing sustainable small-scale fisheries: showcasing applied

practices in value chains, post-harvest operations and trade has been prepared by the
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. The case studies have been technically
edited by Joseph Zelasney, Alexander Ford, Lena Westlund, Ansen Ward and Omar
Riego Peñarubia.
FAO would like to extend its appreciation to all of the authors for their contributions
to this document. We would also like to thank Nicole Franz and John Ryder for their
input into the planning and design of the publication as well as the members of the
FAO Technical Network on Small-Scale Fisheries for their support. We are grateful
to Andrew Park for editing the text, to José Luis Castilla Civit for the publishing
layout, and to Marianne Guyonnet, Romina Toscano, Rubén Sánchez Daroqui and Asa
Ljusenius for facilitating publication of the document.
Finally, FAO and all the authors wish to acknowledge the Governments of Norway
and Sweden, whose generous support to the SSF Umbrella Programme made this
publication possible.
ix
Abbreviations and acronyms
ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of FMM Flexible Multi-Partner Mechanism
States FODP Fisherfolk Organization Development
ADCCED Alaska Department of Commerce, Project (Barbados)
Community and Economic Development FTP Fish Trade Project
aFAD Anchored fish aggregating device FTT FAO-Thiaroye processing technique
AJA Alaska Jig Association (USA) FUI Fuel use intensity
AMCC Alaska Marine Conservation Council GHL Guideline harvest level
(USA) GIFT Gender in Fisheries Team
AU African Union HCR Harvest Control Rules
AU-IBAR Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources IFAD International Fund for Agricultural
(African Union) Development
BARNUFO Barbados National Union of Fisherfolk IPNLF International Pole and Line Foundation
Organisations
ITC International Trade Centre
BFC Bridgetown Fisheries Complex
IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
BFD Barbados Fisheries Division
IUU Illegal, unreported and unregulated (fishing)
CARICOM Caribbean Community and Common
Market KJS Kodiak Jig Seafoods
CASS Conservation Alliance for Seafood MAP Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory
Solutions Program
CBI Centre for the Promotion of Imports (the MDPI Masyarakat dan Perikanan Indonesia
Netherlands) MIFCO Maldives Industrial Fisheries Company
CEA California Environmental Associates MRHP Ministry of Fishery Resources (Ministère
CERMES Centre for Resource Management and des Ressources Halieutiques et de la Pêche,
Environmental Studies Madagascar)
CFFA Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements MSC Marine Stewardship Council
CFPA Central Fish Processors Association MSY Maximum sustainable yield
(Barbados) NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s
CFS Capture Fisheries Standard Development
CMATPHA Women Fish Traders and Processors NGO Non-governmental Organization
Cooperative of Abidjan NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
CNFO Caribbean Network of Fisherfolk Administration
Organisations NPFMC North Pacific Fishery Management
COAPA African Confederation of Professional Council
Artisanal Fisheries Organizations NSGCP National Sea Grant College Program
COFI Committee on Fisheries (FAO) PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
COFI:FT COFI Sub-Committee on Fish Trade PFRS Policy Framework and Reform Strategy
CSF Community-supported fishery for Fisheries and Aquaculture in Africa
CSO Civil society organization PHL Post-harvest losses
ECOWAS Economic Community of Western African RASFF Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed
States RFMO Regional fisheries management
EEZ Exclusive economic zone organization
ETP Endangered, threatened and protected SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
(species) SDM Seafood direct marketing
FAC Fisheries Advisory Committee (Barbados) SGEP Sea Grant Extension Program
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the SSF Guidelines Voluntary Guidelines for Securing
United Nations Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the
FCWC Fishery Committee for the West Central Context of Food Security and Poverty
Gulf of Guinea Eradication
FIP Fishery Improvement Project TAC Total allowable catch
FIS Fishery Information System (Maldives) UNDP United Nations Development Programme
FishNET Fish Traders and Processors Network UWI University of the West Indies
(FCWC) VMS Vessel monitoring system
FLE Fisheries Learning Exchange
1
Showcasing applied practices

in value chains, post-harvest
operations and trade
The objective of this technical paper is to showcase applied practices and initiatives in
support of enhancing small-scale fisheries value chains, post-harvest operations and
trade, thus illustrating the relevant recommendations made in Chapter 7 of the SSF
Guidelines. The case studies presented here have been chosen on the basis of their
potential to be emulated elsewhere by small-scale fisheries proponents including, but
not limited to, national administrations, Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs),
civil society organizations (CSOs), private enterprises, development agencies and
intergovernmental bodies. An analysis of the enabling conditions, as well as related
challenges and opportunities, are discussed in each case.
BACKGROUND
Small-scale fisheries, encompassing all activities along the value chain in both marine
and inland waters, play an essential role in food security and nutrition. According to
estimates, small-scale fisheries employ more than 90 percent of the approximately 120
million people employed in fisheries. An estimated 97 percent of these fishworkers live in
developing countries. In addition, about half of those working in small-scale fisheries are
women, mostly engaged in post-harvest activities, especially marketing and processing.
Small-scale fisheries are increasingly being recognized, especially in developing countries,
for their contribution to sustainable food systems and the opportunities they present for
sustainable development and poverty eradication (World Bank, 2012).
Small-scale fishing communities are often overlooked, and their actors tend not
to be involved in the decision-making processes that influence their lives and future
(FAO, 2018). Where this type of neglect exists in small-scale fisheries value chains,
it is vital that efforts be made to enable social organization among fishworkers to
strengthen their voice. Failing to do so impedes the full extension of their human rights,
including their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Equally important,
fishworkers must be provided with the capacity and facilities to optimize the quantity
and quality of the product being traded, as this is also crucial for reducing resource
pressure and preserving marine ecosystems for future generations.
There is an evident connection between the challenges faced by small-scale fishing
communities and the objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Indeed,
the importance of addressing the inherent challenges faced by small-scale fisheries in
producing high-quality, safe food and reaching markets is explicitly recognized by
SDG Target 14.b: “Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources
and markets”; and SDG Target 2.3: “By 2030 double the agricultural productivity and
the incomes of small-scale food producers, particularly women, indigenous peoples,
family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to
land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and
opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment”.
Governments, private enterprises, NGOs, development agencies and civil society
all have an essential role to play in enhancing value chains, post-harvest operations and
trade to facilitate market access for small-scale fishers and fishworkers. These efforts
contribute to enhancing food security and poverty reduction in fishing communities
and, more generally, to achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
2 Securing sustainable small-scale fisheries – Showcasing applied practices in value chains, post-harvest operations and trade
THE SSF GUIDELINES

The Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the
Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines), endorsed by the
31st Session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 2014, were developed
to support the visibility, recognition and enhancement of small-scale fisheries, thus
contributing to global and national efforts towards the eradication of hunger and
poverty (FAO, 2015). The SSF Guidelines are unique in that they represent the first
international instrument dedicated entirely to small-scale fisheries; their development
was informed by more than four thousand small-scale fisheries representatives and
other stakeholders in over 120 countries. The objectives of the SSF Guidelines – to
contribute to equitable development and a sustainable future – are to be achieved using
a human rights-based approach. They are organized into three sections:
• Part 1: Introduction (Chapters 1–4). This section specifies the objectives, nature,
scope, and guiding principles of the SSF Guidelines as well as their relationship
with other international instruments.
• Part 2: Responsible fisheries and sustainable development (Chapters 5–9).
These chapters address key thematic areas including responsible fisheries and
governance of tenure, but also other crucial intersectoral topics.
• Part 3: Ensuring an enabling environment and supporting implementation
(Chapters 10–13). This last section provides implementation guidance and
recommendations for how to create an enabling environment.
CHAPTER 7 OF THE SSF GUIDELINES: VALUE CHAINS, POST-HARVEST

AND TRADE
Chapter 7 of the SSF Guidelines is dedicated to value chains, post-harvest operations
and trade. In particular, it recognizes the rights of fishers and fishworkers, acting both
individually and collectively, to improve their livelihoods through trade at global,
regional and national levels, and by enhancing value chains and post-harvest operations.
The recommendations contained in Chapter 7 include building capacity of small-
scale fishers, strengthening organizations and empowering women; reducing post-
harvest losses and adding value to small-scale fisheries production; and facilitating
sustainable trade and equitable market access. The following subsections present key
challenges faced by small-scale fishers and fishworkers in obtaining market access and
enhancing value chains and post-harvest operations, and highlight potential solutions
based on recommendations in the SSF Guidelines.
Build capacity of individuals, strengthen organizations and empower women

The small-scale fisheries post-harvest sector and its actors play a central role in the
value chain, but they are not always included in relevant decision-making processes. In
particular, women are frequently excluded from such processes despite their considerable
contribution to the post-harvest sector. The participation of small-scale fishworkers in
decision-making processes is often hampered by limited organizational capacity and
unequal access to usable assets, technology, finance, education and services.
Gender-sensitive development of small and medium-sized enterprises, cooperatives
and other forms of social organization is required, along with appropriate infrastructure
and capacity development at all stages of the value chain. This can improve both access
to markets and participation in relevant decision-making processes, thus contributing
to fair distribution of benefits, enhanced livelihoods and food security.
Reduce post-harvest losses and add value to small-scale fisheries production

Post-harvest fish losses occur in value chains throughout the world. Not only do these
losses result in lost income to fishers, processors and traders, they also contribute to
food insecurity by reducing the amount of fish available for the consumer. Accurate
Showcasing applied practices in value chains, post-harvest operations and trade 3
assessments of post-harvest losses in small-scale fisheries are difficult to obtain, as much

of the catch is unrecorded and trade is often informal. Nonetheless, it has been estimated
by FAO that 10 percent of the world fish catch (in live weight equivalent) is lost due to
poor handling, processing, storage and distribution. Food quality loss, because of poor
handling, is the most pervasive form of loss in small-scale fisheries (FAO, 2011).
Sustainable practices along the value chain can help avoid losses and waste by
combining traditional, cost-efficient methods with innovation and new technology.
Where appropriate, value addition should be promoted, alongside robust fisheries
management systems, to improve livelihoods and prevent overfishing. Value addition
techniques can lead to, inter alia, increased income and diversification in the range
of products available. Not only does value addition enable greater financial planning
and security, it also reduces negative impacts on marine ecosystems. To achieve this
goal, small-scale fisheries actors need access to financial services, including credit and
microfinance, savings services, and payment and remittance services.
Facilitate sustainable trade and equitable market access

Trade in fishery products can have a positive effect on food security, both through the
higher availability of fish for human consumption and the higher income generated
for fishers and fishworkers. However, sustainable trade is conditional on there being
sustainable resource and food security management practices in place (FAO, 2005). If
export demand is left to dominate trade flows from a fishery, this can undermine both
local food security and sustainability of the resource.
Markets, be they national, regional or global, present particular opportunities
and challenges for small-scale fisheries. Opportunities include the potential to earn
a higher value per unit, and the possibility to engage with actors who can facilitate
access to financial resources, capacity building and training as part of their investment
in the value chain. Complex frameworks of rules and regulations govern fisheries
value chains. The wide variety of trade policies implemented by countries, including
tariffs, subsidies and non-tariff measures, can have a significant influence on fisheries
production and trade, particularly in relation to market access. It can be challenging
to meet these regulations and standards, especially when considering the capacity
and knowledge constraints of small-scale fisheries actors in developing countries. In
addition, unequal power relations often exist between different actors along the value
chain, leaving some vulnerable to disadvantageous contracts and unfair conditions
and practices. Training and capacity development of individuals and organizations
on market functions, literacy and numeracy should be offered to facilitate and better
prepare small-scale fisheries actors to engage with and compete in formal markets.
OVERVIEW OF CASE STUDIES
BOX 1
Case study selection
The case studies presented in this document were selected by the FAO Small-Scale Fisheries
Task Force through a competitive selection process. Case studies were selected based on the
perceived replicability of initiatives by relevant actors, including national administrations,
NGOs, CSOs, private enterprises, development agencies, intergovernmental bodies, and
others. To facilitate this universal applicability, it was important to ensure geographic
diversity and broad coverage of the recommendations in Chapter 7 of the SSF Guidelines.
The work presented here focuses on ongoing and recently concluded activities by various
actors including FAO, NGOs, CSOs, universities and regional organizations. The case
studies provide an opportunity to examine and analyse specific issues in more detail with a
view to creating new insights and informing new activities moving forward.
TABLE 1
Summary matrix: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 652
SSF Guidelines paragraphs on value chains, post-harvest and trade
7.1 ...ensure that post- 7.2 ...facilitate 7.3 ...provide and 7.4 ...recognize...
harvest actors are part women’s enable investments associations of fishers
of relevant decision participation (c) in appropriate and fish workers (i)
making processes (a), ...ensure that infrastructures (f), and promote
recognizing that amenities and services organizational their adequate
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture there are sometimes appropriate for structures (g) organizational
Technical Paper No. 652 case studies unequal power women are available and capacity and capacity
relationships between as required (d) development (h) to development (j) in
value chain actors... ...enable women to support the small- all stages of the
and marginalized retain and enhance scale fisheries post- value chain… and
groups may require their livelihoods harvest subsector support marketing
special support (b) in the postharvest mechanisms (k)
subsector (e)
1. The Central Fish Processors

Association: Collective action by
a, b c, d, e g, h I, j
women in the Barbados flyingfish
fishery
2. The Kodiak Jig Initiative: Ensuring

viability of the small-boat jig fleet a, b f, g j, k
through market and policy solutions
3. The FAO-Thiaroye processing

technique: Facilitating social
organization, empowering women, d, e i, j
and creating market access
opportunities in West Africa
4. Fish traders and processors

network: Enhancing trade and market
g, h
access for small-scale fisheries in the
West Central Gulf of Guinea
5. Seafood direct marketing:

Supporting critical decision-making in f, g, h j, k
Alaska and California
6. Fair Trade: Certification of a

yellowfin tuna handline fishery in i, j, k
Indonesia
7. Madagascar’s mud crab fishery:

how fishers can earn more while
catching less
8. State-led fisheries development:

Enabling access to resources and

markets in the Maldives pole-and-line
skipjack tuna fishery
9. Fishery Improvement Projects: In

the context of small-scale fisheries
a
value chains, post-harvest operations
and trade
7.5 ...avoid post- 7.6 ...facilitate 7.7...ensure that 7.8 …recognize 7.9 ...ensure that 7.10 …enable access
harvest losses and access to local, promotion of that benefits from adverse impacts by to all relevant market
waste (l) and seek national, regional international fish international trade international trade and trade information
ways to create value and international trade and export should be fairly on the environment, for stakeholders
addition (m), building markets (n) production do not distributed (r) small-scale fisheries in the small-scale
also on existing and promote adversely affect the ...ensure that culture, livelihoods fisheries value
traditional and equitable and non- nutritional needs of effective fisheries and special needs chain (u) ...Capacity
local cost-efficient discriminatory people (q) management systems related to food development is also
technologies, local trade (o) for are in place to prevent security are equitably required so that all
innovations and small-scale fisheries overexploitation addressed (t) small-scale fisheries
culturally appropriate products... support driven by market stakeholders... can
technology transfers regional trade (p) in demand (s) ...benefit equitably
products from from, opportunities (v)

l, m n
n, o, p u, v
n, o u, v
r, s t
l, m n, o q
n, o q r, s t
s
Case study 1: Pena et al. tell the story of The central fish processors association: collective
action by women in the Barbados flyingfish fishery. Collective action consists primarily
of enhancing cohesion and cooperation on important issues, building or restoring a
sense of relevance or significance among marginalized groups, getting “a seat at the
table” to develop pragmatic solutions, seeking greater accountability and transparency,
and managing conflict. This method is fundamental for organizations seeking to effect
positive change. Given the prominent role of women in the post-harvest segment of
the flyingfish value chain in Barbados, the collective action of the women-led Central
Fish Processors Association (CFPA) is particularly worthy of consideration. The case
study analyses the formation and development of the CFPA and the benefits it has
provided to its members in terms of their livelihoods and domestic lives, as well as
to the flyingfish fishery more generally. It then highlights valuable lessons to inform
others in fisheries post-harvest organizations.
Case study 2: Peterson et al. present The Kodiak Jig Initiative: Ensuring viability of
the small-boat jig fleet through market and policy solutions. This case study outlines
how jig fishers and partners successfully secured quota set-asides as a means to provide
affordable entry-level opportunities for new and young fishers as well as those seeking
more diversified access. The study further details efforts to establish niche markets
for the quota set-asides, which resulted in significant increases in the dockside value
of Pacific cod and rockfish for the small-boat fleet, and ultimately the establishment
of the Kodiak Jig Seafoods brand. Combined, these policy and market-based efforts
helped to ensure viable access and livelihood opportunities for the Kodiak jig fleet.
The challenges and solutions presented can inform the development of approaches to
ensure social, cultural and economic viability of fishing communities, and provide a
textbook example of SDG Target 14.b – “Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers
to marine resources and markets” – in action at the local level.
Case study 3: Ford et al. provide an overview of The FAO-Thiaroye processing

technique: Facilitating social organization, empowering women, and creating market
access opportunities in West Africa. The FAO-Thiaroye processing technique (FTT) is
healthier and more efficient than other traditional methods of smoking fish. It produces
products with an extended shelf life that meet international food safety standards, and
helps reduce post-harvest losses during bumper harvests. This case study discusses
challenges and opportunities related to deploying the FTT to improve smoked fish value
chains in West Africa. Further, it explores the important and necessary role of the FTT in
facilitating the social organization of fish processors, and in improving gender equality
and empowering women. The study underlines the need to support social organization
and provide capacity development training in order to realize the benefits of improved
infrastructure and overcome barriers to reaching new markets.
Case study 4: Ayilu et al. present the Fish traders and processors network: Enhancing
trade and market access for small-scale fisheries in the West Central Gulf of Guinea.
From 2014 to 2018, the Fish Trade Project supported trade and market-driven initiatives
for small-scale fisheries in the Fisheries Committee for the West Central Gulf of Guinea
(FCWC). A key initiative of this project was the establishment of the FCWC Fish Traders
and Processors Network (FCWC FishNET), a platform composed of small-scale traders
and processors, with the objective of informing policy gaps and designing market-driven
incentives to leverage the collective power of its members to facilitate regional trade. This
case study reviews the activities of FCWC FishNET and reflects on the socio-economic
role played by trade networks in small-scale fisheries. It also provides an example of
how networks can foster knowledge sharing, cooperation and trust among members in
support of enhancing value chains, post-harvest operations and trade.
Case study 5: Pomeroy et al. examine Seafood direct marketing: Supporting

critical decision-making in Alaska and California. Seafood direct marketing (SDM)
arrangements involve fishers selling their catch directly to consumers or beyond the
first receiver of the catch. The authors consider a variety of SDM arrangements in
terms of the business skills, time and resources required, as well as types of products
that can readily be sold, among other factors. Fishers have been drawn to SDM as
a means of adapting to regulatory, operational, environmental, social and economic
challenges. These marketing arrangements, however, may not be feasible or suitable
for all individuals, fisheries or communities. Recognizing this, the case study presents
efforts by Sea Grant Extension Programs to assist small-scale fishers and communities
in Alaska and California to evaluate and make well-informed decisions about utilizing
SDM in their particular context. It provides valuable insights to enable fishers to
improve price-per-pound sales and reduce vulnerability to market variability and
pricing.
Case study 6: Zheng et al. report on Fair Trade: Certification of a yellowfin tuna
handline fishery in Indonesia. Fair Trade USA is a non-profit organization founded in
1998 to help small-scale actors achieve better trading conditions as well as improved
social and environmental standards. The organization has reached nearly one million
producers globally and delivered USD 551 million in additional profits to farmers,
workers and fishers. This case study presents an overview of Fair Trade’s Capture
Fisheries Standard, with its core objectives of fisher and worker empowerment,
economic development of communities, social responsibility and environmental
stewardship. It then reviews the process to certify the yellowfin tuna handline fishery
in Indonesia, and details how Fair Trade seeks to enable greater equity in value chains
and ensure the benefits of trade and export are spread among producers and processors.
The study provides a great example of a market-driven blueprint for developing
socially, economically and environmentally sustainable value chains.
Case study 7: Kasprzyk et al. present Madagascar’s mud crab fishery: How fishers can
earn more while catching less. Mangrove mud crab is Madagascar’s third most valuable
seafood export, with approximately 30 000 small-scale fishers relying on it for income.
Since the late 2000s, mangrove mud crab fishing effort has increased significantly due
to high international demand, leading to overexploitation. Additionally, post-harvest
losses along the value chain due to poor handling, transport and storage have further
reduced the earnings and food security of the coastal communities who depend on
the mud crab fishery. This case study presents the work undertaken through the
SmartFish Programme, in collaboration with the Government of Madagascar and
locally based NGOs, to assess and develop methods for reducing overexploitation
of mangrove mud crab and increasing benefits to fishers and value chain actors. It
provides an excellent example of how practical and low-cost changes in behaviour,
logistics and techniques can reduce post-harvest losses, helping fishers to earn more
while catching less.
Case study 8: Edwards et al. describe State-led fisheries development: Enabling access
to resources and markets in the Maldives pole-and-line skipjack tuna fishery. The
fisheries sector is a cornerstone of the Maldives economy, contributing significantly
to national employment, foreign exchange and food security. The Pole-And-Line
Skipjack Tuna Fishery is the oldest and largest fishery in the country. This case study
examines the role of the Maldivian Government in developing a well-managed and
sustainable fishery able to compete in the global tuna marketplace: namely, by ensuring
preferential access to and benefit from skipjack tuna resources for its own citizens; and
by adapting the country’s tuna sector to global market conditions. The study pinpoints
actions that can be emulated by governments whose fisheries are affected by globalized
market demands, thus providing another example of SDG Target 14.b – “Provide
access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets” – in action at
the national level.
Case study 9: Ford et al. review Fishery Improvement Projects: In the context of
small-scale fisheries value chains, post-harvest operations and trade. Improving the
environmental sustainability of large-scale seafood production using market-based
approaches has been a focus of the sustainable seafood movement since the 1990s.
One outcome of these efforts has been the development of Fishery Improvement
Projects (FIPs), which are multistakeholder partnerships designed to encourage value
chain actors to improve fisheries sustainability. This case study provides an overview
of FIPs and their role in meeting demand for sustainable seafood, and considers their
application to small-scale fisheries. It then analyses the strengths and weaknesses of
FIPs in the context of the SSF Guidelines.
DISCUSSION
Since the endorsement of the SSF Guidelines by COFI in 2014, recognition of
the importance of small-scale fisheries has increased, as has awareness of the
recommendations contained in the Guidelines. These are now reflected in various
regional and national policies and strategies. Moreover, as demonstrated by the case
studies presented here, the principles and provisions of the SSF Guideline are being
applied by a broad range of actors and in diverse contexts.
This technical paper presents efforts from around the world to develop sustainable
small-scale fisheries value chains and improve post-harvest operations and trade. The
case studies constitute a rich selection of experiences and are diverse, not only with
regard to their geographical setting, but also in the topics covered and approaches
employed. In each case, certain practices have been implemented that can be emulated
by other small-scale fisheries value chain actors operating under similar conditions.
Furthermore, a defining trait shared by all the case studies is the diligence with
which each have unlocked value chain potential without undermining sustainable
development or resource management.
In this conclusion, we summarize and discuss key interventions highlighted by the
different authors in relation to each paragraph in Chapter 7 of the SSF Guidelines. The
discussion is not exhaustive, but rather focuses on key findings as they relate to the
implementation of the Guidelines. The reader is encouraged to read the full paper to
learn more and fully appreciate all of the initiatives described herein.
7.1 All parties should recognize the central role that the small-scale fisheries
post-harvest subsector and its actors play in the value chain. All parties should
ensure that post-harvest actors are part of relevant decision making processes,
recognizing that there are sometimes unequal power relationships between
value chain actors and that vulnerable and marginalized groups may require
special support.
Guiding Principle 6 of the SSF Guidelines recognizes the importance of consultation

and participation. Paragraph 7.1 emphasizes this explicitly, calling for all post-harvest
small-scale fisheries actors to be included in decision-making processes. Case studies 1,
2 and 9 provide concrete examples of how these actors can be empowered to engage in
decision-making.
Case study 1: The CFPA is a fisherfolk organization composed entirely of women,

operating in the post-harvest value chain of the flyingfish fishery in Barbados. Its
functioning illustrates the practice of representing post-harvest actors through a
democratic system, whereby one individual is elected to represent the needs of
all members in national, regional and international processes. The CFPA has kept
a strong focus on capacity development of its members as a way to promote the
equitable participation of women. In addition, the organization has earned respect
and recognition from a variety of players within the fisheries sector, due in part to
its cohesion when dealing with issues affecting flyingfish processors, and maintains
an effective working relationship with the government authority responsible for
management and development of Barbados fisheries.
Case study 2: Not being able to attend management meetings where decisions are
made is a common challenge for small-scale fishers and fishworkers. The experience
of the Kodiak Jig Initiative demonstrates the efforts of fishers and community
advocates to influence decision-making to achieve policy changes that enabled access
to resources, ensuring opportunities for current and future small-boat fishers. The
effort subsequently supported a marketing initiative designed to ensure that the
benefits of access to resources could be fully realized. To accomplish this, a partnership
between Kodiak-based jig fishers, the Alaska Jig Association (AJA) and the Alaska
Marine Conservation Council (AMCC) was formed to ensure a strong presence
was maintained by fishers and community representatives in relevant meetings and
processes throughout the State of Alaska.
Case study 9: FIPs are premised on a multistakeholder approach for enhancing

sustainable fisheries management, with products derived from FIPs being used to fulfil
sustainable seafood sourcing quotas among value chain actors in high-value markets.
The FIP model is increasingly being applied to small-scale fisheries, allowing post-
harvest actors at different points in the value chain to participate in decision-making
processes. However, studies have found that power is often unequally distributed, and
fishers and fishworkers do not always play a central role in the management of FIPs;
hence the need to evolve the model to be more inclusive of fishers and fishworkers.
7.2 All parties should recognize the role women often play in the post-harvest
subsector and support improvements to facilitate women’s participation in
such work. States should ensure that amenities and services appropriate for
women are available as required in order to enable women to retain and
enhance their livelihoods in the post-harvest subsector.
Gender equality and equity is Guiding Principle 4 of the SSF Guidelines, and is
addressed in Chapter 8. In relation to value chains, post-harvest and trade, paragraph
7.2 underlines the need to facilitate women’s participation and ensure that appropriate
amenities and services are available for women, so that they may retain and enhance
their livelihoods in the post-harvest subsector. Case studies 1 and 3 highlight efforts to
ensure equal rights and opportunities for women in the post-harvest subsector.
Case Study 1: The Bridgetown Fisheries Complex (BFC) is operated by the Markets
Division of the Government of Barbados. The women members of the CFPA make
their living working in this facility. The CFPA provides women with a united front,
which has enabled them to pursue better conditions in the government-run facility
where they work, while at the same time engendering a form of ownership within the
public facility. Working conditions in the processing hall have been improved to ensure
the provision of satisfactory amenities and facilities for the pursuit of their livelihoods.
Case study 3: FAO-Thiaroye processing technique (FTT) kilns have been shown
to benefit women by reducing hazardous working conditions and providing them
additional social autonomy (due to faster processing times). As a result, women have
more time to focus on family obligations and pursue other income-generating and self-
improvement activities, such a marketing their products and furthering their education.
Hence, the FTT creates an opportunity for women to assert themselves in the value
chain in new ways that enhance their livelihoods.
7.3 States should foster, provide and enable investments in appropriate

infrastructures, organizational structures and capacity development to support
the small-scale fisheries post-harvest subsector in producing good quality and
safe fish and fishery products, for both export and domestic markets, in a
responsible and sustainable manner.
Social and economic viability is Guiding Principle 13 of the SSF Guidelines. Paragraph
7.3 recognizes that appropriate organizational structures, capacity development
and access to infrastructures can enable fishworkers to improve their livelihoods by
producing safe, high-quality products. Case studies 1, 2, 4 and 5 focus on aspects of
how investments in appropriate infrastructure as well as associated organizational
structures and capacity development can improve product quality and livelihoods.
Case study 1: The BFC processing hall, assigned with input and at the urging of
CFPA members, is a spacious facility built to meet international standards. Having
this dedicated space has allowed the CFPA processors to collectively benefit from
improved hygiene conditions. Furthermore, the members have benefited from training
to implement food handling standards, which in turn has improved the profitability
and marketability of their products. Securing access to facilities in the BFC procession
hall is noted by members as one of the main successes of the CFPA.
Case study 2: In order to realize the marketing strategy of the Kodiak Jig Initiative, it
was necessary to secure infrastructure and organizational support. Although Kodiak
is one of the largest fishing ports in the United States of America, with year-round
seafood processing, local fishing infrastructure is primarily geared toward large-scale,
high-volume fisheries. Challenges included access to ice and use of a crane to offload
product. Ultimately, an arrangement was formed with a custom processor that focused
primarily on smoking salmon, which provided additional processing opportunities to
its fishworkers in the spring – a slow time for salmon processing. Key to operational
success was having AMCC Kodiak-based staff follow the product throughout the
entire process, from offloading to market delivery. Separately, jig fishers also lobbied
the city council for a working waterfront with infrastructure for independent small-
scale harvesters, resulting in the construction of a public use crane at a multi-use dock
in the main harbour.
Case study 4: The FCWC Fish Traders and Processors Network (FCWC FishNET)
was established to inform the design of market-driven incentives to leverage the
collective power of its members to facilitate regional trade. Working with partners,
FCWC FishNET refurbished a cross-border fish trading and processing centre (the
Manhean Fish Processors and Traders hub) in Tema, Ghana. This centre now attracts
fish traders and processors from neighbouring countries and distributes a substantial
quantity of processed small-scale fisheries products to fish markets in Benin, Burkina
Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Togo. With the addition of a water supply system and
washroom facilities, the upgraded facility can now guarantee clean and safe processed
fish products for trade. The improvements also make it easier for processors and
traders to work efficiently during bumper harvests, as the new amenities include bath
and toilet facilities as well as rooms for changing and nursing babies.
Case study 5: The Sea Grant Extension Programs (SGEPs) in Alaska and California
facilitate evaluation of seafood direct marketing (SDM) options and provide tools and
capacity development through business education for fishers seeking greater control
over the value chains they are engaged with. The SGEP model – based on principles
of non-advocacy, trust, effective communication and using a science-based approach –
supports sound decision-making and increased understanding of the practicalities and
limitations of SDM. Engagement by SGEP staff with fishing communities includes
consultations, workshops and collaborative research, with materials developed from
these efforts in turn useful for building capacity for the post-harvest sector. This
approach is unique compared to other case studies presented, as the SGEP provides
guidance for fishworkers seeking a more entrepreneurial approach to trade.
7.4 States and development partners should recognize the traditional forms
of associations of fishers and fish workers and promote their adequate
organizational and capacity development in all stages of the value chain in
order to enhance their income and livelihood security in accordance with
national legislation. Accordingly, there should be support for the setting up
and the development of cooperatives, professional organizations of the small-
scale fisheries sector and other organizational structures, as well as marketing
mechanisms, e.g. auctions, as appropriate.
Paragraph 7.4 of the SSF Guidelines echoes the importance of consultation and
participation. It calls for recognition of traditional forms of association of fishers
and fishworkers, and stresses the need to promote their organizational and capacity
development all along the value chain. Case studies 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 consider the role of
associations in enhancing incomes and livelihood security of small-scale fishers.
Case study 1: Between 1997 and 1999, the Barbados Government implemented
an externally funded Fisherfolk Organization Development Project (FODP). The
project’s long-term objectives were to work closely with formal and informal fisherfolk
organizations to sustainably improve the livelihoods and well-being of fisherfolk,
and to establish fisherfolk organizations capable of active participation in fisheries
management and development. A notable outcome was the establishment of the CFPA,
which was supported by the Barbados Fisheries Division (BFD) through the FODP.
The BFD continues to provide in-kind support to the CFPA. This support has been
key in allowing the CFPA to engage in collective action, as discussed in the preceding
sections.
Case study 2: The Kodiak Jig Initiative highlights the power of cooperation in achieving
common objectives. Formed in the late 2000s, the Alaskan Jig Association (AJA)
worked closely with AMCC in order to develop an engagement strategy to reduce
the barriers to entry for young fishers. It also endeavoured to ensure that any policy
changes by the fishery management council concerning rockfish and cod in the Gulf
of Alaska included clear, entry-level opportunities and access for small-scale fisheries.
Likewise, AMCC worked closely with AJA to support organizational capacity so
that written comments and verbal testimony could be regularly submitted at council
meetings. In addition, AMCC provided financial support to cover airfare and lodging,
enabling fishers to participate in key meetings.
Case study 3: The FAO-Thiaroye processing technique study found that the FTT kiln
can act as a platform for social organization, but noted that the most successful examples
of FTT deployment involved a cooperative or association that could take responsibility
for the kiln’s management and maintenance. Critically, the study recognized that the
FTT in and of itself does not overcome barriers to forming effective associations, but
rather recognized the importance of providing adequate organizational and capacity
development training among processors to achieve a sustainable outcome.
Case study 5: The SGEPs have supported SDM capacity development through classes,
workshops, websites and other outreach efforts, for fishers in California and Alaska.
SDM entails fishers selling their catch via fewer intermediaries. SDM arrangements
can provide outlets for lower-volume, higher-value (price-per-pound) fisheries, thus
reducing their vulnerability to the variability and uncertainty of pricing that often
characterize long supply chains, especially those tied to global markets. The capacity
building and outreach materials provided by the SGEPs address the various types of
SDM arrangements, practical considerations for each type, and guidance on topics such
as maintaining product safety and quality, business administration and, for specific
fisheries and geographies, summary permitting requirements. These combined efforts
have enabled entrepreneurial fishers in suitable contexts to start, and enhance, small
businesses.
Case study 6: Fair Trade USA’s Capture Fisheries Standard (CFS) requires registered
fishers to form at least one democratically run Fishers’ Association, unless they already
belong to a legal cooperative. The cooperative or association then facilitates coordination
of responsibilities on resource management, vessel safety and trade relationships. It
also represents the fishers on any matters affecting their fishing activities, including
the CFS, laws, fisheries regulations, and fisheries-related infrastructure. Individual
members are elected to one or more Fair Trade Committees to manage the use of the
Fair Trade Premium funds received for product sold on Fair Trade USA’s terms. These
committees are then responsible for managing and spending the funds on behalf of
the participants, and for tracking and reporting their use. It is interesting to note that
in 2015, Fair Trade USA’s household survey in Indonesia revealed that 68 percent of
participants indicated that the “Premium fund” was the most important benefit of Fair
Trade USA’s programme. However, in 2016, this figure shrank by 20 percent, while
“Formation of a Fishers’ Association” grew by 8 percent. This may indicate that while
the material benefits of the programme are appreciated, having a platform through
which to discuss the management of the value chain is also highly valued.
7.5 All parties should avoid post-harvest losses and waste and seek ways
to create value addition, building also on existing traditional and local cost-
efficient technologies, local innovations and culturally appropriate technology
transfers. Environmentally sustainable practices within an ecosystem approach
should be promoted, deterring, for example, waste of inputs (water, fuelwood,
etc.) in small-scale fish handling and processing.
Economic, social and environmental sustainability is Guiding Principle 10 of the SSF

Guidelines. Paragraph 7.5 encourages avoidance of post-harvest losses and searching
for ways to add value through improved handling and processing. Case studies 3 and 7
emphasize tools, low-cost techniques and changes in behaviour to minimize post-
harvest losses and add value.
Case study 3: The FTT kiln is a safer, more economic and environmentally sustainable
method of smoking fish. The kiln reduces fuelwood consumption by way of an ember
furnace tray, a feature that dually conserves the heat – and therefore the quantity of fuel
needed – in a separate compartment from the fish, while also concentrating the heat on
the fish and allowing for greater control over the smoking process. The kiln has also
been shown to reduce fish losses and waste, particularly during peak harvest times; in
contrast, the low capacity of traditional smoking devices invariably translates into high
post-harvest losses during bumper seasons. The practice is being disseminated through
peer-to-peer knowledge exchanges and trained “change agents”, who provide FTT
training and demonstrations in culturally appropriate ways.
Case study 7: The SmartFish Programme’s crab project culminated in the production
of SmartFish Manual No. 35, entitled, “Enhancing the value of mangrove crab
through reduction of post-harvest losses”. The manual details ten improved practices
for catching and handling mud crabs that were developed, tested and optimized,
in collaboration with small-scale fishers and fishworkers, to improve crab quality
across all links in the value chain. To implement the improved handling practices,
eight culturally appropriate methods of communication were developed in French
and Malagasy, in both written and radio format. This included posters, a number of
workshops, and three mobile demonstration units on small boats to reach fishing
communities in remote locations.
7.6 States should facilitate access to local, national, regional and international
markets and promote equitable and non-discriminatory trade for small-scale
fisheries products. States should work together to introduce trade regulations
and procedures that in particular support regional trade in products from
small-scale fisheries and taking into account the agreements under the World
Trade Organization (WTO), bearing in mind the rights and obligations of WTO
members where appropriate.
Guiding Principle 3 of the SSF Guidelines calls for the elimination of discriminatory
policies and practices in small-scale fisheries. Paragraph 7.6 underscores the need to
facilitate access to markets and support regional trade for products from small-scale
fisheries. Case studies 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 detail efforts to achieve and maintain market
access for products from small-scale fisheries in an equitable and non-discriminatory
fashion.
Case study 3: The FTT facilitates access to international markets by producing

products that meet international food safety standards and has the potential to catalyse
further international trade. Traditional methods of smoking fish result in elevated
levels of carcinogenic compounds that often fail to meet international standards. The
FTT kiln is used in more than a dozen African countries by companies that process
and export fish to the EU and the United States of America. It is also being piloted in
small-scale fishing communities in Sri Lanka, the Federated States of Micronesia and
the Philippines. In addition to accessing international markets, FTT products can fetch
a higher price in local and regional markets, though in practice the results have been
mixed: many consumers may not be able to afford the FTT-smoked fish, or prefer the
appearance and texture of fish smoked using traditional techniques.
Case study 4: The FCWC FishNET study discusses efforts to enhance informal trade
linkages and partnerships to promote regional trade in West Africa. Fish traders and
processors are able to leverage these trade networks to address two major constraints
for small-scale fisheries in the region: transportation costs and access to credit. For
instance, using their established networks, Togolese fish importers in Ghana combine
consignments to fill bulk cargo trucks. This “bulk transport” has several advantages:
it allows the importers to negotiate reduced transport rates, and border inspection
post formalities are simplified by bulk inspections of the fish consignments, thus
expediting the delivery of fish products. To address the issue of access to formal
credit, microfinance institutions have been set up to support small-scale fisheries
organizations by providing loans that are the collective responsibility of those party
to the respective organization. This affords traders and processors access to credit that
they might normally have difficulty obtaining, due to lack of collateral or inexperience
with bookkeeping or bureaucratic credit procedures. Bulk transport and microfinance
allow fish traders to increase the volume of fish imported, thus ensuring an abundant
fish supply for rural communities at cheaper prices, while also playing a crucial role
in improving income and livelihood security and facilitating fish trade in domestic and
regional markets.
Case study 5: The Fisherman’s Direct Marketing Manual was developed by the
Alaska SGEP at the request of the Alaska Department of Commerce, in response to
a precipitous drop in salmon prices in the early 1990s, to provide guidance to fishers
wishing to pursue SDM as a form of livelihood diversification. Now in its fifth edition,
the manual covers business planning, e-commerce, packaging and shipping, custom
processing, the seafood distribution system and seafood handling. It also provides
a tool for fishers to assess their own capacities for pursuing SDM as a business
diversification strategy. The “Market Your Catch” website developed by California
SGEP builds on the manual and provides a web-based resource for those interested
in SDM. Both the manual and the website describe the challenges involved and the
characteristics and skills needed to succeed with SDM arrangements. These resources
ultimately help small-scale fishers evaluate options and plan for accessing new markets
locally, regionally and/or nationally.
Case study 7: In 2013, as part of a strategy to increase export earnings, the Malagasy
Government ministry responsible for fisheries resources began granting permits for
collection and export of live crabs. This reorientation of the fishery from frozen to
live exports sought to capitalize on their higher value: the average live weight price
per kilogram is 1.7 times higher than that of frozen crabs. In concert with the crab
project to reduce mortality and post-harvest losses described above (paragraph 7.5),
Madagascar has since capitalized on the export of live crabs. Survey results show that
the national average price more than doubled between 2012 and the end of 2015. For
fishers in one region, income increased by 26 percent, despite their catch decreasing by
33 percent over the same period. Increase in sales price was the primary reason for the
increase in income; reduction in post-harvest losses also contributed, but to a lesser
extent.
Case study 8: The Maldivian Government has played a key role in promoting the pole-
and-line skipjack tuna fishery internationally, while also ensuring national citizens
are able to share in the benefits derived from this value chain. The Government
has also been proactive in adapting the fishery to global market conditions. By
spearheading market-oriented sustainability innovations like achieving Marine
Stewardship Council (MSC) certification and implementing transparency systems to
distinguish Maldivian tuna exports as sustainable – which are increasingly important
criteria in high-value markets – the Government has created an enabling environment
where the Maldives tuna fleet and its citizens are well placed to thrive in the global
seafood marketplace.
7.7 States should give due consideration to the impact of international

trade in fish and fishery products and of vertical integration on local small-
scale fishers, fish workers and their communities. States should ensure that
promotion of international fish trade and export production do not adversely
affect the nutritional needs of people for whom fish is critical to a nutritious
diet, their health and well-being and for whom other comparable sources of
food are not readily available or affordable.
Enhancing the contribution of small-scale fisheries to food security is a key objective of

the SSF Guidelines, while holistic and integrated approaches are recognized in Guiding
Principle 11. Paragraph 7.7 cautions against adversely affecting the food security and
nutrition needs of people who depend on fish in their diet through the promotion
of export-oriented trade. Case studies 7 and 8 review examples of export-oriented
fisheries that enhance food security and livelihoods.
Case study 7: The opening of the Malagasy mud crab fishery to the export of live crabs
led to fears that the amount of crab available for local consumption might decrease.
In fact, the opposite has been observed, with local consumption and sales increasing
between 2012 and 2017. Fishers selling into the frozen crab market have to choose
between selling and consuming their catch, as the majority of crabs destined for this
market are accepted at the point of sale. By contrast, exporters of live crab reject on
average between 40 and 45 percent of the crabs supplied to them, due to the crabs
being weak, injured, or otherwise unsuitable for live export. A significant portion of
these rejected crabs are then diverted into the local market. Some are even eaten by the
fishers themselves: in one community surveyed, the estimated amount of catch eaten
by fishworkers increased from 5 percent to 9 percent. In this way, the reorientation of
the fishery toward live export has both increased earnings (due to the higher prices for
live crab) and improved food security.
Case study 8: Maldivian citizens depend on tuna for food and nutrition: they consume
an average of 94 kg of skipjack tuna each year, and this consumption is growing. In
recognition of this demand, the Government of Maldives has put in place measures
to ensure the domestic market continues to receive a steady supply of affordable tuna
products, thus safeguarding national food security from impacts of international trade.
The Government has encouraged the development of a robust domestic processing
industry, including small-scale processors that serve remote island communities,
which guarantees that large volumes of tuna are landed in Maldives. Additionally, the
Government has ensured the sector provides employment all along the pole-and-line
tuna fishery value chain, thus providing sustained income for its citizens.
7.8 States, small-scale fisheries actors and other value chain actors should
recognize that benefits from international trade should be fairly distributed.
States should ensure that effective fisheries management systems are in place
to prevent overexploitation driven by market demand that can threaten the
sustainability of fisheries resources, food security and nutrition. Such fisheries
management systems should include responsible post-harvest practices,
policies and actions to enable export income to benefit small-scale fishers and
others in an equitable manner throughout the value chain.
Equity and equality is Guiding Principle 5 of the SSF Guidelines. Paragraph 7.8
calls for fair distribution of benefits from international trade and appeals to ensuring
effective fisheries management systems are in place to prevent overexploitation driven
by market demand. Case studies 6, 8 and 9 present examples of initiatives designed to

address these priorities.
Case study 6: The case of Fair Trade USA demonstrates how equitable distribution
of benefits as well as measures to mitigate overexploitation can complement fisheries
management systems. Fair Trade Certified products earn a price premium, which
ensures that benefits from international trade are fairly distributed – between 2014
and 2019 participating Indonesian small-scale fishers earned over a quarter of a
million United States dollars in Fair Trade premium, on top of the landing price. With
these funds, fishers are able to identify investments through the Fair Trade Fishers’
Association, described above (paragraph 7.4), to improve their livelihoods and the
marine environment. Registered fishers are required to adopt responsible fishing
practices and work to protect fishing resources and biodiversity. This includes data
collection and monitoring to provide better information on the state of fish stocks.
For fisheries facing difficulties with data availability and management, the programme
helps build the capacity of fishers so they can meet the resource management criteria
over time. Notably, although the demand for certified handline tuna is increasing, there
are safeguards in place to ensure the tuna is not overfished by registered fishers such as
limiting fishing activity via “no fishing Fridays.”
Case study 8: The efforts of the Government of Maldives concerning the skipjack tuna
fishery demonstrate how national policies can promote fair distribution of benefits and
guarantee effective fisheries management systems are in place to prevent overexploitation
driven by market demand. The pole-and-line tuna fishery is a key source of income in
the country, supporting an estimated 30 000 livelihoods, or 8 percent of the population.
The Maldivian Government has taken many steps to facilitate preferential access to and
benefits from skipjack tuna resources for its own citizens. For instance, only national
one-by-one tuna vessels are licensed to fish in the country’s waters, ensuring citizens
and the domestic industry are the beneficiaries of its tuna resources. Further to this,
by setting a price premium on top of the Bangkok base price for tuna exports and a
minimum base price for domestic tuna sales, the Government of Maldives has enabled
the fishing sector to maintain a high and stable income. Concerning overexploitation,
the Government has also been instrumental in the establishment of a precautionary
management framework for skipjack tuna in the Indian Ocean.
Case study 9: Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs) aim to address unsustainable

fishing practices through continuous, stepwise and time-bound improvements within
fisheries. The projects are multistakeholder partnerships that may include fishers/
producers, NGOs, fisheries managers, governments, researchers, and other members
of the fisheries supply chain. FIPs facilitate access to international markets. Measures
to improve sustainability are set out in an agreed work plan, and progress is monitored
to ensure it stays on track. FIPs have been criticized for not achieving long-term
results, exacerbated by incidents of “greenwashing” or facilitating market access while
failing to improve fisheries sustainability, and not sufficiently engaging governments,
fishers and fishworkers in their planning and execution. Nevertheless, FIPs generally
have proved effective in providing a platform for dialogue and strategic direction
involving various stakeholders.
7.9 States should adopt policies and procedures, including environmental, social
and other relevant assessments, to ensure that adverse impacts by international
trade on the environment, small-scale fisheries culture, livelihoods and special
needs related to food security are equitably addressed. Consultation with
concerned stakeholders should be part of these policies and procedures.
Social responsibility is Guiding Principle 12 of the SSF Guidelines. Paragraph 7.9

suggests adopting policies and procedures, in consultation with relevant stakeholders,
to address adverse impacts of international trade on small-scale fishing communities.
Case studies 6 and 8 explore the practical application of this recommendation.
Case study 6: While Fair Trade USA is a market-based initiative that does not set
policy, its Capture Fisheries Standard (CFS) does put in place procedures designed
to ensure that adverse impacts of international trade are equitably addressed. The
CFS establishes resource management criteria for achieving sustainable, responsible
fisheries, and social responsibility criteria to protect the fundamental human rights
of fisheries workers, including wages, working conditions and access to services. The
CFS further supports fishers in developing the necessary skills to effectively negotiate
with supply chain actors regarding the purchase, processing and marketing of their
products. Last but not least, the CFS aims to improve the stability of fishers’ incomes
by ensuring a transparent and stable trading relationship with buyers. Fair Trade USA
and its partners have been able to replicate the successes seen in Indonesia in other
fisheries and countries, specifically in Mexico, Maldives, Mozambique, the United
States of America and the Solomon Islands.
Case study 8: For the pole-and-line skipjack tuna fishery in Maldives, one of the biggest
threats is losing access to key international markets by not keeping pace with the
changing sustainability demands for tuna. In this regard, Maldives has kept pace with
increased sustainability demands not only through its national fisheries management
measures, but also through its leadership within the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
(IOTC) – and its efforts to obtain and retain MSC certification for the skipjack tuna
fishery in the Indian Ocean. Developing the sector has been vital in increasing the
equitability of the fishery, allowing businesses in Maldives to derive more value from
the products that are exported, as well as allowing fishers to receive a higher price for
the fish that they land. As a result of government efforts the pole-and-line skipjack tuna
fishery has continued to play an important economic role in Maldives, both in terms
of foreign exchange earnings and its contribution to the incomes of those working in
the sector. Fishers are well paid compared to other professions in the country, earning
twice the national per capita average monthly income. Overall, the fishers’ high income
reflects the cultural value placed on the pole-and-line fishery, making it an increasingly
attractive sector to work in.
7.10 States should enable access to all relevant market and trade information
for stakeholders in the small-scale fisheries value chain. Small-scale fisheries
stakeholders must be able to access timely and accurate market information
to help them adjust to changing market conditions. Capacity development
is also required so that all small-scale fisheries stakeholders and especially
women and vulnerable and marginalized groups can adapt to, and benefit
equitably from, opportunities of global market trends and local situations
while minimizing any potential negative impacts.
Transparency is Guiding Principle 8 of the SSF Guidelines. Paragraph 7.10 reinforces

this core tenet through its recommendation that market and trade information be made
available to stakeholders in the small-scale fisheries value chain. Case studies 4 and
5 present examples of efforts to develop capacity and enable access to relevant market
information.
Case study 4: FCWC FishNET members have been involved in the organization of
Fisheries Learning Exchanges (FLEs) on such topics as smoking methods, hygiene,
processing, packaging and trading techniques. FLEs bring together representatives

from different communities to share knowledge and expertise in fisheries, thus
facilitating their empowerment. The free and equal flow of information keeps actors
along the value chain informed and allows them to benefit from market trends. FLEs
have been shown to foster cooperation and trust, and provide a common platform
for trade partnerships and linkages in small-scale fisheries value chains in the FCWC
subregion.
Case study 5: The experience of SGEPs regarding SDM arrangements highlights efforts
to build capacity by providing information and resources to enable small-scale fishers
to participate in local food movements and other marketing opportunities occurring on
different scales. In addition to supporting market feasibility studies, the SGEPs provide
information to help fishers navigate complex permit requirements, seafood handling,
safety and commerce. To ensure that accurate information is provided for the various
options that may be explored by fishers, the SGEPs engage relevant regulatory agencies
in the development of resources. In both Alaska and California, personnel from these
agencies have reviewed SDM materials, co-authored publications on requirements for
SDM, worked extensively on quality handling efforts, and attended SDM workshops
to field questions from fishers. The information gathered and provided by the SGEPs
has increased awareness and understanding among small-scale fishers, communities
and agency personnel, thus allowing them to make informed decisions on whether or
not to pursue SDM.
CONCLUSION
Small-scale fisheries actors engage in global, regional and national value chains, but face
challenges in securing market access and a fair distribution of the resulting benefits.
Fisheries value chains are part of broader food systems. These food systems encompass
all aspects of – and activities related to – food production, processing, distribution, sale
and consumption, as well as their socio-economic and environmental impacts (HLPE,
2017). In a food system, factors such as climate, environment, infrastructure and
institutions are linked to the value chain. For this reason, developing and improving
value chains requires a comprehensive approach.
The SSF Guidelines provide a framework for such a comprehensive approach, and
they recognize that sharing of knowledge is essential to overcome challenges and make
progress towards securing sustainable small-scale fisheries. This technical paper was
developed to mobilize action in this regard by documenting encouraging initiatives
to implement the principles and provisions of the SSF Guidelines, in particular those
contained in Chapter 7 concerning value chains, post-harvest and trade. The case
studies explore key issues and challenges faced by small-scale fishers and fishworkers in
obtaining market access, and showcase initiatives to promote and improve such access.
The case studies were chosen for their potential to inform an international audience
of development and fisheries professionals and stakeholders, with the intention of
supporting national and international policies and policy processes to enhance small-
scale fisheries value chains, post-harvest operations and trade, and ultimately inspiring
further uptake and implementation of the SSF Guidelines.
It is hoped that the findings in this technical paper will support efforts to advance
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – in particular Sustainable Development
Goal (SDG) Target 14.b: “Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine
resources and markets”; and Target 2.3: “By 2030 double the agricultural productivity
and the incomes of small-scale food producers, particularly women, indigenous
peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal
access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services,
markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment”.
REFERENCES
FAO. 2011. Post-Harvest Fish Loss Assessment in Small-Scale Fisheries: A Guide for the
Extension Officer. Rome.
HLPE. 2017. Nutrition and food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts
on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report
No. 12. Rome.
Kurien, J. Responsible fish trade and food security. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 456.
Rome, FAO. 2005. 102p.
World Bank. 2012. Hidden Harvests: The Global Contribution of Capture Fisheries.
Washington, DC.
21
CASE STUDIES
23
1. The Central Fish Processors

Association: Collective action by
women in the Barbados flyingfish
fishery
Maria Pena
Janice Cumberbatch
Patrick McConney
Neetha Selliah
Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES), Barbados
Bertha Simmons
Independent consultant
ABSTRACT
Women are prominent in the post-harvest segment of the flyingfish value chain in
Barbados, but this is not reflected in their participation in fisherfolk organizations. The
Central Fish Processors Association (CFPA) offers a unique example of an organization
that currently comprises only women and has been woman-led from its inception.
Unable to individually voice their concerns about working spaces at the fish market, the
women formed the only fisheries post-harvest association in Barbados. This case study
analyses the process of formation of the CFPA, its development and the benefits it has
provided to its members in terms of their livelihoods and domestic lives, as well as to
the flyingfish fishery more generally. Although challenges persist, it illustrates existing
and emerging good practices consistent with the principles of the Voluntary Guidelines
for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and
Poverty Eradication.
Keywords: Collective action, fisherfolk organization, value chain, post-harvest,

flyingfish, SSF Guidelines.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale
Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines)
with support from FAO has resulted in increasing global and local attention being given
to fisherfolk organizations: in particular, their strengthening and governance, as well as
women’s participation as both members and leaders (see for example Alonso-Población
and Siar, 2018; Frangoudes, Pascual-Fernández and Marguán-Pintos, 2014; McConney,
2007; McConney et al., 2017a). Women in small-scale fisheries organizations can
play a critical and useful role in bringing new perspectives to fisheries value chains
(Frangoudes, 2013). In this context, the collective action of women actively engaged
in the post-harvest sector in the Barbados flyingfish fishery may facilitate and support
the implementation of the SSF Guidelines provisions on value chains and gender
equality. To illustrate this, this case study examines how women are leading by example
through their daily actions and operations in fish processing along the fisheries value
chain (e.g. product standards and quality, capacity building, professionalization of the
industry). They have gained respect and recognition by functioning as a group, and via
promotion and reinforcement of their peers, with lessons that are applicable globally.
Collective action is primarily about enhancing cohesion and cooperation on
important issues, building or restoring a sense of relevance or significance among
marginalized groups, getting “a seat at the table” to develop pragmatic solutions,
seeking greater accountability and transparency, and managing conflict. Collective
action has been employed in fisheries globally to defend shared interests, deal with
threats to fisheries management, secure rights and benefits for the industry, or to enable
fisherfolk to catch or sell fish (McConney, 2007; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2009; FAO,
2016; Alonso-Población and Siar, 2018). This case study examines the Central Fish
Processors Association (CFPA), a women’s fisherfolk organization operating in the
post-harvest sector of the Barbados flyingfish fishery. The organization’s collective
action approach aims to improve fishery product quality as well as women’s livelihoods
and well-being in the industry. This is relevant to the concepts of responsible fisheries
and sustainable development, and to the SSF Guidelines, particularly Chapter 7 on
value chains, post-harvest and trade (paragraphs 7.1–7.4). The CFPA’s actions can also
be examined in relation to five guiding principles of the SSF Guidelines: respect of
cultures, gender equality and equity, consultation and participation, transparency, and
accountability (FAO, 2015a).
1.1.1 Barbados flyingfish fishery

Barbados is the most eastern Caribbean island (Figure 1.1), with an exclusive economic
zone nearly 400 times larger than its 430 km2 land area. The four-winged flyingfish
(Hirundichthys affinis) is a small pelagic species, often fished 5–150 kilometres from
shore in the open sea. The Barbados fishery targets the shared eastern Caribbean stock
of flyingfish.
Flyingfish is of significant commercial value to Barbados (Barbados Fisheries
Division, 2004; Willoughby, 2007), comprising nearly two-thirds of annual landings
by volume in most years (Mahon et al., 2007). A 2007 value chain analysis found the
fishery had an estimated ex-vessel value of USD 1.8 million and an estimated overall
value of USD 18.7 million (Mahon et al., 2007). It is used primarily for domestic
consumption by local residents and tourists, and constitutes less than 1 percent of the
annual gross domestic product. As for most migratory pelagics, the fishery is seasonal,
with the main fishing season from November to June. Later starts to the season (for
a shorter season) and reduced harvests are now becoming the norm due to a range of
social and ecological reasons. For example, risk-averse or poor fishers are less likely to
borrow money or invest their own in early harvesting of flyingfish after a poor season
until the fish are clearly abundant. Poor weather conditions stemming from the annual
hurricane season, which extends to November, coupled with Sargassum influxes,
which negatively affect flyingfish abundance and availability (Ramlogan et al., 2017;
Oxenford et al., 2019), also affect the duration and starting date of the season. Despite
reduced landings, the flyingfish fishery remains the main contributor to the island’s
fish catch (FAO, 2016, http://www.fao.org/fishery/facp/BRB/en).
It is estimated that more than 2 000 fishers (almost all men) and 500 small-scale fish
processors (men and women who use several helpers) or fish vendors (mainly women
who work mostly alone) are seasonally employed in the fishery. Additionally, more
than 200 women and some men find work as fish scalers and de-boners at government
fish markets, while a further 125 (mostly women) work seasonally at private sector fish
processing plants. Some women, and many men, are found in support services such
as boat-building, ice and fuel supply, gear sales, and engine and hull repair (Barbados
Fisheries Division, 2004; FAO, 2016; Pena et al., 2019; Figure 1.2). Overall, around
1. The Central Fish Processors Association: Collective action by women in the Barbados flyingfish fishery 25
FIGURE 1.1
Map of Barbados highlighting the primary landing site from which the CFPA operates –
the Bridgetown Fisheries Complex – and other primary fish landing sites
Map conforms to: Map No. 4170

Rev. 18.1 UNITED NATIONS,
February 2020.
Source: BIOPAMA Programme.
FIGURE 1.2
Occupations by gender along a typical Barbados fisheries value chain
!
6 000 people – 2 000 directly and perhaps over 4 000 indirectly – make a seasonal living
from the flyingfish fishery depending on fish abundance (Barbados Fisheries Division,
2004; FAO, 2016). Since flyingfish are available for harvest for only seven to nine
months of the year, fishers and processors have to make full use of their time and effort
to reap maximum economic benefits from the fishery. In abundant years, small-scale
processors store flyingfish for sale in the off-season.
Flyingfish are normally harvested primarily by dayboats or launches1 and iceboats2
(Figure 1.3), but may also be taken by longliners that target tuna. The fish are caught
with surface handlines and dipnets after being lured to boats with bait baskets
and tethered temporary fish-attracting devices (Barbados Fisheries Division, 2004;
Willoughby, 2007). Small-scale processors, like the women in the CFPA, may scale
and de-bone around 500 flyingfish in a 10-hour period per day during the busy season
(Figure 1.3). Filleted flyingfish are packaged in plastic bags in sets of ten (Figure 1.3),
which sell for USD 7.50–12.50 depending on season and abundance. Flyingfish are
typically sold by count (number) and not weight, as unit weight is fairly uniform.
FIGURE 1.3
The flyingfish fishery value chain: (a) iceboat and (b) dayboat/launch used to harvest
flyingfish; (c) whole flyingfish stored on ice in wharf box; (d) processed filleted flyingfish;
and (e) packaged fillets in sets of ten
(a) (b)
©FAO/H. OXENFORD
©FAO/H. OXENFORD
(c)
©FAO/H. OXENFORD
(d) (e)
©FAO/H. OXENFORD
©FAO/M. PENA
1
Dayboat or launch: wooden vessels 6–12 m long with a cabin, and propelled by 10–180 hp inboard diesel
engines. Used primarily for harvesting flyingfish and large pelagics on day trips (Barbados Fisheries
Division, 2004).
2
Iceboats: vessels greater than 12 m in length with a cabin and insulated ice holds, and propelled by
inboard diesel engines. Used primarily for harvesting flyingfish and large pelagics during trips of five to
ten days (Barbados Fisheries Division, 2004).
Apart from direct employment and job creation in the fisheries sector, the flyingfish
fishery makes a considerable socio-economic impact on fishing industry support
services and tourism, the country’s primary foreign exchange earner (Sobers, 2010).
Hence, with the new phenomenon of Sargassum influxes and the resulting decreases
in fish catch, persons throughout the flyingfish value chain are growing increasingly
concerned for their livelihoods (Ramlogan et al., 2017; Oxenford et al., 2019).
1.2 METHODS
This case study builds on participatory action research conducted with the CFPA by the
Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES) Gender in
Fisheries Team (GIFT) at the University of the West Indies (UWI), Cave Hill Campus,
Barbados. The case comprises a secondary data review, CFPA document analysis, group
interviews and interactive workshops conducted with CFPA members between 2017
and 2019. Research began with a livelihood analysis and investigation into women’s
collective action in 2017 and 2018 (Pena et al., 2018). In 2019, the authors and other
GIFT members organized the first Women in Fisheries forum in Barbados (Pena et
al., 2019). The event was linked to this case study on gender in local fisheries value
chains and the CFPA. Table 1.1 outlines the participatory research. Document analysis
reviewed CFPA hardcopy files, primarily meeting agendas, meeting minutes (notes),
correspondence, etc. The research is the first of its kind on organized women in the
Barbados flyingfish fishery. Convenience samples of the CFPA membership were used
based on the availability of women within their work schedule to participate in arranged
events. The following discussion is based on these findings. Further investigation with
more in-depth gender and value chain analysis is planned for another phase.
TABLE 1.1
Participatory research conducted with CFPA members
Gender-focused
Sample
institutional Objective(s) Methods
size
analysis
Livelihood analysis • Understand the diverse ways women • Seasonal calendar 12
Sept, Oct 2017 in the CFPA make a living • Daily time-use analysis (annual
August 2018 • Understand the livelihood and main and off seasons)
financial issues they face • Short survey questionnaire
• Determine what the opportunities
and challenges are for improving
their situation
• Build capacity and skills for
enhancing domestic and work life
through the CFPA
Women’s • Understand and document • Key informant questions 6*
organization the benefits to women from • Group semi-structured interview
September 2018 participation in the organization,
and the challenges they face
Value chain analysis • Understand the differences between • Semi-structured and informal 8*
March 2019 women’s and men’s work and how individual interviews
this applies to Barbados fisheries • Visualization of the fisheries
• Determine fixes to remedy the value chain with card-sorting of
differences in fisheries occupations livelihoods and dot-voting for
that disadvantage men and women gender analysis and prioritization
* Subsets of the larger livelihood analysis sample.
1.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this section we compare the characteristics and operation of the CFPA against
Chapter 7 of the SSF Guidelines (paragraphs 7.4 to 7.1, in reverse order) to highlight
how the association’s collective action supports their implementation. In each
subsection, the good practices are highlighted as well.
1.3.1 Central fish processors association profile

Established in 2005, the CFPA is the only fisheries post-harvest association in
Barbados focused primarily on processing flyingfish, which typically comprises over
50 percent of total annual fish landings. Post-harvest processing is typically women’s
work, although men’s involvement has recently increased.3
The CFPA began with 20 members, mostly women, and has always had women
leaders. Today the association has 26 members – all women, as no men have expressed
sustained interest to join (Pena et al., 2018), despite membership being “open to any
fisherfolk residing in the area of operation without restriction to race, sex or religion”
(CFPA, 2005, p. 2).
Despite not being a formal organization4 (established under law), participation is
high, especially in times of crisis. Both institutionalized regular meetings and ad hoc
or “spot” meetings have proven partially successful at addressing problems and the
development of the CFPA, although more needs to be done.
The age range of small-scale women fish processors sampled in the CFPA is from
31 to 71 years, with an average of 53 years. Most CFPA members have at least one
immediate relative (mother, daughter, sister, cousin) in the organization. Membership
has been relatively long-term, with most women sampled having been involved with
the CFPA since its formation, now 14 years ago.5
These women have invested most, if not all of their working lives (from 25 to
40 years), in the fishing industry. Dependency on the fishing sector is high among
women in the CFPA, with substantial portions of their income – from half to all –
derived directly from fish processing, selling fish, sale of fish supplies (e.g. processing
equipment) and fishing during the flyingfish season (November to June). Even during
the off-season (July to October), most women earn most of their money from fish
sales. They sell flyingfish that have been frozen during the busy season as well as other
species of fish such as potfish (reef fish).
1.3.2 Support associations of fishers and fishworkers and promote their

capacity for enhanced income and livelihood security (paragraph 7.4):
Development of fisherfolk organizations in Barbados
External and internal factors nurture collective action and participation in formal and
informal fisherfolk organizations. One such external factor relevant to the formation
of the CFPA is what Alonso-Población and Siar (2018) characterize as support by state
institutions. Globally it is acknowledged that state institutions play a critical role in
promoting women’s participation in fisherfolk organizations. In the late 1990s, the
Barbados Fisheries Division (BFD) played a major role in supporting the activities of
these organizations.
Similar to the rest of the Caribbean, fisherfolk organizations were introduced to
Barbados in the 1960s and 1970s through cooperatives, the main aim of which was
to encourage financial empowerment, rather than social or political empowerment
(McConney, Atapattu and Leslie, 2000; McConney, 2001). Within a decade of their
introduction, however, these early organization were plagued by inactivity and failure,
for various reasons (McConney, 2007). During the 1980s and 1990s, a few of these
organizations still existed, but McConney, Atapattu and Leslie (2000, p. 299) note they
“…maintained low levels of activity and organization.”
3
Men are mainly engaged in deboning and filleting but not as much for flyingfish as compared with other
species (dolphinfish and amberfish), and not comparable in number to women (S. White, CFPA member,
personal communication, 2019).
4
An association is one type of organization that may or may not be formalized. Most informal organizations
have a written constitution (McConney, 2007).
5
The membership profile based on the results of a short survey administered during three small group
meetings with 12 CFPA members in between 2017 and 2018 (Table 1.1).
Following failed attempts at fisherfolk organizing, the government implemented

the two-year (1997–1999) externally funded Fisherfolk Organization Development
Project (FODP), the long-term objectives of which were to work closely with formal
and informal fisherfolk organizations to sustainably improve the livelihoods and
well-being of fisherfolk, and to establish fisherfolk organizations capable of active
participation in fishery management and development (Atapattu, 1997; McConney,
1999; McConney, 2001; McConney, Mahon and Oxenford, 2003; McConney et al.,
2017b). The main result was strengthening and developing new and existing primary
fisherfolk organizations and the formation of the Barbados National Union of
Fisherfolk Organisations (BARNUFO). Currently, seven fisherfolk organizations
exist under this national umbrella organization; the CFPA is one of the active
constituent organizations (Figure 1.4).
FIGURE 1.4
Constituent primary fisherfolk organizations of BARNUFO
Following the completion of the FODP, the Fisheries Division continued to

encourage fisherfolk to organize themselves to improve and secure their livelihoods
and to participate meaningfully in fisheries management and development within the
fishing industry (J. Leslie, Deputy Chief Fisheries Officer, personal communication,
2019). In the early 2000s, during a discussion on the experiences of small-scale
processors working in the processing hall at the Bridgetown Fisheries Complex (BFC),
the Deputy Chief Fisheries Officer encouraged the women to lobby for changes within
their work environment. Shortly after, the CFPA was formed.
The CFPA continues to receive additional support from the Fisheries Division
in terms of financial sponsorship of activities such as Fisherfolk Week (each June),
hosting of training workshops, and allowing the division’s training room to be used
for CFPA meetings, workshops, events, etc. when needed (the frequency and value of
which is not publicly reported). Continued support and guidance for the strengthening
and development of the CFPA (and other fisherfolk organizations) is crucial in order
to equip fisherfolk to better understand and adopt the SSF Guidelines throughout the
fisheries value chain.
1.3.3 Provision of appropriate infrastructure, organizational structures and

capacity development support to small-scale fisheries post-harvest
sector (paragraph 7.3): Public sector goods for private sector progress
Livelihood analysis is a useful tool to conduct gender analysis in fisheries (Weeratunge,
Synder, and Choo, 2010), as it describes the relationship between livelihood strategies
and livelihood capital (assets) within the sustainable livelihoods framework. For
women in the CFPA, physical capital is one of their major livelihood assets. For most
women in the association, market space and personal storage lockers – which they must
rent – are necessary for them to pursue their livelihoods. Hence they have benefited
from the use of a working area, the BFC processing hall, designated specifically for
them. Use of the hall has allowed them to process fish more efficiently and has been
indicated as one of the benefits of membership in the association.
Built in 1989, the BFC is the largest of three primary landing sites on the island,
catering to a range of users. The aim in its construction was to contribute to an increase
in fish production and to improve the standard of living of persons involved in the
fishing industry (McConney, 1999). The BFC processing hall (Figure 1.5) is situated
within the fish market, where small processors employ typically women to process
fish into fillets and steaks. CFPA members are either self-employed or work for these
small-scale processors.
The processing hall is a spacious facility built to meet international standards.
Having this dedicated space has allowed the CFPA processors to collectively benefit
from improved hygiene conditions. Furthermore, implementation and adherence
to food handling standards have led to improved profitability and marketability of
products, which has been noted by members as one of the main successes of the CFPA.
The space within the market at the BFC is in such high demand that the recent
opening of three new spaces within the processing hall on a “first come, first served”
basis, and to include vendors from outside the hall as well, created tension between
the CFPA and management, as CFPA members now had to compete for space with
outside vendors. The CFPA had to lobby and pressure management to ensure that the
processing hall remained theirs for their fish handling needs. Their organization within
the CFPA helped to resolve this issue.6
1.3.4 Enabling and enhancing women’s participation in the post-harvest

sector (paragraph 7.2): Driven to collective action to achieve change
Alonso-Población and Siar (2018) categorize drivers for fisherfolk organizing into two
types: reaction to specific phenomena and the result of efforts promoted by external
entities. The former – specifically labour conditions and economic drivers – were what
prompted the mobilization of women in the flyingfish post-harvest segment of the
value chain. Unable to voice their concerns about challenges small-scale processors
and vendors were experiencing with their work environment at the BFC, this group
of mainly women worked together to form the CFPA. Their issues and concerns
included storage conditions (infrequently available cold storage, inadequate ice storage
facilities), hygiene and overall cleanliness of the processing hall, lack of bathrooms and
toilet facilities, lack of a lunchroom, the need for a service room to store processing
equipment and office supplies, poor communication and lack of response to problems
on the part of management, and compromised infrastructure. Workers also felt they
were under threat of losing their working spaces due to unfair management practices.
Direct responsibility for operational activities at the BFC is that of the Markets
Division of the Government of Barbados. This division operates all government-
owned markets where agricultural7 produce is sold to the public, and is charged with
ensuring that all markets are run adequately. The managers of the Markets Division
and BFC are the primary decision makers on day-to-day operational and management
matters. The various BFC users, including small-scale processors, therefore address
their concerns to these managers unless a fisheries officer is encountered at the time of
need (McConney, 1999).
In its 30-year history, disagreements between users, and between users and BFC
management, have been the norm due to differing perspectives on appropriate
operational practices in the harbour and in processing and retail facilities. McConney
(1999, p. 7) noted that in the 1980s and 1990s, “BFC users rarely took it upon
6
Women’s organization research with CERMES GIFT, September 2018.
7
In the Caribbean, fisheries are included in agriculture.
themselves to approach management collectively or invite management to meetings

they convened.” The CFPA from its inception has taken a different path. The CFPA
has approached management collectively on several occasions from the very month of
formation (January 2005) to address their issues and concerns with the BFC facility,
and on other occasions has invited management to meet to discuss new operations
within the processing hall that have included business propositions.
The issues at the BFC that women in the CFPA were experiencing with their working
environment have been well documented in reports (e.g. European Commission, 2008;
FAC, 2007; McConney, Mahon and Oxenford, 2003) and in CFPA correspondence,
meeting agendas and notes. Working conditions in the processing hall were improved
as a result of the persistence of this group of women to ensure the provision of
satisfactory amenities and facilities for the pursuit of their livelihoods.
Indeed, CFPA members cite their collective action as one of the benefits of
membership. As they note, “We are stronger as an association to interface with
management” and are “…better equipped to take on or lobby management”.
Furthermore, “Management doesn’t have manners if you are not in a group.”8 The
CFPA is recognized as such a driving force at the BFC that any member can approach
management about issues without the president’s presence. This is not difficult to
believe, given the indication of McConney (1999, p. 5) that, “…to a large extent, small
processors control the operations in the processing hall and the Markets Division
[and BFC] merely facilitate.” Therefore, in order to mainstream gender equality and
equity, the CFPA should continue to use this collective power to improve and broaden
the participation not only of its members in the post-harvest sector of the flyingfish
fishery but also that of other women throughout the entire fisheries value chain in the
Barbados fishing industry.
FIGURE 1.5
CFPA members at work in the processing hall at the BFC
©FAO/M. PENA
8
Women’s organization research with CERMES GIFT, September 2018.
1.3.5 Post-harvest actors are part of the decision-making process

(paragraph 7.1): Power, perspectives and networks
Since its inception, the elected head of the CFPA has been strategically positioned to
ensure that women in the post-harvest sector of the flyingfish fishery, and fisherfolk
throughout the entire Barbados fisheries value chain, are involved in the decision-
making process. The CFPA head holds two additional influential positions within
the fisheries sector both nationally and regionally. She has been president of the
national fisherfolk organization, BARNUFO, since 2009, and was recently elected
Chairperson to the Executive of the Caribbean Network of Fisherfolk Organisations
(CNFO) in 2016. The CNFO is a network of formal and informal national fisherfolk
organizations within the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM9)
and the Caribbean Regional Fishery Mechanism (CRFM10). Through its engagement
in regional fisheries initiatives and projects, the CNFO is in a key position to influence
regional fisheries policy (GIFT, 2017).
The CFPA head’s position as president of the local and national organizations
facilitates a close relationship between the two and with the CNFO. These positions
have enabled her to represent these organizations at local, regional and international
meetings to contribute to decision-making on local and Caribbean fisheries. The
content of these meetings is shared with members of the CFPA and BARNUFO
during designated events, primarily formal and informal or ad hoc meetings with
organization members, which serve to keep fisherfolk engaged and informed on new
directions for fisheries. Occasionally, some CFPA members have also benefited from
participation in similar conferences via nomination, either by the president or by vote
through the membership.
The women in the CFPA possess impressively high fisheries-related skills,11 which
is partly attributable to their exposure to diverse training in inter alia Hazard Analysis
and Critical Control Points (HACCP), advanced computer training, record keeping,
first aid, navigation, safety at sea, and small business and financial management. These
skills have enabled them to enhance their livelihoods. The CFPA head has made an
effort to provide members of the CFPA (and fisherfolk nationally) with the majority
of opportunities for capacity development via continued annual training series hosted
by BARNUFO, usually during the flyingfish off-season. CFPA members are typically
eager to participate in these free training opportunities.
The president’s over 35-year involvement in the fisheries industry provides her
with keen insight into the needs of fisherfolk, from which women in the CFPA have
benefited. She previously approached UWI-CERMES for her research needs on women
and fisherfolk organizations in the Barbados fishing industry (McConney, Nicholls
and Simmons, 2013) and for assistance in evaluating the CFPA to inform its refocusing.
Additionally, through her collaboration with institutions such as UWI, she has sought
opportunities for participation in numerous workshops, for example on strengthening
fisherfolk participation in governance and on developing leadership skills.
The women of the CFPA are articulate, vocal and clearly dedicated to the success of
the organization. They believe strongly in the value of the CFPA in the post-harvest
sector. Some identify themselves as leaders or initiators in the CFPA and are eager to
take on leadership roles to assist the president in further strengthening the association in
order to improve its governance and overall functioning,12 and in turn its contribution
to policy- and decision-making in fisheries. Such contributions have included formal
and informal engagement over time with government on many matters.
9
CARICOM is a geopolitical body comprising 20 small island developing States (www.caricom.org).
10
CRFM, an intergovernmental organization, is the regional fisheries advisory body for CARICOM
(www.crfm.int).
11
Livelihood analysis with the CFPA by CERMES GIFT: September/October 2017 and August 2018.
12
Women’s organization research with CERMES GIFT: September 2018.
In addition to these individual and group assets within the CFPA, the organization’s
membership in BARNUFO provides another avenue for its participation in decision-
making in the fisheries industry. BARNUFO sits on the Barbados Fisheries Advisory
Committee (FAC), therefore providing all fisherfolk with a pathway to contribute to
national fisheries policy. The FAC is a formal, national co-management arrangement via
a multistakeholder body – of which the fishing industry holds five of nine positions –
set up to advise the minister responsible for fisheries management, conservation and
development (McConney, Mahon and Oxenford, 2003). The fishing industry can
therefore be privy to FAC decisions (not easily accessible from government) via
BARNUFO. Thus the CFPA is well positioned to be part of the decision-making
process within the post-harvest sector (and fishing industry in general) due to its
individual and group power, perspectives and networks.
1.3.6 CFPA good practices built on SSF Guidelines principles

There is increasing evidence of the “women’s way” in the CFPA being respected by men
involved in the harvest and post-harvest activities at Bridgetown as well as by those in
management. This is linked closely to gender equality and equity in that there have been
relatively few instances of the CFPA being discriminated against purely on the basis of
gender. While gender equality and equity are still issues given the relative absence of
women among the larger processors and in the harvest sector (apart from some boat
owners), the female fish vendors both in the CFPA and outside of it are able to compete
well with the male fish vendors. Women in the CFPA say men in the fishing industry
naturally respect them because of who they are as individuals, irrespective of CFPA
membership. As one small-scale processor said during group interviews held by GIFT
on women’s organization, “Men respect women because they know we work hard.” Still,
more detailed gender analysis is required to investigate this perception of gender equality.
Consultation and participation are evident, promoted to varying extents by both
state and non-state actors. Internally however, biases towards certain members and
the inclination to form cliques are beginning to discourage participation in CFPA
activities, both formal and informal. Similarly, transparency and accountability are
variable: some practices are good, but others require improvement. Infrequent top-
down communication has led to an overall perception among some members of a lack
of transparency. These challenges need to be addressed to improve the functioning of
the CFPA. Solutions can be simple, practical and come from within the organization.
An internal understanding among CFPA members of these issues and their resolution
is itself a good practice for strengthening CFPA governance.
Social responsibility is more prominent within the CFPA than in the state apparatus.
For the state, social protection is largely confined to the national insurance scheme. This
is not sufficient, and does not adequately respond to the seasonal, unpredictable nature
of work in the industry. The CFPA encourages and assists its members to contribute to
the national insurance scheme, but it also goes further, recognizing that the livelihoods
of vendors are quite complex. Members are provided with various financial instruments
for saving or investing money, such as a credit union, savings accounts and “meeting
turns”.13 The CFPA’s commitment to social responsibility is evident in the enduring
decent working conditions it has helped establish for its members.
1.4 CONCLUSIONS
The CFPA, a fisherfolk organization in the post-harvest value chain of the flyingfish
fishery in Barbados comprised entirely of women, illustrates both existing and
13
Savings arrangement where a group of people each pool an equal amount of money for a period of time,
after which one person in the group receives all the money. The process is repeated until everyone gets
their turn and receives the full lump sum at least once.
emerging good practices consistent with the principles of the SSF Guidelines. Not
everything is perfect, but the case study found evidence of respect of cultures, gender
equality and equity, consultation and participation, transparency and accountability,
and social responsibility, as summarized in Table 1.2.
The case of the CFPA should provide valuable lessons for fisheries post-harvest
organizations, regionally and globally. The collective action within the CFPA can
be utilized as a driving force to facilitate and support the implementation of the SSF
Guidelines. The association has already earned respect and recognition from a variety
of players within the fisheries sector due in part to its cohesion when dealing with
issues affecting its operation in the post-harvest sector and resulting action. This
group of women therefore has the potential to champion the implementation of the
SSF Guidelines and their principles – similar principles that guide their functioning –
among their colleagues in the post-harvest sector and indeed throughout the fisheries
value chain. Additionally, the CFPA has developed strong partnerships with the
Barbados Fisheries Division, the government authority responsible for management
and development of Barbados fisheries, as well as the University of the West Indies,
Cave Hill Campus, both of which are built on the principles of the SSF Guidelines and
on common interests.
Through these partnerships, capacity development of the CFPA has been a strong
focus and can be further addressed to promote the equitable participation of women
TABLE 1.2
Summary of good practices for SSF Guidelines implementation
SSF Guidelines section Existing and emerging good practices
Support associations of fishers • The collective action exhibited by the CFPA was fostered by the BFD.
and fishworkers and promote
• The BFD has been instrumental to developing and strengthening
their capacity for enhanced
income and livelihood security fisherfolk organizations, in part through the FODP.
(paragraph 7.4) • The BFD provides support (in-kind and financial) to the CFPA.
Provision of appropriate • CFPA members benefit from having access to a dedicated working space
infrastructure, organizational – the BFC processing hall – since 2005.
structures and capacity
development support to small- • CFPA members maintain control of the processing hall through collective
scale fisheries post-harvest action.
sector (paragraph 7.3) • Recommendations for improvements to BFC infrastructure were
advanced by the CFPA.
• Small-scale women processors collectively benefit from improved hygiene
and implementation of food handling standards.
• The improved profitability and marketability of small-scale processors
can be attributed to CFPA membership.
Enabling and enhancing • Issues with working conditions drove women in the post-harvest sector
women’s participation in of the flyingfish fishery to organize for improved livelihoods.
the post-harvest sector
(paragraph 7.2) • Issues causing discord are well documented, and their management is
transparent.
• The CFPA proactively engaged the Markets Division from its inception
as a means of resolving issues and concerns, reflecting bottom-up
participation.
• The CFPA intends to use its collective power to improve and broaden
women’s participation in the fishing industry, thus mainstreaming gender
equality and equity.
Post-harvest actors are part of • The CFPA, through BARNUFO’s membership on the national FAC, has a
the decision-making process channel to influence fisheries policy.
(paragraph 7.1)
• The CFPA, via BARNUFO, sits on the FAC alongside processing companies
and harvest sector representatives.
• FAC decisions, while not very easily accessible from government, are
potentially available to the fishing industry via BARNUFO.
• The CFPA has been openly consulted by the Fisheries and Markets
Divisions on many matters both formally and informally; their input is
reflected in follow-up actions taken.
• The link between current CFPA and CNFO leadership should ensure that
women (and fisherfolk) can influence regional policy.
and men in the adoption and implementation of the SSF Guidelines in the Barbados
fishing industry (FAO, 2015b). With the recent change in political administration,
the Government of Barbados is looking beyond its traditional industries (sugar and
tourism) to the sea to develop its economy. The newly formed Ministry of Maritime
Affairs and the Blue Economy has engaged with fisherfolk to revitalize the fishing
industry. Since assuming office, the Minister has already met with the president
of BARNUFO, who also heads the CFPA, to discuss this revitalization effort.
The president, and by extension the CFPA, has the opportunity to promote the
implementation of the SSF Guidelines in the development of Barbados’ Blue Economy
and its improved fishing industry.
McConney (2007) emphasizes that in order for organizations to form, function and
have a long lifespan, the incentives for collective action must work at the levels of both
the individual and the group. Collective action cannot be sustained if group incentives
are inadequate and each person tries to benefit without contributing or contributing as
little as possible (free-ride) . The CFPA has lasted longer than other primary fisherfolk
organizations, which is a testimony to the benefits of collective action in fisheries
management and development, one that warrants documentation for improvement
and replication. Understanding the challenges of, and lessons learned in, the collective
action of these working women in the post-harvest sector is important to informing
and improving this good practice.
Regarding next steps, while gender concerns not only women, the CFPA aims to
collaborate closely with GIFT in the further practical empowerment of women in the
post-harvest sector and the mainstreaming of gender in national and regional fisheries
policy. For the women of the CFPA this includes much more detailed gender and
livelihood analyses that can inform appropriate interventions for socio-economic
improvements both in the workplace and in the household.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the ladies of the Central Fish Processors Association
(CFPA) for their strong engagement in this research. Our work with them over the past
few years has revealed dedication and commitment to the Barbados fishing industry
and our efforts to mainstream gender that is second to none. Thank you to Vernel,
Sylvia, Sheena, Margaret (Diane), Lisa, Marion, Delores, Angie, Judy, Kathy Ann, Pat,
Velma, Monica, Kerry Ann and Melissa for sharing your experiences, challenges and
visions with us. The Gender in Fisheries Team (GIFT) looks forward to our continued
work with the CFPA towards building a greater understanding of women’s issues in
fisheries and assisting in the development of practical solutions for improving women’s
fisheries occupation and domestic lives.
REFERENCES
Alonso-Población, E. & Siar, S.V. 2018. Women’s participation and leadership in fisherfolk
organizations and collective action in fisheries: a review of evidence on enablers, drivers
and barriers. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1159. Rome, FAO. 48 pp.
Atapattu, A. 1997. Six-monthly progress report (May to November, 1997). Unpublished
report of the Fisherfolk Organizations Development Project to the Commonwealth Fund
for Technical Cooperation. Barbados, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Barbados Fisheries Division. 2004. Barbados Fisheries Management Plan 2004–2006.
Schemes for the management of fisheries in the waters of Barbados. Division Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development. 67 pp.
CFPA. 2005. Constitution of the Central Fish Processors Association. 13 pp.
CoopeSolidar, CNFO & CERMES. 2018. Caribbean women small-scale fisheries learning
exchange with Costa Rica. CERMES Technical Report No. 89. University of the West
Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Bridgetown, CERMES. 21 pp.
CRFM. 2014. Sub-regional fisheries management plan for flyingfish in the Eastern
Caribbean. CRFM Special Publication No. 2. 42 pp.
European Commission. 2008. Final report of a mission carried out in Barbados from
17 November to 21 November 2008 in order to evaluate the control systems in place
governing the production of fishery products intended for export to the European Union.
DG(SANCO)/2008-7654-MR-FINAL. 13 pp.
FAC. 2007. Report of the subcommittee of the FAC: Set up to identify the challenges facing
the Bridgetown Public Market. FAC Advisory note to the Minister. Ad1, Jan 2007. 7 pp.
FAO. 2015a. Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the
Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. Rome. 18 pp.
FAO. 2015b. Towards the implementation of the SSF Guidelines. Proceedings of the
Workshop on the Development of a Global Assistance Programme in Support of the
Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale
Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication, 8–11 December 2014,
Rome, Italy. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 40. Rome. 84 pp.
FAO. 2016. Strengthening organizations and collective action in fisheries: towards the
formulation of a capacity development programme. Workshop report and case studies,
4–6 November 2014, Barbados. S.V. Siar and D.C. Kalikoski, eds. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Proceedings No. 41. Rome.
FAO. 2017. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [online]. Rome.
[Cited 14 June 2019]. (available www.fao.org/ fishery/facp/BRB/en).
Frangoudes, K. 2013. Women in fisheries: A European perspective. Note. Directorate-
General for Internal Policies. Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies.
Fisheries. European Union. 44 pp.
Frangoudes, K., Pascual-Fernández, J.J. & Marugán-Pintos, B. 2014. Women’s
organisations in fisheries and aquaculture in Europe: history and future prospects. In
J. Urquhart, T. Acott, D. Symes & M. Zhao, eds. Social Issues in Sustainable Fisheries
Management, pp. 215–231. MARE Publication Series (Vol. 9). Dordrecht, Netherlands,
Springer. (available https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7911-2_12).
GIFT. 2017. Gender Scoping Preliminary Report: Caribbean Fisheries in the Context of the
Small-scale Fisheries Guidelines. CERMES Technical Report No. 86. University of the
West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Bridgetown, CERMES. 64 pp.
Jentoft, S. & Chuenpagdee, R. 2009. Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem.
Marine Policy, 33(4): 553–560. (available https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.12.002).
Mahon, R., Parker, C., Sinckler, T., Willoughby, S. & Johnson, J. 2007. The value of
Barbados’ fisheries: a preliminary assessment. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean
Fisheries Institute, 58: 89–92.
McConney, P. 1999. Participation by user groups in the management of the Bridgetown
Fisheries Complex, Barbados. Barbados, Fisheries Division. 19 pp.
McConney, P. 2001. Organising fisherfolk in Barbados without completing a clean round.
Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 52: 290–299.
McConney, P. 2007. Fisher folk organisations in the Caribbean: briefing note on networking
for success. CRFM Technical & Advisory Document, No. 2007/2. CRFM. 27 pp.
McConney, P., Atapattu, A. & Leslie, D. 2000. Organizing fisherfolk in Barbados.
McConney, P., Mahon, R. & Oxenford, H. 2003. Barbados case study: the Fisheries
Advisory Committee. Caribbean Coastal Co-management Guidelines Project. Barbados,
Caribbean Conservation Association. 77 pp.
McConney, P., Nicholls, V. & Simmons, B. 2013. Women in a fish market in Barbados.
McConney, P., Phillips, T., Nembhard, N. & Lay, M. 2017a. Caribbean fisherfolk engage
the small-scale fisheries guidelines. In S. Jentoft, R. Chuenpagdee, M. Barragán-Paladines
& N. Franz, eds. The small-scale fisheries guidelines: global implementation, pp. 451–472.
MARE Publication Series 14. Springer.
McConney, P., Simmons, B., Nicholls, V. & Medeiros, R. P. 2017b. Building the Barbados
National Union of Fisherfolk Organisations. Maritime Studies, 16: 19. (available https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40152-017-0073-5).
Oxenford, H.A., Johnson, D., Cox, S.A. & Franks, J. 2019. Report on the Relationships
between Sargassum Events, Oceanic Variables and Dolphinfish and Flyingfish Fisheries.
University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Bridgetown, CERMES. 32 pp.
Pena, M., Alleyne, K., Compton, S., Cox, S., Cumberbatch, J., McConney, P., Perch,
L., Selliah, N. & Simmons, B. 2019. Women in Fisheries 2019 Forum: Summary report.
Pena, M., McConney, P., Joseph, D., Nicholls, N., Perch, L. & Selliah, N. 2018. Developing
practical solutions to issues faced by working women in the all-female Central Fish
Processors Association (CFPA) in Barbados. Short communication. Proceedings of the
Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 70.
Ramlogan, N.R., McConney, P. & Oxenford, H.A. 2017. Socio-economic impacts
of Sargassum influx events on the fishery sector of Barbados. Centre for Resource
Management and Environmental Studies, The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill
Campus, Barbados. CERMES Technical Report No. 81: 86pp.
Sobers, R. 2010. Bioeconomic analysis of the flyingfish fishery in Barbados. Final project.
Reykjavik, United Nations University Fisheries Training Programme. 42 pp.
Weeratunge, N., Synder, K.A., & Choo, P.S. 2010. Gleaner, fisher, trader, processor:
Understanding gendered employment in fisheries and aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries,
11(4): 405-420.
Willoughby, S. 2007. The flyingfish fishery of Barbados. In H.A. Oxenford, R. Mahon
and W. Hunte, eds. Biology and Management of Eastern Caribbean Flyingfish, pp. 3–8.
39
2. The Kodiak Jig Initiative:

Ensuring viability of the small-boat
jig fleet through market and policy
solutions
Theresa Peterson
Fisheries Policy Director, Alaska Marine Conservation Council
Rachel Donkersloot
Coastal Cultures Research
ABSTRACT
The social, cultural and economic sustainability of fishing towns and villages in Alaska
are dependent on the success of their fisheries. This case study presents the Kodiak
Jig Initiative as an example of a highly collaborative fishermen-led effort to create and
maintain small-scale fishing opportunities in the Gulf of Alaska. It discusses specific
policy and market-based challenges and solutions to ensuring the viability of the
small-boat Kodiak jig fleet. The case study describes marketing initiatives, mechanisms
and partnerships resulting in the establishment of niche markets and the Kodiak Jig
Seafoods brand. These efforts have resulted in significant increases in the dockside
value of Pacific cod and rockfish for the small-boat fleet. Also discussed are important
policy provisions advanced by jig fishermen and partners to successfully secure quota
set-asides that have served as an important foundation for the marketing initiatives
presented herein. These set-asides provide affordable entry-level opportunities for new
and young fishermen as well as those seeking more diversified access. Combined, these
policy- and market-based efforts have helped to ensure viable access and livelihood
opportunities for Kodiak’s small-boat jig fleet. The successes and challenges of the
Kodiak Jig Initiative serve as examples that can assist other fishing communities and
fleets in developing approaches that fit their specific needs.
Keywords: Small-boat jig fishing, Alaska, direct marketing, value chain policies, entry
level opportunity, set aside, diversified access.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Alaska is the site of world-renowned fisheries that contribute to the social, cultural
and economic sustainability of the region. More than 6 billion pounds (2.7 million
metric kg) of seafood was pulled from Alaskan waters in 2015, the largest harvest ever
recorded (ASMI, 2017). The commercial fishing fleet is made up of roughly 9 000
vessels, the bulk of which are under 58 feet (17.7 metres) in length. Nearly two-thirds
of these vessels (roughly 5 700) are under 32 feet (9.6 metres) in length (ASMI, 2017).
In supplying wild seafood to local and global markets, these vessels also serve as
stewards of small business and local resources, providing vital economic opportunities
and fostering intergenerational connection to place, culture and identity. At the same
time, Alaskan fisheries and fishing communities are impacted greatly by climate change
and climate variability, global seafood markets, fisheries policy and regulatory changes.
Disconcerting shifts in recent decades, such as fleet consolidation, increased entry costs,
aging trends (commonly referred to as the “greying of the fleet”) and loss of fishing
rights, have reduced opportunities and diminished rural and local fishing livelihoods
in coastal Alaska (Donkersloot and Carothers, 2016; Ringer et al., 2018; Kamali, 1984;
Beaudreau et al., 2019). Fishery management systems that restrict and privatize access
have been identified as a major driver of these trends (Carothers, 2010; Carothers and
Chambers, 2012; Pinkerton and Davis, 2016; Davis and Ruddle, 2012).
Alaskan fishery policymakers have developed a number of programmes and
provisions to address declining access and support small-scale fishing opportunities in
the North Pacific (Cullenberg et al., 2017). Some of these have been more successful
than others in providing for community-based fishery access and benefits (Apgar-
Kurtz, 2015; Carothers, 2011). One of these is the Kodiak Jig Initiative, a highly
collaborative effort to create and maintain small-scale fishing opportunities in the Gulf
of Alaska. This case study highlights effective partnerships and synergistic policy and
market-based initiatives that have been fundamental to ensuring the viability of the
small-boat Kodiak jig fleet.
The experience of the Kodiak Jig Initiative illustrates multiple provisions from
Chapter 7 of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries
in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines), including
ensuring post-harvest actors are part of relevant decision-making process (paragraph 7.1);
supporting efforts to enable investments in appropriate infrastructure, organizational
structures and capacity development to support the small-scale fisheries post-harvest
subsector in producing quality seafood (paragraph 7.3); and supporting fishermen’
associations to promote their capacity to enhance their income and livelihood security
and marketing mechanisms (paragraph 7.4).
2.1.1 Kodiak Archipelago fisheries and communities

Located in the Central Gulf of Alaska, the Kodiak Archipelago is made up of Kodiak
Island and several surrounding islands (Figure 2.1). The city of Kodiak is located on
the North Eastern edge of Kodiak Island. With a population of just over 6 000, it is the
region’s largest community.1 Kodiak is home to one of the most diverse commercial
fishing ports in the state and the United States of America in general, representing
several species – including salmon, halibut, sablefish, crab, cod and pollock – and many
gear types (trawl, setnet, seine, pot, longline, jig, etc.).
In 2015, Kodiak ranked third among American commercial fishing ports in terms of
monetary value of seafood landed (USD 137.5 million) and second in terms of volume
landed (513.9 million pounds, or 233 million kg) (NMFS, 2017). Roughly one-third of
all jobs in Kodiak are directly connected to fishing (Kodiak Chamber of Commerce,
2014). Local fishing infrastructure for Kodiak City includes seven shore-based seafood
processors that operate year-round and two boat harbours. More than 700 vessels
are homeported in Kodiak, but the port is largely scaled towards industrial fishing
operations and a trawl fleet that emerged in the mid-1970s following the creation of
the American 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and subsequent phasing out
of foreign fishing off the coast. For example, roughly 488 million pounds (221 million
kg) of seafood was delivered to Kodiak processors in 2014. Of this, over 300 million
pounds (136 million kg) was harvested by 40 trawl vessels (McDowell Group, 2016).
Fishery infrastructure that can benefit Kodiak’s small-scale fleet, including the addition
of a small crane and ice machine, have been identified as key community development
targets by local fishermen and city officials.
1
The Kodiak Island Borough encompasses all communities within the Archipelago and has an estimated
population of 13 732 (US Census Bureau, 2017).
2. The Kodiak Jig Initiative: Ensuring viability of the small-boat jig fleet through market and policy solutions 41
FIGURE 2.1
Map of Kodiak Archipelago

February 2020.
Kodiak Island Borough GIS
http://www.kodiakak.us/gis
Source: Kodiak Island Borough.
Kodiak Archipelago communities include six rural Alutiiq fishing villages that
are not connected by road. These communities have persisted for more than 7 500
years (Knecht and Jordan, 1985) despite disruptive waves of Russian and American
colonization (Pullar, 2009). Recent research demonstrates the devastating impacts
of privatizing fisheries access on these small Alaska Native villages (Coleman et al.,
2018; Carothers, 2010). Ringer et al. (2018) note an 84 percent decline in the number
of young salmon fishermen (under 40 years of age) in the rural fishing villages of the
Kodiak Archipelago compared to historic levels.2
The city of Kodiak has also experienced notable declines in fishery access and
participation in recent decades. The impacts of the rationalization of Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands crab fisheries and the introduction of individual fishing quotas in the
halibut and sablefish fisheries have been identified as having particularly detrimental
impacts on Kodiak (Knapp, 2006; Carothers, 2010). Increasing barriers to entry and
2
This study uses the conventional term “fisherman” to refer to a commercial fish harvester of any gender.
Both men and women participate in Alaska fisheries as harvesters but there is strong preference for the
term fisherman, over fisher or fisherwoman.
privatized access has been described as an “intrinsic” quality of these programmes

(NPFMC, 2017, cited in Ringer et al., 2018). Fishery managers, legislators and
community members and leaders increasingly identify local loss of fishery access
rights as a pressing issue for the state at large (State of Alaska, 2012). These trends and
concerns provide an important frame of reference for understanding the importance
of the Kodiak Jig Initiative in securing small-scale, diversified and entry-level fishing
opportunities in the Gulf of Alaska.
2.2 METHODS
This case study details the successes and challenges of a multiyear seafood marketing
initiative undertaken by Kodiak jig fishermen and partners, including staff from the
Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC). AMCC is an Alaska-based non-profit
whose mission is to protect the integrity of Alaska’s marine ecosystems and promote
healthy, ocean-dependent coastal communities. The authors of this study are current
and former AMCC staff who were engaged in developing and supporting market-
based strategies and policy advocacy work discussed in this study.
The case study follows the general timeline of key events and project activities,
beginning with vital policy successes at the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (NPFMC). This policy work helped to secure access to local fisheries for the
small-boat jig fleet and laid the foundation for seafood marketing initiatives aiming to
increase the value paid to fishermen for their catch, and ensure continued fishery access
and benefits for fishing communities. All fishery data included in this study comes from
data requests to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), unless otherwise noted. The authors also
reviewed relevant fishery policy documents and reports pertaining to the creation of
small-scale fishery access provisions. Discussion of market-based strategies, including
development of niche markets, seafood branding efforts, and working with seafood
processors is informed in part by eight semi-structured interviews with jig fishermen,
seafood processors and other project partners (e.g. staff from Alaska Sea Grant, Sitka
Salmon Shares, etc.).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 The Kodiak Jig Initiative: securing small-scale access and achieving
policy success
The jig fishery operates in the Central Gulf of Alaska around Kodiak Island. The fleet
targets primarily Pacific cod, black rockfish and dusky rockfish.3 Black rockfish is
harvested using jig gear only. Other groundfish (including pollock, sablefish, shallow
and deepwater flatfish, rex sole, flathead sole, arrowtooth flounder and Pacific ocean
perch, among others) are targeted commercially in the Central Gulf of Alaska using
other gear types, including trawl, longline and pot.4
The jig fleet is primarily community-based, with the bulk of the fleet living in
Kodiak. Jigging is a hand-tended hook-and-line method that involves weighted vertical
lines suspended by rail-mounted bottom reels or computerized jigging machines
(Figure 2.2). J-hooks or circle hooks are baited with squid, herring and Atka mackerel
or dressed with colourful rubber tubing. Jig vessels use between two and five machines
with a maximum of 30 hooks set per machine (Figure 2.3).5
3
The jig sector also harvests dark rockfish, yellowtail rockfish and others as incidental catch.
4
Additional target species for the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fishery include: shortraker/rougheye
rockfish, northern rockfish, “other slope” rockfish, pelagic shelf rockfish, demersal shelf rockfish,
thornyhead rockfish, Atka mackerel, squid, sculpin, shark, octopus and skate.
5
The maximum number of machines that can be used per vessel is five, with limited exceptions in federal
fisheries.
FIGURE 2.2
Kodiak jig fisherman with baited circle hooks and jig machine in background
©FAO/D. KASPRZAK

FIGURE 2.3
F/V Marona, a 46-foot community-based jig vessel owned and operated by Darius Kasprzak
©FAO/T. PETERSON
Jigging is carried out in both state (0–3 nautical miles from shore) and federal waters
(3–200 nautical miles from shore). The NPFMC develops regulations for federally-
managed fisheries while the Alaska Board of Fisheries develops regulations for state-
managed fisheries.6 Management of cod and rockfish in state and federal waters is
complex and involves multiple entities and management plans, but overall the harvest
amount for each gear sector is apportioned and distributed annually based on catch
limits set for each groundfish stock.
In the late 2000s, the NPFMC began considering potential management changes
to rockfish and cod in the Gulf of Alaska. The impending change kick-started a
multiyear strategy led in partnership by Kodiak-based jig fishermen, the Alaska Jig
Association (AJA) and AMCC. Between 2009 and 2012, fishermen and community
advocates maintained a strong presence at NPFMC meetings and lobbied the NPFMC
to ensure that any new management structure under consideration included clear
entry-level opportunities and small-scale fishery access. The team regularly submitted
written comments and verbal testimony at NPFMC meetings. They also requested
several meetings with NPFMC members, staff and decision makers outside of formal
NPFMC meetings, including meetings with key representatives from the State of
Alaska. (The State of Alaska holds a voting seat on the NPFMC). The NPFMC meets
five times per year in various locations in Alaska and in Washington and Oregon in the
Pacific Northwest. Travel to and participation in these meetings is expensive and time
consuming. For rural fishermen in particular, it requires airfare, lodging and time away
from work. At critical decision points throughout the NPFMC process, AMCC and
AJA helped to ensure representation of the small-boat jig fleet by providing financial
support to local jig fishermen to cover travel and meeting participation costs.
Jig sector set-asides: Pacific cod and rockfish in the Gulf of Alaska
Direct engagement in the NPFMC process paid off in 2012 with passage of new fishery
management plans that included set-asides of Pacific cod and rockfish for the jig fleet.
Amendment 83 of the Gulf of Alaska Fishery Management Plan authorized gear
sector allocations that effectively limit the amount of Pacific cod that each sector is
allowed to harvest. Allocations were based on historical participation by larger-scale
operations fishing in the winter. The jig sector held little catch history (less than
1 percent) and would have received little quota under an allocation process based solely
on recorded catch history.
Under the new plan, the jig sector receives an initial allocation of 1 percent of the
total allowable catch (TAC), which comes off the top (i.e. prior to allocating to other
gear groups). If the jig fleet catches 90 percent or more of the 1 percent set-aside, the
sector receives an additional 1 percent of the TAC for the following year. If the jig
sector does not harvest 90 percent of the allocation for two consecutive years, the
quota allocation to the jig sector drops by 1 percent and the quota is harvested by
other gear groups. Under this “stairstep” provision, the jig fleet’s allocation cannot
fall below the initial 1 percent allocation. The total allocation to the jig sector is
capped at 6 percent of the TAC. This is significant: it represents an unprecedented
allocation in the North Pacific, as it provides the jig sector the opportunity to harvest
a portion of the overall catch far greater than the fleet’s recorded catch history.
In addition to the Pacific cod jig sector set-aside, the new management plan severely
limits the number of licenses in the trawl and fixed-gear fleets for harvesting cod.7 Jig
vessels are exempt from the requirement of holding a limited license to participate
in the fishery. The jig exemption was created in response to stakeholder input, and
6
The NPFMC is one of eight regional councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act in 1976 to manage fisheries in the 200-mile EEZ.
7
See Amendment 86 at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/03/22/2011-6723/fisheries-of-
the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-gulf-of-alaska-license-limitation-program.
ensures the jig fishery remains entry-level and affordable. In an industry marked by
rising barriers to entry, new participants and young fishermen can gain access to the jig
fishery by purchasing a USD 75 license. There are additional provisions for harvesting
Pacific cod in state waters, including gear restrictions that limit the cod harvest in state
waters to jig and pot cod sectors.8 These restrictions represent a clear policy choice
by the State of Alaska to limit nearshore harvesting to gear types associated with low
bycatch and habitat impacts.9
Rockfish set-asides
The rockfish set-aside for the jig sector is part of a larger management shift toward
privatizing the fishery. The Rockfish Program allocates exclusive harvesting privileges
to trawler and catcher-processor vessels for all primary and secondary rockfish
species.10 The programme includes an annual set-aside of the TAC for the entry-level
longline fishery, which includes jig gear. Similar to the cod quota set-aside, the rockfish
quota set-aside increases annually to a predetermined cap by species. For example, if
the jig fleet harvests 90 percent of its allocation of a species in the previous year, the
set-aside allocation increases by a fixed amount for each species.11 Table 2.1 shows the
2012 initial allocations for each rockfish primary species, the incremental increase for
future seasons, and the cap for the entry-level longline fishery.
TABLE 2.1
Entry level longline fishery allocation
Incremental Increase
Rockfish Primary
Initial Allocation per Season if ≥ 90% of Up to Maximum % of TAC
Species
Allocation is
Pacific ocean perch 5 metric tonnes 5 metric tonnes 1%
Northern rockfish 5 metric tonnes 5 metric tonnes 2%
Pelagic shelf rockfish 30 metric tonnes 5 metric tonnes 5%
Source: NOAA Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program Informational Guide 2015.
In state waters, the harvest of black rockfish is limited to jig gear. This measure was
implemented to minimize depletion of the stock, which are a long-living species subject
to overfishing. The black rockfish fishery in state waters also has a permit holder
(owner) onboard provision and a cap on the amount that can be harvested in any five-
day period.12 These restrictions further mitigate impacts on the stock by intentionally
spreading out the harvest time period, a provision which also favours small-scale,
community-based fishermen.
Summary of set-asides: policy success, practical challenges

The inclusion of quota set-asides for the jig sector in new management plans for
Pacific cod and rockfish in the Gulf of Alaska was the result of sustained and
direct engagement in the decision-making process by jig fishermen themselves.
This engagement was supported by a key partnership with AMCC which provided
8
The guideline harvest level (GHL) for Pacific cod in state waters in the Kodiak Area is 12.5 percent of
the estimated total allowable harvest of Pacific cod for the federal Central Gulf of Alaska Area. This is
split between the jig and pot cod sectors.
9
See page 49 at www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/fishregulations/pdfs/commercial/2019_2020_cf_
groundfish_regs.pdf.
10
Primary species consist of northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch and pelagic shelf rockfish (changed to
dusky rockfish in 2012). Secondary species consist of Pacific cod, rougheye rockfish, shortraker rockfish,
sablefish and thornyhead rockfish.
11
https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/rockfish-faq.pdf and
https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/central-goa-rockfish-program.
12
Fishermen may not have on board or sell more than 5 000 pounds (round weight) of black rockfish
within a five-day period.
necessary funding, capacity and expertise to ensure local stakeholder participation in

the decision-making process. Equally important was support from the State of Alaska,
which was instrumental in advancing the provisions to provide for small-scale fisheries
access throughout the decision-making process.
Jigging does not require a high capital investment and is thus a good opportunity for
young and community-based fishermen to earn income for entry into other fisheries
(thereby diversifying their portfolios). In 2012, there were 145 jig vessels participating
in the state waters cod fishery (Table 2.2), up from 81 vessels in 2010. In some cases,
the set-asides are working as envisioned. They are providing new and young fishermen
with a low-cost opportunity that facilitates entry into other fisheries, primarily salmon.
But the jig fishery is not without its challenges. By the time the set-asides were put in
place in 2012, low dock prices for Pacific cod and rockfish species were clear hurdles
for small-scale fishermen unable to mitigate low prices with higher volumes. In short,
the set-asides provided access, ensuring opportunities for current and future small-
boat fishermen, but the market made the opportunities marginal. The ex-vessel price
was insufficient in providing a viable income for fishermen harvesting small volumes.
Between 2011 and 2018, the average price per pound for black rockfish was USD 0.45.
For Pacific cod and dusky rockfish, the average price for these years was USD 0.37 and
USD 0.30, respectively.
Participation in the jig fishery varies widely from year to year (Table 2.2). This
variability is tied to both price per pound and nearshore availability of stocks. To
address market challenges, jig fishermen in partnership with AMCC refocused their
efforts, inspired initially by access challenges. This time the partnership focused on
developing market-based initiatives aiming to increase the profitability of the jig fishery
and generate greater social, economic and environmental impact, by leveraging its key
TABLE 2.2
State-water Pacific cod jig effort, harvest level and harvest, 2002–2018
Kodiak Area state-waters Pacific cod jig gear effort, guideline harvest level (GHL), and harvest, by year, 2002–2018
GHL Harvest % of GHL

Year Vessels Landings
(pounds) (pounds) harvested
2002 51 340 4 365 153 1 389 838 31.8

2003 100 688 3 995 878 3 195 605 80.0
2004 120 961 4 932 843 4 210 284 85.4
2005 117 849 4 563 155 4 570 327 100.2
2006 77 477 5 218 480 1 446 881 27.7
2007 63 457 5 218 480 1 249 753 23.9
2008 76 647 5 222 338 2 042 082 39.1
2009 94 833 4 343 244 4 450 423 102.5
2010 81 707 6 757 444 6 504 733 96.3
2011 132 980 7 415 248 7 135 466 96.2
2012 145 1 160 7 845 701 7 938 727 101.2
2013 55 199 6 791 340 587 942 8.7
2014 77 520 7 316 583 3 170 713 43.3
2015 100 810 8 449 216 3 879 537 45.9
2016 108 747 6 794 647 3 327 887 49.0
2017 23 50 6 087 452 101 991 1.7
2018 10 21 1 118 559 29 016 2.6
1997–2018 average 87 638 5 542 274 2 985 772 52.0
2014–2018 average 64 430 5 953 291 2 101 829 28.5
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

assets: a community-based fleet of owner-operators, low-impact gear, and harvesting

techniques (i.e. hand-tended hook and line) that deliver the highest quality seafood.
2.3.2 Marketing small-scale access and social and environmental value

The creation of Kodiak Jig Seafoods
In 2012, AMCC received a two-year grant in the amount of USD 90 000 from the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The grant provided crucial funding to support
a marketing initiative designed to ensure that the benefits of the hard-fought policy
provisions achieved at the NPFMC could be fully realized. The primary goal was
to create a brand based on differentiating cod and rockfish products harvested by
jigging from products harvested by the industrial fleet, which uses gear with a higher
environmental impact. (The hand-tended, vertical lines used in jigging result in low
bycatch and minimal impact on seafloor habitat). The ultimate goal was to enhance
entry-level fishing opportunities for local, conservation-minded fishermen in Kodiak
through a market-based approach that increases the profitability of jig fisheries. For
two years, jig fishermen partnered with AMCC and other knowledgeable entities
(identified below) to advance a multipronged strategy to achieve this goal. Key project
activities included: identifying market potential, improving product quality, enhancing
conservation performance, effectively telling the story through branding and outreach,
and creating a fishermen-led business.
To begin, AMCC and jig fishermen worked with chefs, restaurants and seafood
distributors in Alaska and along the West Coast of the United States of America
to identify and develop niche markets, while emphasizing the fishery’s social and
environmental qualities. Jig fishermen also collaborated with seafood quality experts
from Alaska Sea Grant to define good practices and alter fishing behaviour when
needed. Jig fishermen modified their fishing decks (e.g. adding live-immersion
bleeding containers and ramps into the fish hold to minimize bruising) and
implemented quality control measures to ensure delivery of high-quality seafood to
market. For example, jig vessels now make short trips (three days maximum), and
all fish are gill-bled and immersed in slush ice for rapid chilling. More generally,
fishermen adhere to specific handling standards from the moment the fish come out
of the water. Fishermen gently bring each fish over the rail without dropping it more
than 15.24 cm. Fishermen immediately slice gill plates and place the fish in slush ice
for a minimum of 15 minutes before transferring it to the fish hold where each fish
is packed in ice. Local jig fishermen also worked with AMCC and Alaska Sea Grant
to develop conservation guidelines and improve conservation performance. Examples
include avoiding hotspots of non-target species by sharing information, and releasing
fish to be discarded with minimal injury.
A key goal of the project was to communicate the social and environmental values of
the fishery in a manner that connected consumers with fishermen. The team partnered
with downtown Anchorage restaurants and chefs to host “Meet Your Fishermen”
dinners, presented at conferences, and developed multiple print and online materials
(including a website: www.kodiakjig.org).
The Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program (MAP) served as a key partner
in many of these efforts. The Kodiak-based Seafood Marketing Specialist met with
AMCC and AJA many times over the course of the project, providing insights and
recommendations ranging from business planning to seafood marketing to seafood
quality and handling. In 2012, MAP also hosted a workshop, “Differentiating Your
Seafood Product from Your Competitors,” and helped finalize the quality and
handling guidelines adopted by Kodiak Jig Seafoods fishermen.
From the outset, the team had envisioned a fishermen-led business as a key
outcome. Project partners hosted several meetings to discuss forming a cooperative
or a limited liability company (LLC) as the business structure needed to bring
seafood products to market and greater benefits to the

FIGURE 2.4 fishermen themselves. Over the course of the project it
Kodiak Jig Seafoods Logo
became clear that most jig fishermen wanted to remain
fishermen, and had little interest in staying onshore
to manage that side of the business. To account for
this, the team shifted course with AMCC providing
a leadership role in managing the onshore business.
AMCC operates a Community Supported Fishery
(CSF) in Alaska and brought valuable experience
and capacity in managing key aspects of the seafood
business including working with processors, shipping
and storage, seafood marketing and distribution, and
customer service and sales.
At the end of the two-year National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)-funded project, jig
fishermen and AMCC staff had developed a marketing
plan; a seafood brand, logo and website; and sustainability standards and quality and
handling guidelines for participating jig fishermen to adhere to. This was the beginning
of Kodiak Jig Seafoods (KJS; Figure 2.4).
Securing small-scale processor partners in a large-scale port

One of the most important and challenging aspects of the marketing effort was finding
a Kodiak processor to partner with that had both the capacity and interest to custom
process small deliveries of seafood. Although Kodiak is one of the largest fishing
ports in the nation with year-round seafood processing, local fishing infrastructure is
primarily geared toward large-scale, high-volume fisheries. Finding a processor willing
and interested in labour-intensive, custom processing remains a key challenge for
small-scale seafood marketing in Kodiak.
Based on market research and customer demand, KJS focused on 1–2 pound (0.45–
0.90 kg) vacuum-packed, skinless, boneless fillets. Each fillet was labelled with the
KJS logo, along with the vessel name and other required product information.13 Initial
discussions with a small processor with waterfront access started out well, resulting in
a verbal contract for the upcoming season. Prior to the start of the season, however,
this processor was purchased by a large processor with a business model built on larger
volumes and sending product to China for secondary processing. The new owners
were unwilling to take on the custom processing needs of KJS. Jig fishermen then met
with every large-scale processor along the Kodiak waterfront, always with the same
request, but none was able to meet its custom processing needs. A way forward was
eventually found with two small processors. Neither had been involved in custom
processing for the jig sector before (focusing instead on smoked and pickled fish), but
both were interested and supportive of the initiative. With processing secured, KJS
launched sales in 2014.
Working with two small processors created its own set of challenges. For example,
one of the processors was not located on the waterfront, so arrangements had to be
made to offload and fillet the fish at one processer, and then bring the iced bags of fillets
in insulated totes across the street with a forklift to the other for custom processing.
Key to operational success was having AMCC Kodiak-based staff provide vital
13
Product information required by the Food and Drug Administration is included to inform consumers
about the contents of the product, and to prevent fraud, misrepresentation and unfair competition. All
processors follow the same set of rules in labelling. All must be in compliance with the Department
of Environmental Conservation processing regulations and must contain a Hazard Analysis Critical
Control Point system. All KJS custom processing has been done with established processors compliant
with all regulations due to the cost and complexity of navigating the processing business.
capacity in following the product from the moment it was offloaded from a jig vessel,
through processing, into freezers and eventually onto planes headed to market.
The arrangement with the two small processors worked well until the same large
processor that had bought out the initial KJS processing partner also bought out the
processor that was offloading and filleting KJS product prior to custom processing. This
and other factors contributed to the end of this processing arrangement. During this
period, KJS began working with another custom processor, Kodiak Island WildSource.
WildSource is owned by the Sun’aq Tribe of Kodiak. Despite some challenges (for
example, the plant had no ice and was located on the third floor of a warehouse), the
new arrangement worked well. KJS was able to purchase ice and pay for use of a crane
on a private dock. The bulk of the jig fishery work occurs in the spring – a slow time
for WildSource, which focuses primarily on smoking salmon. Jig deliveries provided
for increased processing opportunities for resident workers at the small processor.
This arrangement worked well until a fire swept through the warehouse and the entire
structure was deemed a total loss. Fortunately, during this period WildSource was
under negotiations to buy a small piece of waterfront. Rebuilding a dilapidated dock
and structure on this site are part of their long-term business plan.
Despite processing challenges stemming from limited access to a waterfront
dominated by large-scale processors, the market for KJS products continues to grow.
Since its inception in 2014, AMCC has paid between 30 and 200 percent over dock
price to Kodiak jig fishermen. This range in price increase depends on the year, target
species and recovery rates, as well as market demand. For example, AMCC paid
USD 0.20 to USD 0.25 per pound over dock price for cod. For black rockfish, AMCC
has increased the value to fishermen from USD 0.30 over dock price in the past to
USD 0.55 per pound in 2018. For dusky rockfish, AMCC pays jig fishermen USD 0.70
over dock price.
Product from KJS was initially sold to restaurants and lodges in Alaska, and direct
to consumers through Catch 49, AMCC’s Community Supported Fishery.14 Catch 49
is structured as a social enterprise aimed at helping local Alaskan fishermen increase
profitability, rewarding environmental performance, and sustaining local fishing
opportunities. The CSF builds on important connections in Alaska’s food systems
by linking chefs and consumers more directly with community-based, conservation-
minded fishermen.15 Catch 49 serves Alaskan markets only. Proceeds from Catch 49
benefit the work of AMCC while also providing fishermen a better price for their
catch. Fishermen that participate in the Catch 49 programme get 30 to 200 percent
more for their catch than they would otherwise. To date, they have sold roughly 75 000
round pounds (roughly 34 000 kg) of rockfish and 57 000 round pounds (25 854 kg) of
Pacific cod to CSF subscribers and Alaska restaurants.
2.3.3 New challenges, new solutions: the future of the Kodiak jig fleet
In 2017, a biennial stock assessment survey conducted by the National Marine
Fisheries Service showed an unexpected finding. Gulf of Alaska cod abundance was in
sharp decline. This decline was linked to warmer waters in the Gulf of Alaska referred
to as the “warm blob”. The survey showed the lowest biomass since the survey started
in 1984. This decline was sudden, unexpected and sufficient to warrant an 80 percent
reduction in Pacific cod catch limits.
The cod collapse in the Gulf of Alaska has contributed to a notable decline in
active jig vessels harvesting cod, from 108 vessels in 2016 to 10 in 2018 (Table 2.2). As
nearshore fishermen, the jig fleet was the first to draw attention to the cod decline in the
14
Before 2017, the CSF was formally named Catch of the Season.
15
With the tagline “Seafood caught by Alaskans for Alaskans”, the CSF offers its subscribers other seafood
products harvested by Alaskan fishermen, such as salmon, crab, halibut and spot prawns.
Gulf of Alaska, as they were unable to harvest enough cod to make the fishery viable.
For example, in 2012, the jig fleet harvested just over 100 percent of the harvest level in
state waters (Table 2.2). The following year, in 2013, the fleet harvested only 9 percent.
In 2017 and 2018, the fleet harvested less than 3 percent of the harvest level set. The cod
decline compelled some jig fishermen to sell their vessels; others moved off island, and
still others sought to offset the loss with additional employment in land-based jobs,
or by targeting other species with jig gear (e.g. rockfish). For those remaining, the cod
decline underlined the importance of diversified access for the small-boat fleet. It also
made the rockfish set-aside increasingly vital to small-boat fishermen.
In 2017, a new buyer began working with Kodiak jig fishermen to expand the
market and offer jig-caught seafood products to its customer base in the Midwest.
Founded in 2012, Sitka Salmon Shares is an integrated, “boat to doorstep,” values-
driven business. The company specializes in delivering premium-quality sustainable
seafood from small-scale fishermen in Southeast and other parts of Alaska to customers
via a CSF model. Sitka Salmon Shares has taken an early leadership position in the
home-delivered seafood marketplace, and in 2019 the company is projected to have
around 9 000 customers in the Midwest and other parts of the country. Kodiak-jig
caught rockfish species have been heavily incorporated in the company’s CSF shares,
creating a strong market opportunity for this small-scale fishery. The company is
now the largest buyer of Kodiak jig-caught rockfish, and has consistently paid 30 to
100 percent over dock price for various jig-caught rockfish species. This has created
a substantial financial benefit for local fishermen, who have seen increases to their
bottom line of USD 8 000 to USD 11 000 in a given season.16
2019 has seen the highest price per pound ever paid to jig fishermen in Kodiak for
rockfish. A significant percentage of the rockfish jig harvest is now being landed at
a higher dock price destined for markets developed by Catch 49 and Sitka Salmon
Shares. The market is growing and helping bolster local fishermen, particularly against
hardship stemming from the loss of cod fishing opportunities.
In addition to the policy and market-based approaches discussed above, Kodiak
jig fishermen are also at the forefront of other community-based measures to provide
infrastructure, stability and market opportunity for small-scale fishermen in Kodiak.
First, jig fishermen led efforts to revise a long-standing Kodiak City ordinance that
prevented fishermen from conducting business off of their vessels in the harbour. They
circulated a petition asking for a modification in the ordinance which would allow
them to sell fish off their boats following all state and federal requirements. If the
petition were successful it would provide an opportunity for community members to
purchase affordable, fresh fish in the harbour and have the chance to talk to fishermen;
raise the dockside value to increase profit margins; and also serve as a means of selling
small amounts of fish directly when coming into port with a small load. Jig fishermen
organized and regularly attended meetings with the Ports and Harbours Committee
and the City Council to explain the intent and positive outcomes envisioned for
the community. The revised ordinance passed in 2018. For the first time in decades,
fishermen can now legally sell fish off their boats in Kodiak.
Jig fishermen were also actively engaged in a community initiative to improve local
fishery infrastructure through the addition of a community crane. This discussion
had been underway in the Kodiak community for many years as fishermen sought
an independent method to offload their catch. With most of the small jig vessels
also participating in higher volume salmon fisheries with an established processor
relationship, the ability to request use of a crane from the large processors was rarely
16
Sitka Salmon Shares also offers equity positions in the company to fishermen, and currently has one
Kodiak jig fisherman as an owner. Fishermen owners also have the opportunity to participate in the
management of the company and are eligible for distributions of company profits.
an issue, but was asked as a favour. Fishermen advocated for a working waterfront
that included infrastructure needed to provide for independent small-scale harvesters.
Again, jig fishermen were engaged at every point in the decision-making process. In
2018, a public use crane was erected at a multi-use dock in the main harbour.
A third initiative currently underway stems from a one-day planning session in
2015 during which community members identified and voted on two ideas that would
improve quality of life in Kodiak. A local food co-op won one of the votes. Community
members wanted a co-op to serve as a gathering place as well as a location to purchase
local produce and seafood. The Kodiak Harvest Co-op has been established, and work
is underway to open a storefront. Many jig fishermen are members of the co-op and
involved in the seafood marketing plan. While funds are being raised for the storefront,
weekly farmers’ markets in spring, summer and fall serve as a means for fishermen and
farmers to sell directly to local consumers, providing an opportunity for consumers
and harvesters to meet in person and build relationships.
2.4 CONCLUSIONS AND GOOD PRACTICES

The success of the Kodiak Jig Initiative demonstrates the strength of community-
and fishermen-led initiatives aimed at improving access and market opportunities for
small-scale fishermen. Central to these efforts has been a marketing approach that
emphasizes not only where the fish was harvested and by whom, but how it was
harvested. Differentiating jig-caught seafood products from higher volume, lower
value fisheries, such as trawling, has been core to the development of niche markets
that value community and environmental sustainability, and can be considered a
good practice. That said, basing a seafood marketing plan on small-scale and custom
processed products in places like Kodiak creates a number of challenges. High-volume
landings from other gear types dominate the market and processing schedules, and
the jig fleet is marginalized in its ability to compete. Establishing trusted relationships
with local seafood processors, ensuring public access to the working waterfront, and
supporting investments in infrastructure that benefit small-scale fisheries are critical to
the success of these kinds of marketing initiatives.
As a case study, the Kodiak Jig Initiative illustrates several aspects of the SSF
Guidelines. Among the most central: ensuring post-harvest actors are part of
relevant decision-making processes (paragraph 7.1); supporting efforts to enable
investments in appropriate infrastructure, organizational structures and capacity
development (paragraph 7.3); and supporting fishermen’ associations to promote their
capacity to enhance their income and livelihood security and marketing mechanisms
(paragraph 7.4). This study illustrates the power of partnerships and direct engagement
in decision-making processes that affect local fishing livelihoods – another good
practice, which serves as an example that can assist other fishing communities and
fleets in developing approaches that fit their specific needs. Equally so, this case study
demonstrates the very real challenges and changes that small-scale fishermen will
continue to face in light of environmental and economic factors that are beyond their
control. The warmer waters in the Gulf of Alaska currently contributing to the cod
decline will continue to create uncertainty in fisheries, stressing the importance of
diversified access when adapting to changing conditions. This and other challenges
described above will require collaborative and creative solutions. The Kodiak Jig
Initiative makes clear that the solutions to small-scale fishery sustainability must be as
diverse as the challenges. There is a growing market demand for products with clear
economic, community/cultural and environmental benefits, and small-scale fisheries
are well positioned to meet it.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the Kodiak jig fleet for sharing their time, knowledge and vision to this
project, especially Darius Kasprzak, Ryan Horwath, Leonard Carpenter, Shawn
Dochtermann, Alexus Kwachka and Dave Kubiak. A huge thanks goes to Kelly
Harrell, former Executive Director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council, whose
leadership guided development of both Kodiak Jig Seafoods and Catch 49. We also
thank Alaska Sea Grant staff Quentin Fong, Chris Sannito, and Julie Matweyou for
sharing their expertise on quality assurance, seafood handling, and seafood business
development. Stephanie Webb and the Community Fisheries Network founded by
Ecotrust and Island Institute also provided invaluable support in the early stages of this
work. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the National Marine Fisheries
Service provided data drawn on in this paper. Finally, we thank our processing partners,
especially Barb Hughes and Bill Alwert, who helped custom process our first product
under the brand name Kodiak Jig Seafoods.
REFERENCES
Apgar-Kurtz, B. 2015. Factors affecting local permit ownership in Bristol Bay. Marine
Policy, 56: 71–77.
ASMI (Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute). 2017. The Economic Value of Alaska’s
Seafood Industry. Prepared by the McDowell Group. (available at https://www.
alaskaseafood.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AK-Seadfood-Impacts-Sep2017-Final-
Digital-Copy.pdf).
Beaudreau et al. 2019. Thirty years of change and the future of Alaskan fisheries: shifts
in fishing participation and diversification in response to environmental, regulatory
and economic pressures. Fish and Fisheries, 20(4). (available https://doi.org/10.1111/
faf.12364).
Carothers, C. 2010. Tragedy of commodification: transitions in Alutiiq fishing communities
in the Gulf of Alaska. Maritime Studies (MAST), 90(2): 91–115.
Carothers, C. 2011. Equity and access to fishing rights: exploring the Community Quota
Program in the Gulf of Alaska. Human Organization, 70(3): 213–223.
Carothers, C. & Chambers, C. 2012. Fisheries privatization and the remaking of fishery
systems. Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 3: 39–59.
Coleman, J., Carothers, C., Donkersloot, R., Ringer, D., Cullenberg, P. & Bateman,
A. 2018. Alaska’s next generation of potential fishermen: a survey of youth attitudes
towards fishing and community in Bristol Bay and the Kodiak Archipelago. Maritime
Studies, 18: 47–63. (available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-0109-5).
Cullenberg, P., Donkersloot, R., Carothers, C., Ringer, D. & Coleman, J. 2017. Turning
the Tide: How can Alaska address the ‘graying of the fleet’ and loss of rural fisheries
access? A review of programmes and policies to address access challenges in Alaska fisheries.
Report funded by the North Pacific Research Board and Alaska Sea Grant. (available at
http://meetings.npfmc.org/CommentReview/DownloadFile?p=dd81091d-b9bc-4bd8-
b929-e140c40ad41f.pdf&fileName=C6%20Turning%20the%20Tide%20Nov.2017.pdf).
Davis, A. & Ruddle, K. 2012. Massaging the misery: recent approaches to fisheries
governance and the betrayal of small-scale fisheries. Human Organization, 71(3): 244–
254. (available at https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.71.3.205788362x751128).
Donkersloot, R. & Carothers, C. 2016. The graying of the Alaskan fishing fleet.
Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(3): 30–42.
Kamali, N. 1984. Alaskan Natives and Limited Fisheries of Alaska: A Study of Changes in
the Distribution of Permit Ownership Amongst Alaskan Natives, 1975-1983. Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission Report 84-8.
Knapp, G. 2006. Economic Impacts of BSAI Crab Rationalization on Kodiak Fishing

Employment and Earnings and Kodiak Businesses. A Preliminary Analysis. ISER
Publication. University of Alaska, Anchorage. (available at https://pubs.iseralaska.org/
media/c6c183bb-3be8-430e-83b3-f6c5a5773a3c/Knapp_Kodiak_Crab_Rationalization_
Final_Report.pdf
Knecht, R.A. & Jordan, R.H. 1985. Nunakakhnak: an historic period Koniag Village in
Karluk, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology, 22(2): 17–35.
Kodiak Chamber of Commerce. 2014. Kodiak community profile and economic indicators
4th quarter, 2013. Kodiak, USA.
McDowell Group. 2016. Economic impact of the seafood industry on Kodiak Island
Borough. Prepared for the Kodiak Island Borough and City of Kodiak. June 2016.
(available at http://www.mcdowellgroup.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/kodiak-
island-borough-fisheries-economic-analysis-final.pdf).
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2017. Fisheries of the United States, Current
Fishery Statistics No. 2016. A. Lowther & M. Liddel, eds. Silver Spring, USA.
NPFMC (North Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2017. Ten-Year Program Review
for the Crab Rationalization Management Program in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands.
Final draft. (available at https://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/catch_
shares/Crab/Crab10yrReview_Final2017.pdf).
Pinkerton, E. & Davis, R. 2015. Neoliberalism and the politics of enclosure in North
American small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy, 61: 303–312.
Pullar, G. 2009. Historical ethnography of nineteenth-century Kodiak villages. In S.
Haakanson, Jr & A. Steffian, eds. Giinaquq Like a Face: Sugpiaq Masks of the Kodiak
Archipelago, pp. 41–60. Fairbanks, USA, University of Alaska Press.
Ringer, D., Carothers, C., Donkersloot, R., Coleman, J. & Cullenberg, P. 2018. For
generations to come: exploring local fisheries access and community viability in the
Kodiak Archipelago. Marine Policy, 98: 97–103. (available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2018.09.009).
State of Alaska. 2012. HCR18 – Commercial Fisheries Programs. http://www.akleg.gov/
basis/Bill/Detail/27?Root=HCR%2018#tab1_4 (20 May 2019).
U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. Quick Facts: Kodiak Island Borough Population Estimates.
55
3. The FAO-Thiaroye processing

technique: Facilitating social
organization, empowering women,
and creating market access
opportunities in West Africa
Alexander Ford
Policy, Economics and Institutions Branch
Rome, Italy
Aina Randrianantoandro
Omar Riego Peñarubia
Product, Trade and Marketing
Rome, Italy
ABSTRACT
Over the past decade the FAO-Thiaroye processing technique (FTT), a healthier,
more economic and environmentally sustainable method of fish smoking, has been
introduced in fishing communities throughout Africa, Asia and the Pacific. This
case study examines the role of the FTT in West Africa, focusing on its function as a
technology that reduces human health impacts and fish losses, improves fuel efficiency,
increases product quality and facilitates access to international markets. The study
also examines the role the FTT has played in enabling the social organization of the
processors who use it and in advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment in
West Africa. Further, it highlights elements of the FTT that support the value chains
of small-scale fisheries reliant on the smoked fish trade, and also their limitations
and areas where further study is needed to understand the impact on the value chain
and those involved. Finally, the case study presents recommendations to ensure
management of the FTT is effective.
Keywords: FTT-Thiaroye kiln, smoked fish trade, organisational structures, capacity

development, PAHs, value addition, cost-efficient technologies, gender inclusion.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In 2011, the fisheries sector in West Africa was worth USD 24 billion – equivalent to
1.26 percent of the GDP of all African countries. People in West Africa depend on fish
as a source of nutrition, protein and critical micronutrients. Around 12.3 million people
in the region are employed in the fisheries sector; of these, an estimated 45 percent are
women occupying post-harvest roles. In the informal seafood trade between states,
dried or smoked fish accounts for 90 percent of the trade. However, fish processors
sometimes struggle to produce good-quality and longer-lasting products. Challenges
concerning fish processing include lack of access to credit for working capital,
poor hygienic conditions of processing facilities, and the use of obsolete processing
equipment (Ayilu et al., 2016).
Smoking is a traditional method for preserving fish commonly seen in West
Africa that contributes to food security and livelihoods in the region (Table 3.1). In
recent history, fish smoking has predominantly relied on the metal drum kiln and the
Chorkor kiln (Brownell, 1983; Gordon, Pulis and Owusu-Adjei, 2011). The drum kiln
(a kiln made from an oil drum) has a number of drawbacks: it is low in both capacity
and fuel efficiency, and requires excessive product handling during processing, which
exposes processors to the risk of burn injuries (Brownell, 1983). The low capacity
invariably translates into high post-harvest losses during bumper seasons. To address
these disadvantages, the Chorkor kiln was developed in the late 1960s through the
collaborative efforts of the Food Research Institute of Ghana, FAO, and fish processors
in Chorkor (a fishing community in Accra). It currently enjoys widespread use across
Africa. However, the Chorkor kiln has its own deficiencies: it requires large quantities
of fuel in order to be effective and does not filter smoke away from the processors.
TABLE 3.1
Top ten regionally traded fish species
English name Scientific name Traded form in trade
Shad, bonga Ethmalosa fimbriata Smoked
Round sardinella Sardinella aurita Smoked
Anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus Dried and smoked
Atlantic bumper Chloroscombrus chrysurus Dried and smoked
Chub mackerel Scomber japonicas Smoked
Pink shrimps Penaeus notialis Smoked
Deepwater rose shrimp Parapaeneus longirostris Smoked
Black-chinned tilapia Sarotherodon molanotheron Salt dried and smoked
Burning wood results in the production of four carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAH): benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, benz(a)anthracene and benzo(b)
fluoranthene, together referred to as PAH4 in the context of fish smoking. During the
fish smoking process, smoke from the wood coupled with high processing temperatures
results in PAH4 deposits on the fish (Stolyhwo and Sikorski, 2005). These PAH4
compounds are known to incite pulmonary, integumentary and ocular complications
among fish smokers. Many women fish smokers carry young children on their backs
while working, making their infants susceptible to these risks as well. Moreover, the
PAH4 residue on the smoked fish is thought to increase the risk of cancer among those
who consume it, with diet accounting for 88–98 percent of human exposure to PAH
(Farhadian et al., 2011).
PAH4 compounds in food have long been considered a risk by the European Union
and in 2011 the European Commission updated its maximum levels to 12 μg/kg per kilo
of smoked fish (European Commission, 2011). Partly in response to the EU’s Rapid
Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)1 checks resulting in shipments of smoked
fish being detained, and sometimes rejected, due to elevated PAH4 levels, and partly
in response to the outcry from fish processors (the majority of whom are women)
regarding the health complications associated with the Chorkor and metal drum kilns,
in 2013 FAO and the National Training Centre for Fish and Aquaculture Technicians
(CNFTPA) in Senegal started developing the FAO-Thiaroye processing technique
(FTT) for small-scale fish smoking operations (FAO, 2017) – though the FTT had
first been introduced to medium-scale, export-oriented fish processing units in Togo
1
The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) is a system for reporting food safety issues within
the European Union.
3. The FAO-Thiaroye processing technique: Facilitating social organization, empowering women, and creating market
access opportunities in West Africa 57
FIGURE 3.1
Map showing the locations where the FTT is being used, according to (FAO, 2019b)
Spatial reference: GCS, WGS 1984

International boundary provided by United Nations Geospatioal Information
Section, http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm Map conforms to: Map No. 4170 Rev.
Imagery for continents and oceans reproduced from GEBCO, www.gebco.net 18.1 United Nations, February 2020.
Note: this map is not representative of all kilns, but only those known to FAO.
Source: GEBCO.
and Côte d’Ivoire in 2008. The technology is owned and licensed by FAO. As of
today, the FTT is being used in more than a dozen African countries (Figure 3.1). It
is used by at least four companies that process and export fish to the European Union
and the United States of America and is currently being piloted in small-scale fishing
communities in Sri Lanka, Micronesia (Federated States of) and the Philippines.
The design of the FTT kilns builds on that of the Chorkor kiln, and the kiln can
even use component parts from the Chorkor (Figure 3.2). The FTT allows several
processing steps to be combined into one: the smoking of the fish, plus the additional
drying and storing of the final product (FAO, 2017; FAO 2019). The lid of the kiln
not only covers the product during smoking and drying, but also protects it afterwards
(Figure 3.3). The drying/smoking racks are removable and easy to clean, and made of
heat-resistant materials, thereby ensuring a longer lifespan. One feature that is unique
to the FTT is that the fuel is held in an ember furnace, which concentrates the heat on
the product, thus reducing heat loss (which increases fuel efficiency) and also protecting
those operating the kiln by containing the smoke. Another feature is the fat-collection
tray. Finally, the FTT features an indirect smoke generator system consisting of two
main components: (1) a barrel and metal pipe that can be shaped into a spiral or circular
tube; and (2) a filter system, which includes a metal casing in which the filter is inserted.
In relation to Chapter 7 of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable
Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF
Guidelines), this case study discusses the impact of the FTT on value chains and
communities, focusing first on the technology itself and its contribution to fish loss
reduction, value addition and cost efficiency (paragraph 7.5); then examining its impact
on trade and market access (paragraph 7.6); and then discussing gender, livelihoods
and social organization (paragraphs 7.2 and 7.4). Then follows a discussion of the
limitations and lessons learned, and finally conclusions and recommendations for the
future.
FIGURE 3.2
In clockwise order, the drum kiln, the Chorkor kiln, the FTT kiln in Ghana and the FTT kiln
©FAO
in Equatorial Guinea
FIGURE 3.3
The FTT-Thiaroye kiln with apparatus
Technical fetures and components of the FTT
Fish smoking
compartment
Fish cooking
compartment
Metal barrel
Furnace for embers
(driven in the
oven) and removed Metal pipe
(below)
Metal casing
Fat collection tray containing the
filter (below)
3.2 METHODS
The case study was designed to provide an overview of the impact the FTT has had
to date in the context of Chapter 7 of the SSF Guidelines. The aim in particular was
to synthesize the key findings that pertain to paragraphs 7.2, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6, with
additional insights from experts in order to provide guidance for the future.
The first stage of the research involved a systematic review of all publicly available
literature. This served a dual function, in that it primarily allowed for gaining an
understanding of the FTT, while also identifying key stakeholders to interview in
the second stage of the study. FAO is currently the predominant author in the FTT
literature. However, other authors have also examined the fish smoking industry
and its associated value chains in general, which has been helpful in providing
recommendations for the FTT.
The second stage of the research involved discussing the FTT with experts,
including people who have experience with fish processing technologies generally, or
people who have been involved with the FTT directly. An interview guide was adopted
to streamline this process and help focus the investigation (Appendix 1). The interview
questions were adjusted according to the persons being interviewed and where their
professional expertise lay, and also to eliminate questions that were eliciting the same
responses. The range of people selected included representatives from development
agencies, research/academia and community representatives. Interviewees were
sourced from the literature review. Furthermore, the authors used their own networks
to identify other professionals to interview. Again, this served a dual function in that it
strengthened or corrected our understanding gained from the literature review, while
also providing insights into the history of the FTT. This latter point was critical as it
provided much of the basis for our policy recommendations.
One limitation to this method was the limited number of fishworkers interviewed,
although we made up for this by interviewing the Coalition for Fair Fisheries
Arrangements (CFFA), which has been directly involved in the installation of the
kilns and has firsthand experience with the FTT. CFFA is a platform of NGOs based
in Brussels that documents the development and environmental impacts of European
Union fisheries relations on small-scale fishing communities in African, Caribbean and
Pacific (ACP) states. The core objective of CFFA is to promote the livelihoods and
food security of coastal fishing communities, through information sharing, advocacy
and dialogue between organizations in ACP countries, the private sector and European
Union decision makers.
3.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF GOOD PRACTICES
3.3.1 Loss reduction, value addition and cost efficiency

Since the 2011 change in the European Union regulations on PAH4 levels, certain
research institutes have explored ways to adapt or develop technology to meet the new
standards. However, the PAH4 levels remained too high, as was presented at the fourth
session of the Workshop on Fish Technology, Utilization and Quality Assurance held
in Elmina, Ghana in 2017 (FAO, 2018). Studies show that the FTT model meets the
European Union regulatory levels, which are presently considered to be the global
market regulatory benchmark (FAO, 2018). Data obtained from comparative fish
smoking tests conducted by FAO (2018) show that products from the Chorkor kiln
had PAH4 levels up to 33 times the European Union maximum limit (ML), whereas
the PAH4 levels for FTT products were considerably lower than the maximum
(Figure 3.4).
The type of fuel used greatly influences PAH4 deposits during combustion
(Figure 3.5) (Bomfeh et al., 2016). For example, in Côte d’Ivoire, softwoods like the
relatively abundant rubberwood should be avoided due to their very high PAH4
content. Other fuel types, such as hardwoods and coconut shells, are recommended
instead. Although burning mangrove wood generates low levels of PAH4, its use
should be limited and controlled given the ecological and economical importance of
mangroves, especially in terms of aquatic and fishery resources, where they play a vital
role as a spawning and nursery habitat for many aquatic species; and in terms of the
FIGURE 3.4
Bar graph comparing the level of PAH4 emitted by the FTT and Chorkor kilns with
the European Union maximum
FTT vs. Chorkor smoker vs. EU ML. (Fuel: Charcoal)
45
39.38
40
35
PAH4 Level (µg/kg)
30
25
20
15 12
10
5 1.5
0
FTT Chorkor EU Maximum Limit
Kiln Type
FIGURE 3.5
Bar graph comparing the different levels of PAH4 produced through the combustion
if different fuel types in the FTT-Thiaroye kiln
Resulting PAH Level on fish smoked with FTT system
Charcoal 2.6
Fuel Type
Azadirachta indica (Neemwood) 26.86
Pterocarpus erinaceus (Barwood) 38.98
EU Maximum Limit 12
0 10 20 30 40 50
Levels of PAH (µg/kg)
ecosystem service they play in coastal protection. When charcoal is used, fuelwood
consumption is significantly reduced. Further, because charcoal gives off very little
smoke, it is easier to obtain smoked products that meet PAH safety standards. Likewise,
adding stones such as siporex or pieces of baked earth retains heat in the kilns, thus
reducing the amount of charcoal required by about 50 percent (FAO, 2015a).
The FTT’s installation costs vary between USD 800 and USD 1 600 (Table 3.2).
In addition to this upfront cost, there are other variables to be taken into account.
These include the three tonnes of fresh fish required to meet the kiln’s maximum
daily capacity, as well as purchasing fuel, water and other raw materials; transport;
communication; and distribution or marketing costs. Importantly, in order for the
FTT to operate efficiently and fulfil its expected lifespan (> 15 years for the frame and
3–12 years for the components), routine care is essential. This entails cleaning inside
and around the kilns and removing the ashes and the waste from the lids and from
the mesh of the removable racks (FAO, 2017; FAO, 2019a). Notably, using the FTT
cuts smoking time in half compared to other kilns, thus providing processors with an
opportunity to pursue other activities.
The FTT makes it possible to market safer and higher-quality products than previous
systems (FAO, 2019a). Additionally, it significantly reduces post-harvest losses (PHL)
and fuelwood consumption (FAO, 2016). To give some context, in Côte d’Ivoire it is
estimated that PHL from Chorkor and drum kilns amount to 23 317 tonnes per year
TABLE 3.2
Comparative analysis of different fish smoking systems
Type of system
TECHNICAL CRITERIA Metal drum Chorkor FTT
Type of construction Rudimentary Improved Based on existing kiln models
while addressing their
shortcomings
Smoking time Up to 3 days 1 day 3–6 hours
Fire and smoke control Very limited Limited Very high
Smoking technique Simultaneous smoking Separate smoking Separate smoking and drying
and drying and drying
Fish fat collection device None None Included
Smoke filtering device None None Included
ECONOMIC CRITERIA
Cost of kiln (USD) 26 345 1 600
Smoking capacity (kg of 150–200 200–300 3 000
fish per day)
Amount of wood used (kg) 3–5 > 0.8 0.8
per 1 kg of fish
Lifespan 2 years 3–15 years > 15 years
Earnings Average Average High
Ancillary jobs Limited Medium Very high
SOCIAL CRITERIA
Exposure to heat/smoke Frequent Frequent Very low
Safety and quality of Lesser quality Lesser quality Safer and higher quality
smoked fish
Source: Mindjimba, 2019.
for a value of approximately USD 11.6 million, to which must be added 112 000 tonnes
of wasted wood worth USD 3.7 million (FAO, 2016). In terms of public health, the
processors who use the Chorkor kiln have reported unpleasant symptoms for the past
25 years, and they agree that these have been greatly reduced through the use of the
FTT (CFFA, personal communication, 2019). Studies support this claim, showing that
FTT users are less exposed to smoke-related pathologies than those who use traditional
systems. Inherent health costs, which are estimated at USD 1 247 a year for medical
consultations and hospitalizations, can be considered as opportunity costs in the
economic evaluation. In summary, the safety, environmental, food, sanitary and socio-
economic benefits of the FTT are well-established (Mindjimba, 2019).
In terms of the value added or retained through better handling, using the FTT has
yielded mixed results. FAO (2019) reported that although there were differences in the
appearance and texture of FTT and Chorkor products, these differences did not affect
consumer preference. Other studies not specifically related to the FTT have found that
better-quality smoked fish can fetch up to 25 percent more at the market (Gordon,
Pulis and Owusu-Adjei, 2011), but that consumer taste preferences take time to change
(Asiedu, Failler and Beygens, 2018). FAO (2019) proposes that if consumers were
educated on the safety of FTT-smoked products and the carcinogenic risks inherent in
the older kilns, their preference might shift to FTT-smoked products, especially given
that the preparation required for smoking fish in the FTT kilns is the same in terms of
ingredients and flavourings used (Bomfeh et al., 2019).
Nevertheless, examples exist where the FTT has been fully adopted by processors
and where value addition can be seen both in terms of the finished product and in other
income-generating activities. The Women Fish Traders and Processors Cooperative
of Abidjan (CMATPHA), a processors organization operating in Côte d’Ivoire, has
started expanding into other areas of the smoked fish value chain such as the sale of food
packaging items and basins, as well as diversifying their product range (e.g. sausages,
croquettes, stuffed fillets, and fish fat-based products). CMATPHA members have also
initiated various marketing strategies in their efforts to expand their customer base to
boost their sales and income.
3.3.2 Trade and market access

The majority of smoked fish originating from West Africa is destined for regional
or national markets such as the Tuesday, Denu, or Dambai markets in Ghana, the
Maiduguri market in Nigeria and the Chicago market in Cote d’Ivoire. Due to its
strong trading networks, Ghana provides a good example of how trade and markets
operate in West Africa, with supply chains extending into neighbouring countries such
as Burkina Faso, Togo and onward shipment to Nigeria (Figure 3.6) (CFFA, personal
communication, 2019; Gordon, Pulis and Owusu-Adjei, 2011). FTT-smoked fish still
competes with the more common Chorkor-smoked fish due to the differences in taste.
As Asiedu, Failler and Beygens (2018) explain, this is because “fish consumers’ taste
is difficult to change … irrespective of the quality and nutritional value of the fish
species”. Nevertheless, many of the processors in West Africa want to tap into the
growing tourist, expatriate and middle-class markets typically found in urban areas
like Accra and Kumasi.
FAO’s Flexible Multi-Partner Mechanism (FMM) has focused on enabling this
market expansion. The FMM’s third strategic objective in 2016 was to “reduce rural
poverty”, and part of this included enabling young aspiring entrepreneurs to set up
their own businesses and create links with supermarket chains interested in adding
FTT-processed fish to their inventory. The strategy proposes that fish processors
(and, when applicable, the professional groups they are members of) benefit from the
partnerships and know-how of in-country technical and financial partners in terms
of: (i) management of microfinance services and mobile transfer and mobile banking;
(ii) coaching young male and female entrepreneurs, particularly in local transport
services, ice supplying and packaging inputs, chopper and unloading jobs, and in
FIGURE 3.6
Map showing the trade flows of frozen and smoked fish in West Africa
Map conforms to: Map No. 4170 Rev. 18.1

Source: GEBCO. United Nations, February 2020.
training and professionalization initiatives; (iii) partnerships with the private sector;
and (iv) regional and national projects (FAO, 2019a; FAO, 2016). One of the policy
outcomes of this project is awareness of the benefits of smoking fish using the FTT,
which might in turn incentivize its procurement and use.
According to the International Trade Centre (ITC), the European Union imported
55 368 tonnes of fisheries products from the Economic Community of Western African
States (ECOWAS) in 2016, making the European Union the third largest market for
West Africa in terms of quantity after other ECOWAS countries and other African
countries (Ayilu et al., 2016). Nevertheless, this trade is sometimes disrupted due
to technical barriers, often involving the quality of the product when inspected on
arrival in the EU. In 2003, it was estimated that approximately one in four airfreight
consignments of smoked fish were detained at port of entry to the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and 70 percent of these were subsequently
destroyed2. This represents approximately 17.5 percent of airfreight consignments and
is equivalent to 20 tonnes of product per annum, with a retail value of USD 460 000
to USD 753 000 at current prices (FAO, 2003). The value chain in Côte d’Ivoire lost
about USD 2 million as a result of a self-imposed ban on smoked fish exports between
2006 and 2012 following failed checks by the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed
(RASFF). PAH4 being the subject of notifications is not common, with countries from
the ECOWAS region recording 33 notifications between 2006 and 2019, of which
8 suffered border rejections (RASFF Portal, 2020).
As a result, attempts have been bolstered to improve quality control and to adopt
international standards at the point of origin in order to meet European demand.
Demand for what the Centre for the Promotion of Imports (CBI, an affiliation of
the Netherland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs) calls “ethnic foods” is growing, with
60 percent of consumers being indigenous to Europe – perhaps suggesting that
prices for smoked fish are not likely to stagnate or decrease (Netherlands Ministry
for Foreign Affairs, 2018). Adherence to international standards is benefitting
FTT smoking processors indirectly as well: for example, in Ghana, fishers must
be registered by the Fisheries Commission in order to sell through international
supply chains, which can be a mechanism of ensuring good fishing practices as well
as checking illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing practices that affect
the sustainability and biodiversity of the fishery resources (Pauly et al., 2002). It is
estimated that IUU fishing costs about USD 2.3 billion in revenue annually to West
African countries (Doumbouya et al., 2017), which in turn has a negative effect on
domestic processors, who sometimes struggle to land a sufficient quantity of fish for
smoking (CFFA, personal communication, 2019). This also poses threats to food
security and the health of fish stocks, as well as having socio-economic consequences
such as increases in poverty, organized crime, unemployment and financial insecurity
(Daniels et al., 2016).
In the context of paragraph 7.6 of the SSF Guidelines, it is clear that the FTT can
help facilitate access to international markets and catalyse further international trade.
Government agencies tasked with standardization and regulation could prove critical by
introducing “trade regulations and procedures that … support regional trade products
from” processors working in a small-scale context (FAO, 2015b, p. 11). Whether the
FTT stimulates regional or national trade is still undetermined, given the fact that many
of the consumers in West Africa prefer the taste of fish smoked using other kilns.
However, as the class distribution in West Africa changes and health awareness builds,
this could change. To stimulate this trade, West African governments and development
2
Not all of the product detained was due to prohibited levels of PAH4. The main reasons why smoked fish
consignments are detained are smoked fish is smuggled in among other goods; packaging is inadequate;
insect infestation; establishment number stapled on the box rather than written on; health certificates not
filled in correctly.
agencies must be receptive to programmes designed to support young people, spreading

awareness by directly engaging with small-scale processors and traders.
3.3.3 Gender, livelihoods and social organization

The design of the FTT enables women to better manage their lives in safer, healthier
surroundings. By reducing the smoking time from 12 hours, with the Chokor kiln,
to 6 hours with the FTT and producing a product that sells more readily, the new
technology increases the time available to women for other pursuits, including caring
for the household and children, as well as undertaking literacy and numeracy classes.
Furthermore, a more marketable product has allowed for greater quantities of fish
to be sold at premium prices, meaning that processors are seeing a greater return on
their efforts (World Bank, FAO and IFAD, 2015). In the context of health, a recent
study involving 635 women and three pilot sites showed how using the FTT instead of
Chorkor kilns improves processors’ health and overall well-being. The study revealed
that fish processors using the FTT had fewer detrimental health issues than those using
the Chorkor kiln. Additionally, the study found instances of domestic violence were
more frequent in households where women used Chorkor kilns compared to those
using FTT kilns. The reasons indicated by the study suggest that the higher rate of
violence is “due to processors returning home late and getting up early due to the long
time it takes to undertake processing activities” and therefore not having sufficient time
to attend to domestic activities (FAO, 2019a; Anoh et al., 2017).
In addition to its functional benefits, the FTT has in some countries enabled greater
social organization, both among the processors and in the society as a whole. From a
top-down perspective, the African Union has played a role in financially supporting
the coordination activities of socioprofessional groups of processors and traders from
across the West African region in promoting the benefits of the FTT. FAO has also
enabled dialogue between stakeholders, organizing and conducting trainings and
workshops throughout West Africa.
From a bottom-up perspective, local organizations have been crucial for both
the management of the processing sites and for raising awareness about the FTT.
A comprehensive report of the FTT recommends that “only well-structured and
organized socioprofessional groups [are advised] to run the FTT infrastructure in
communal settings” (FAO, 2019a, p. 92). The report also recommends that before
commencing an FTT implementation project, “identifying existing socioprofessional
groups, women’s groups, cooperatives and providing support to render them more
cohesive and efficient, or setting up groups around existing income-generating
activities that will then be able to manage the FTT platform, along with training in
good handling, storage and packaging practices” is essential (FAO, 2019a, p. 87).
As an example, in 2013, four pilot platforms were carried out in Abobo-Doume,
Braffedon, Guessabo and Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire) involving 3 807 actors, including
artisans, fish processors and producers. A holistic and participatory approach was
used in working with the existing cooperatives as a basis for implementation and
exchanges. Cooperatives were asked to designate members within their association
to manage each of the four platforms (FAO, 2019a). The platforms were officially
inaugurated and entrusted to beneficiary professional associations in March 2016.
Examples such as these are increasingly common, and demonstrate the importance
of having socioprofessional groups to manage the FTT. In a workshop at an Abidjan
processing site, Mindjimba (2019) notes teamwork, leadership, good hygienic practices
and maintenance of the general infrastructure, as attributes due to the organizational
capacity of the cooperatives managing the FTT kilns. However, the report also
notes that “there is a need to create [other incoming-generating activities] based on
local potentials and market needs”. There has been some increased job creation for
local artisans in installing and maintaining the kilns. Still, the women present at the
workshop identified “lack of organizational capacity” as a factor hindering them from

further developing marketable goods.
Another example is seen in the African Confederation of Professional Artisanal
Fisheries Organizations (COAPA3), which recently signed the Conakry Declaration at
a workshop in Conakry, Guinea. The workshop was specifically designed to increase
the valorization and marketing of FTT-smoked fish. The Declaration helps coordinate
the aims of COAPA members advocating for better access to fish as raw material,
the improvement of women fish operators’ working conditions, the improvement
of processing and commercialization activities, and the establishment of appropriate
financing systems.
As with paragraph 7.6 of the SSF Guidelines, the FTT does not achieve gender
equality and social organization in and of itself, but rather is a tool that can help
bring people together to acheive these common goals. The introduction of FTT has
“supported improvements to facilitate women’s participation” in the value chain, which
enables them to “enhance their livelihoods in the post-harvest sector” (paragraph 7.2).
Equally, the employment opportunities and health benefits of the kiln can arguably
been seen to contribute to the strengthening of local organizations (paragraph 7.4).
3.3.4 Limitations and lessons learned

Despite the good practices enabled through the use of the FTT, there are still a number
of issues surrounding its installation and uptake in West African small-scale fisheries.
In terms of limitations, FAO (2016) estimates the cost of FTT installation at between
USD 800 and USD 1 600, which is much too high for the budgets of small-scale
processors. Mindjimba (2019) does stipulate that this cost can be recuperated within
1–5 years; however, this is conditional on running the kilns at their 3-tonne daily
capacity. One detail to bear in mind is that processors are not obliged to purchase a full
FTT kiln, but can opt instead for specific features (e.g. the smoke filtration component
or fat collection tray) that are compatible with the Chorkor kiln. Nevertheless, the
FTT kiln’s large capacity can be a challenge, and further contributing to the problem
is the lack of access to fish some processors are experiencing. In Côte d’Ivoire, there
are instances where fish prices are too high for processors to afford. A similar issue
has arisen in Senegal, where the activities of foreign industrial fleets are reducing the
amount of small pelagics available for capture by small-scale fishers and consequently
the processors (CFFA, personal communication, 2019). Although this is not a
limitation of the FTT itself, it does make uptake difficult. This review recommends that
governments support policy measures that would ensure processors have access to fish
and at a price that is affordable.
Likewise there is a necessity to involve local authorities in order to make the
installation of an FTT processing site successful, especially when deciding its location.
For example, in 2017 the governments of Morocco and Côte d’Ivoire cofunded a
processing site in Abidjan. Built at a cost of USD 4.5 million, the facility included
cold storage, a children’s play area and various commercial and administrative offices.
It was designed to employ 5 000 people, with a total annual processing production of
20 000 tonnes (Abidjan.net, 2019). However, the facility was located at an inconvenient
distance from the actual market, and the local authorities were not able to relocate the
market. Consequently, many of the processors returned to their previous processing
site located near the market (CFFA, personal communication, 2019). A similar instance
has occurred in Braffedon, Côte d’Ivoire, where a smaller facility has been neglected
by its intended users from Grand-Lahou, due to the increased distance (20 kilometres
from their homes) and the low rate of collective use of the FTT. Contrary to this, but
3
COAPA Member States: Cote d’Ivoire, Cameroon, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Morocco,
Uganda, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo.
equally serious, the facilities in Abobo-Doumé are reported to be overcrowded, with

some 300 processors wanting to use the facility. All three of these examples point to the
fundamental necessity of consulting all post-harvest actors (as stipulated in paragraph 7.1
of the SSF Guidelines) in order to determine a location that suits the intended users.
Lastly, there are examples of kiln mismanagement, typically in places where
there was no social organization (e.g. socioprofessional organizations, cooperatives)
beforehand. The lack of this organization has led to in-fighting and divisions within the
community, as the responsibilities and benefits were not clearly delineated beforehand.
A cooperative or association helps to mitigate such conflicts, as these ensure training
of artisans in kiln maintenance, adequate distribution of fish to be smoked, and
other managerial tasks. FTT kilns require trained artisans to ensure they are properly
maintained (FAO, 2019a). The need for artisans has been highlighted in Côte d’Ivoire,
specifically for manufacturing and assembling the kilns (FAO, 2019b). CFFA noted that
social organizations are in a position to ensure that all members of the community that
use the kilns have equal access to the fish procured from the fishers. Hence, it is key to
establish an entity recognized by all parties to be responsible for the daily use of the kiln.
Aside from the cost, there are no drawbacks intrinsic to the actual kiln. The negative
experiences with the kiln are attributable to problems with its management. Thus in
order to make the adoption of the FTT successful and sustainable in a given context, it
is important that all the relevant actors are consulted before installation, and that those
responsible for its management have clearly identified roles and responsibilities.
3.4 CONCLUSIONS
The results of this case study support those of previous studies extolling the superiority
of the FTT. The study examined the paragraphs of Chapter 7 of the SSF Guidelines
most relevant to deployment of the FTT. Though the kilns address all of the provisions
to varying degrees, it is through paragraphs 7.2, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 that we are able to
comprehensively assess the impact of the kiln.
As a technology that both accommodates the needs of female processors and adds
value to the final product, the FTT facilitates overcoming two challenges severely
hindering fish smoking value chains in West Africa – namely, the hazardous working
conditions of the women smoking the fish, and the high levels of PAH4 deposits that
prevent export to higher-value markets. Critically, it must be recognised that the FTT
in and of itself does not overcome these barriers, relevant training and organisation
among the processors is also key to overcoming these barriers. As for its limitations,
the FTT is an expensive investment for low-income processors, and uptake depends
on consistent access to raw materials and fish. This is an issue that states can address
with policies that ensure small-scale fish producers, and the processors that depend on
them, have access to sufficient fish (equivalent to 3 tonnes per kiln, per day). For the
long-term sustainability of the FTT, social organizations need to play a central role in
managing of the kilns. The impact the FTT will have on small-scale fish smoking value
chains is not yet fully understood, but given the strengths the kilns exhibits (Table 3.2)
it may be considered a disruptive technology. As such one aspect to consider in future
studies will be the kiln’s contribution to the restructuring of power dynamics in the
value chain.
3.4.1 Recommendations
In order to encourage the uptake of FTT in West Africa and other regions of the
world, this case study provides a series of recommendations, drawing on those made
in Mindjimba (2019), FAO (2016), FAO (2017), FAO (2019) and by CFFA during the
research for this case study.
Recommendations for loss reduction, value addition and cost efficiency

• Adapt the equipment to each site’s specificities, including user needs and the main
target fish species (i.e. large trays for small fish).
• Strengthen good hygienic practices in general, and systematically treat well-water
and rainwater used to wash utensils and raw fish prior to smoking, according to
prevailing standards.
• Achieve initial consensus among the processors regarding those responsible
for the maintenance and running of the kiln. Prior training and demonstration
surrounding the use of the kiln should be provided to the processors and the
artisans tasked with its maintenance.
• Strengthen the capacity of fish smokers, artisans and government staff responsible
for providing monitoring and support (e.g. smoking techniques, FTT kiln use and
maintenance, bookkeeping and income statements, monitoring and commercial
strategies).
Recommendations for trade and market access

• Place increased emphasis on data collection. A sound, consistent system for
recording transactions should be introduced alongside the FTT kilns, one that
takes into account characteristics such as volume processed and finances.
• Target more rewarding markets for FTT products (e.g. supermarkets, diplomatic
representatives and international organizations, resident expatriates, tourists,
restaurants, and external markets) by meeting their requirements in terms of
quality assurance and control, traceability and supply dependability.
• Strengthen awareness among authorities, the local community and other
stakeholders concerning the trade and health benefits of the kilns.
• Update national regulations regarding PAH with a view to guaranteeing fishery
products’ traceability and quality control.
• States need to ensure that industrial fleets operating in their waters are managed
in view of the needs of small-scale fishers and their associated value chains, to
ensure that the processors and other small-scale fishery actors have access to
sufficient fish.
Recommendations for gender, livelihoods and social organization

• Promote the role of women in the value chain.
• Raise awareness among processors, consumers, decision makers, competent
authorities and local media outlets about the comparative advantages of the FTT,
in particular the fact that healthy and higher-quality products are the result of
using this new technique.
• Choose processing facility implementation sites carefully – usually as a
compromise between several considerations (e.g. accessibility, distance, viability,
security) – in order to reach the largest number of potential users.
• The involvement of local (administrative, municipal, traditional and territorial
agencies) authorities alongside the processors and other value chain actors is
essential to ensuring the success and sustainability of the processing facilities
(e.g. raising stakeholders’ awareness and organizing producers). These authorities
are also key to building the processing sites, including creating or rehabilitating
access roads and partially financing the infrastructure.
• Set up child-care facilities to facilitate and encourage women’s participation.
• Social change interventions as a transformative approach in raising awareness on
gender is recommended in order to change perceived attitudes on roles of men
and women, especially among men.
REFERENCES
Abidjan.net. 2017. Le point de débarquement aménagé Mohammed VI de Locodjro livré.
Abidjan.net, 28 November 2017. https://news.abidjan.net/h/626648.html
Anoh, K.P., Ossey, Y.B., Ouattara, S., Dembélé, A.A. & Traoré, K.S. 2017. Santé des
femmes transformatrices, sécurité sanitaire des produits et impact environnemental des
systèmes de fumage de poisson dans les communautés de pêche artisanale, étude pour
des systèmes alimentaires durables. Projet NEPAD dans les communautés de pêche de
Guessabo. IGT/APCN (unpublished).
Asiedu, B., Failler, P. & Beygens, Y. 2018. Ensuring food security: an analysis of the
industrial smoking fishery sector of Ghana. Agriculture & Food Security, 7(38).
Ayilu, R.K., Antwi-Asare, T.O., Anoh, P., Tall, A., Aboya, N., Chimatiro, S. & Dedi, S.
2016. Informal artisanal fish trade in West Africa: Improving cross-border trade. Program
Brief: 2016-37. Penang, Malaysia, WorldFish.
Bomfeh, K., De Meulenaer, B., Jacxsens, L., Amoa-Awua, W.K., Tandoh, I. & Afoakwa,
E.O. 2016. Effects of FTT Thiaroye components and processing conditions on the levels of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) smoked fish. 7 pp. Unpublished.
Bomfeh, K., Jacxsens, L., Amoa-Awua, W.K., Tandoh, I., Afoakwa, E.O., Gamarro,
E.G., Ouadi, Y.D. & De Meulenaer, B. 2019. Reducing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
contamination in smoked fish in the Global South: a case study of an improved kiln in
Ghana. J Sci Food Agric., 99(12): 5417–5423.
Brownell, B. 1983. A practical guide to improved fish smoking in West Africa. UNICEF.
Daniels, A., Gutierrez, M., Fanjul, G., Guerena, A., Matheson, I. & Watkins, K. 2016.
Western Africa’s missing fish. The impacts of unreported and unregulated fishing and
under-reporting catches by foreign fleets. London, Overseas Development Institute.
Doumbouya, A., Camara, O.T., Mamie, J., Intchama, J.F., Jarra, A., Ceesay, S., Guèye,
A., Ndiaye, D., Beibou, E., Padilla, A. & Belhabib, D. 2017. Assessing the effectiveness
of monitoring control and surveillance of illegal fishing: the case of West Africa. Front
Mar Sci, 4: 50. (available at https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00050).
European Commission. 2011. No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels for polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European Union.
European Commission. 2020. RASFF Portal. (available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/
rasff-window/portal/?event=SearchForm&cleanSearch=1).
FAO. 2003. A study of the trade in smoked-dried fish from West African to the United
Kingdom. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-y4530e.pdf).
FAO. 2014. The value of African fisheries. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-
i3917e.pdf).
FAO. 2015a. Guide for developing and using the FAO-Thiaroye Processing Technique
(FTT-Thiaroye). Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4174e.pdf).
FAO. 2015b. Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the
Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. Rome.
FAO. 2016. Compte rendu final du projet “Projet d’appui au renforcement des capacités et
du cadre réglementaire en matière de prévention et réduction des pertes post-capture des
produits halieutiques”, Côte d’Ivoire. Rome. 14 pp.
FAO. 2016. FAO’s Multipartner Programme Support Mechanism (FMM). 2016 Annual
Report. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7575e.pdf).
FAO. 2018. Forth meeting of professionals/experts in support of fish safety, technology and
marketing in Africa. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/ca0374b/CA0374B.pdf).
FAO. 2019a. Improving rural services for small-scale fisheries using a technological platform
approach. Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular, FIAM/C1180. Rome. (available at http://
www.fao.org/3/ca4899en/ca4899en.pdf).
FAO. 2019b. FAO-Thiaroye processing technique: Towards adopting improved fish smoking
systems in the context of benefits, trade-offs and policy implications in selected developing
countries. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/ca4667en/ca4667en.pdf).
Farhadian, A., Jinap, S., Hanifah, H. & Zaidul, I. 2011. Effects of meat preheating
and wrapping on the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in charcoal-grilled
meat. Food Chemistry, 124(1): 141–146.
Gordon, A., Pulis, A. & Owusu-Adjei, E. 2011. Smoked marine fish from Western Region,
Ghana: a value chain assessment. USAID Integrated Coastal and Fisheries Governance
Initiative for the Western Region, Ghana. WorldFish Center. 46 pp.
Mindjimba, K. 2019. Study on the profitability of fish smoking with FTT-Thiaroye kilns in
Côte d’Ivoire. Rome, FAO.
Netherlands Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 2018. Exporting fish and seafood to the
European ethnic retail channels. The Hague, Netherlands, Centre for the Promotion of
Imports.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guenette, S., Pitcher, T., Sumaila, U.R., Walters, C., Watson,
R. & Zeller, D. 2002. Toward sustainability in world fisheries. Nature, 418: 689–695.
Stołyhwo, A. and Sikorski, Z. (2005). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked fish – a
critical review. Food Chemistry, 91(2), pp.303-311.
World Bank, FAO & IFAD. 2015. Gender in Climate-Smart Agriculture Module 18 for the
Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. Washington, DC, World Bank. (available at http://
www.fao.org/3/a-i5546e.pdf).
Appendix 1
Interview Guide for FTT-Thiaroye Kiln Interviews

• What is your experience with the FTT-Thiaroye kiln and/or other fishing smoking
technologies?
• What aspects about the FTT-Thiaroye kiln do you think set it apart from other fish
smoking technologies?
• Would you agree that the FTT-Thiaroye kiln is a gender sensitive technology? Why?
• Is the FTT-Thiaroye kiln helping West African fishing smoking populations access
new markets?
• Do you think it will continue to grow in popularity? Why?
• What do you think are the major challenges to the FTT-Thiaroye kiln’s uptake?
• Has the FTT-Thiaroye kiln helped create strong social organisation? Why?
• What recommendations would you make to policy makers to increase the benefits
promised by the FTT-Thiaroye kiln?
71
4. Fish traders and processors

network: Enhancing trade and
market access for small-scale
fisheries in the West Central Gulf
of Guinea
Raymond Kwojori Ayilu

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Sarah Appiah
Department of Economics, University of Ghana, Accra
ABSTRACT
From 2014 to 2018, the Fish Trade Project (a joint project of the WorldFish Center, the
African Union Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources, and the New Partnership
for Africa’s Development) implemented trade and market-driven initiatives to support
small-scale fisheries in the subregion of the Fishery Committee for the West Central Gulf
of Guinea (FCWC). One initiative was the establishment of the FCWC Fish Traders
and Processors Network (FCWC FishNET), a platform composed of small-scale traders
and processors, with the objective of informing policy gaps and designing market-driven
incentives to leverage the collective power of its members to facilitate regional trade.
This case study reviews FCWC FishNET activities to reflect on the role of socio-
economic trade networks in small-scale fisheries, in line with specific recommendations
of Chapter 7 of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries
in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. Secondary data supplemented
by primary survey were used. The study emphasizes FCWC FishNET’s activities in
promoting quality smoked fish products, reducing post-harvest losses, and popularizing
the FAO-Thiaroye processing technique to eliminate the health threats posed by the
Chorkor kiln. Also discussed is the use of Fisheries Learning Exchanges to promote
better fish handling, processing and packaging techniques as a means of adding value and
diversifying trading channels for fish products. The study finds that FCWC FishNET
has engendered greater trust among network members, allowing traders to conduct
business with each other on a credit basis and improving the overall communication and
business experience. Similarly, it has facilitated initiatives to reduce post-harvest losses
by improving processing and trading facilities. Finally, the case study emphasizes the
compelling role of trade networking in small-scale fisheries discourse while providing
lessons to practitioners and policymakers in fisheries.
Keywords: Fish trade, market access, trade networking, small-scale fisheries, FCWC
subregion.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The Fishery Committee for the West Central Gulf of Guinea (FCWC)1 subregion
stretches from Liberia to Nigeria with a total coastline of 2 633 km2 and an exclusive
1
The FCWC is an intergovernmental fishery body that comprises six countries of the Gulf of Guinea:
Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria and Togo.
FIGURE 4.1
FCWC contracting parties and member states of the FCWC Fish Traders and
Processors Committee
Source: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2020.

Map conforms to: Map No. 4170 Rev. 18.1 UNITED NATIONS,
Credits: Created with mapchart.net © February 2020.
economic zone of 923 916 km2 (Figure 4.1). In the majority of coastal communities in
the subregion, fishery activities are mostly small-scale. Low-value pelagic species are
harvested mainly using canoes. Fish products constitute an important food commodity,
and are marketed and distributed widely across the FCWC subregion. The fishery
sector employs over 3 million people both directly and indirectly in West Africa
(WARFP, 2017); the annual catch is estimated at around USD 3.5 billion (Belhabib,
Sumaila and Pauly, 2015), with 6.7 million people deriving their livelihood from the
sector. The percentage of fish as part of the total animal protein intake and the average
annual fish consumption in FCWC member countries range between 40–60 percent
and 18–20 kg, respectively (FAO, 2016). The small-scale fishing activity is dominated
by men, while processing, marketing and trading activities are mostly controlled by
women. Despite the predominant role of small-scale fisheries in the FCWC subregion,
the sector is currently experiencing overexploitation and a decline in fish stocks,
exposing coastal communities to livelihood vulnerabilities.
Trade routes for small-scale fisheries remain informal and intertwined within the
FCWC subregion. There are currently two main types of fish marketing channels for
small-scale fisheries: domestic and intraregional markets. The domestic markets cater
to local demand and supply needs while the intraregional markets attract fish traders
and processors from neighbouring countries. Fish products from Ghana are informally
exported and imported to neighbouring Benin, Côte D’Ivoire, Nigeria and Togo.
Estimates by Ayilu et al. (2016) for selected markets (Tuesday, Denu and Dambai) in
Ghana revealed that about 6 000 tonnes of fish products worth USD 18.6 million are
exported annually through informal routes to Togo and Benin. In addition, countries
in the FCWC subregion import significant quantities of fish products from Senegal,
again through informal routes. Formal small-scale fisheries trade,2 on the other hand,
is not predominant in the subregion; very few fish caught by small-scale fisheries are
exported. Conversely, FCWC countries annually export significant tonnage of fishery
products via formal channels to Europe, the United States of America, and Asia. These
exports are mostly derived from industrial fisheries and include species such as frozen
tuna, canned tuna (tuna flakes, tuna chunks and tuna mash), dried or smoked fish,
2
Formal trade in this study refers to fish trading activities that are captured in official national statistics and
are mostly taxable. Formal traders mainly use recognized border entry points and declare their products
appropriately. Informal trade activities, on the other hand, are mostly not included in official statistics
and are thus not subject to being taxed. Informal traders mainly use channels that are not recognized
border entry points.
4. Fish traders and processors network: Enhancing trade and market access for small-scale fisheries in the West Central Gulf of Guinea 73
and other assorted demersal fish such as cuttlefish, crab and lobster, along with other
small pelagics. In Ghana, for instance, a total of 57 000 tonnes (USD 210 million) was
exported in 2013 (Failler, Beyens and Asiedu, 2014).
Boosting intraregional commodity trade has become important on the African
regional integration agenda. Among other things, these efforts seek to address issues
of poor product quality and to improve trade-related infrastructure on the continent.
In this regard, the Africa Union (AU), Regional Economic Communities and the
New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) have prioritized efforts to
strengthen regional trade. Among the key commodities identified for investment and
policy support are fish and fishery products. Therefore the Fish Trade Project (FTP)
was created to support trade and market-driven initiatives in small-scale fisheries. The
FTP was designed by the WorldFish Center, the AU Interafrican Bureau for Animal
Resources (AU-IBAR) and NEPAD, and funded by the European Union. The project
ran from 2014 to 2018, working in four different trade corridors in Africa: Western,
Southern, Eastern and Central (Figure 4.2). The FTP’s central aim was to improve
nutrition and reduce poverty in sub-Saharan Africa by (i) gathering information on
the structure, products and value of intraregional fish trade concerning food security
in sub-Saharan Africa and making it available to stakeholders; (ii) coming up with a set
of recommendations on policies, certification procedures, standards and regulations,
and embedding them in national and regional fisheries, as well as agricultural, trade and
food security policy frameworks; (iii) enhancing trade capacity among private sector
associations, in particular that of women fish processors and traders and aquaculture
producers, to make better use of expanding trade opportunities through competitive
small and medium enterprises; and (iv) facilitating adoption and implementation of
FIGURE 4.2
Identified fish trade corridors in the Fish Trade Project in Africa (Western, Southern,
Eastern and Central Africa)

Map conforms to: Map No. 4170 Rev. 18.1
Credits: Created with mapchart.net © UNITED NATIONS, February 2020.
appropriate policies, certification procedures, standards and regulations in Africa

by key stakeholders participating in intraregional trade. Importantly, the FTP
aligned with broader international small-scale fishery policy objectives. First, at the
global level, the FTP contributed to implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines
for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and
Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines) (FAO, 2015) through better integration of small-
scale fisheries trade into national food security strategies and agendas. Second, at the
continental level, it contributed to the AU Policy Framework and Reform Strategy for
Fisheries and Aquaculture in Africa (PFRS), which seeks to promote responsible and
equitable fish trade and marketing by significantly harnessing the benefits of Africa’s
fisheries and aquaculture endowments.
The challenges confronting domestic and cross-border trade in small-scale fisheries
in the FCWC subregion are varied (UNCTAD, 2017; ICSF, 2002). These include
inappropriate market infrastructure, poor quality and short shelf life of processed fish
products, unfavourable and restrictive border regulations and standards, and lack of
credit support due to the informal nature of small-scale fisheries (Ayilu et al., 2016).
Fish markets and trade systems do function, albeit under difficult circumstances; most
markets are unhygienic, lack proper infrastructure, and offer little to no vending space
or storage systems. Similarly, processing sites lack basic facilities like running water,
electricity, ice, and storage or refrigeration facilities. Moreover, small-scale fishery
workers have insufficient knowledge of proper fish handling, preservation, processing
and packaging. At the policy level, lack of harmonious trade policies and regulations
among countries results in complex cross-border trade processes, with harassment
at check-points and product confiscations. Finally, formal funding is challenging to
secure, as small-scale fisheries do not meet the required repayment conditions.
To tackle these challenges, the FTP established the FCWC Fish Traders and
Processors Network (FCWC FishNET), a platform composed of small-scale traders
and processors. Its objective is to a) help inform policy gaps and design market-driven
incentives, and b) leverage the collective power of its members to facilitate regional
trade. This case study offers insights on the role socio-economic and trade networking
can play in advancing value chain initiatives in small-scale fisheries.
FCWC FishNET activities align closely with the provisions made in Chapter 7 of
the SSF Guidelines, in particular paragraphs 7.3, 7.6 and 7.10. In relation to 7.3, this
study highlights the activities of FCWC FishNET in promoting quality smoked fish
products, reducing post-harvest losses, and reducing the health threats posed to fish
processors by advocating for the FAO-Thiaroye processing technique (FTT) over the
Chorkor kiln. These align with paragraph 7.3 of the SSF Guidelines to support the
small-scale fisheries post-harvest subsector in producing good quality, safe fish and
fishery products, for both export and domestic markets. The study also discusses the use
of Fisheries Learning Exchanges (FLEs) in promoting better fish handling, processing
and packaging techniques as a means of adding value and diversifying trading channels
for fish products. In addition to FLEs, its presence as a community platform has helped
FCWC FishNET generate trust, allowing traders to conduct cross-border business
with each other on a credit basis, thus improving the communication and business
experience. This echoes recommendation 7.10, which advocates for enabling small-
scale fisheries to adjust to changing conditions and trends in global and local markets.
Finally, in relation to paragraph 7.6, FCWC FishNET supports regional efforts to
harmonize and facilitate easier cross-border trade, making markets more accessible.
The remainder of the study is organized as follows. We first present the methods,
highlighting the data gathering processes. Next we present the results, with discussion
and analysis. This entails an overview of FCWC FishNET, followed by the initiatives
embarked upon to enhance trade in small-scale fisheries. Finally, we wrap up the study
with a conclusion highlighting good practices revealed during the case study.
4.2 METHODS
The case study drew information and data mainly from secondary sources, supplemented
by a primary survey in the course of the study.
4.2.1 Secondary data review

The preliminary stages involved a review of FTP activities conducted in the FCWC
subregion (Chimatiro, 2018; Abbey et al., 2018; FCWC, 2018; Ayilu et al., 2016;
Chimatiro, Banda and Tall, 2015). These reports provided a pool of information and
data on the FTP and insights on FCWC FishNET. The secondary review approach
allowed for synthesizing the different reports while still guaranteeing a broader
understanding of the central focus of the study.
4.2.2 Primary data collection

Semi-structured questionnaires were presented to 20 processors and traders who
deal in small-scale fisheries; these were selected from the Tuesday Market, a major
cross-border fish market in Ghana. A focus group discussion with the Manhean Fish
Processors and Traders hub (located in the city of Tema) comprising eight attendees
was also conducted. Two consultants from the FTP implementation team in the region
and the FCWC secretariat were selected specifically for interviews. This approach
aided in illustrating the achievements and challenges of FCWC FishNET and the
overarching lessons learned. The multiple interviews with different stakeholders
broadened the understanding of the policy and institutional processes and the linkage
to FCWC FishNET activities.
4.3.1 Overview of FCWC FishNET

FCWC FishNET was formed as part of the FTP with the goal of enhancing economic
opportunities through trade and market-centred initiatives. It aims to create a unified
platform for small-scale fisheries, with members primarily comprised of traders and
processors at the national and regional level. It was developed through cooperation
between the FCWC and representatives from fish traders and processors associations.
FCWC FishNET feeds into the African Union’s efforts to mobilize various non-state
fisheries actors to support the implementation of the SSF Guidelines and the PFRS.
It aligns with the PFRS strategic small-scale fisheries objective to “improve and
strengthen the contribution of small-scale fisheries to poverty alleviation, food and
nutrition security and socio-economic benefits of fishing communities” (NEPAD,
2014, p. 17).
4.3.2 Promoting the FAO-Thiaroye processing technique3

In the small-scale fishing communities of West Africa, Chorkor smoking kilns are
popular among processors. However, these kilns produce a harmful concentration of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), some of which are carcinogenic and can lead
to pulmonary, integumentary and ocular health complications (Stolyhwo and Sikorski,
2005). PAH are deposited as a residue on fish during smoking, thus lowering the
quality of the fish and subsequently its value to European markets. Using this method
to process fish takes an average of 12 hours a day. It is often one of the only forms of
employment available to coastal women, and – due to the health risks – frequently
forces processors into early retirement. A further disadvantage associated with Chorkor
kilns is the inefficient combustion rate, leading to unsustainable levels of deforestation.
3
For an in-depth examination of the FAO-Thiaroye processing technique, please refer to the case study,
“An Overview of the FAO-Thiaroye Processing Technique within the Context of Value Chains, Post-
Harvest and Trade”, found in this Technical Paper.
The precarious situation faced by traders and processors relying on Chorkor

kilns has led FCWC FishNET to support the development and adoption of the
FAO-Thiaroye processing technique (FTT) in the FCWC subregion. The FTT kiln
is an improved fish smoking technology pioneered by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) over the past decade. Initially intended
for medium-size enterprises, since 2014 it has also been promoted for small-scale
processors. The advantages of the FTT kiln include more efficient combustion, leading
to a reduction in deforestation; improved working conditions for the processors,
meaning reduced health risks and time spent operating the kilns; and an improved
product with an improved taste (Table 4.1).
TABLE 4.1
Comparative analysis of different fish smoking systems
Type of system
TECHNICAL CRITERIA Chorkor FTT
Smoking time 1 day 3–6 hours

Fire and smoke control Limited Very high
Smoking technique Separate smoking and drying Separate smoking and drying
Fish fat collection device None Included
Smoke filtering device None Included
ECONOMIC CRITERIA
Cost of kiln (USD) 345 1 600

Smoking capacity (kg of fish per day) 200–300 3 000
Amount of wood used (kg) per 1 kg of fish > 0.8 0.8
Lifespan 3–15 years > 15 years
Earnings Average High
Ancillary jobs Medium Very high
SOCIAL CRITERIA
Exposure to heat/smoke Frequent Very low

Safety and quality of smoked fish Lesser quality Safer and higher quality
Source: Mindjimba, 2019.
After first piloting the FTT in Abidjan, Côte D’Ivoire, FAO began working
with FCWC FishNET and other socio-economic networks to popularize the kiln
throughout the FCWC subregion. FAO has supported the introduction of the FTT
kiln, which costs between USD 800 and USD 1 600. The high cost of the FTT kiln
is a major concern for traders and processors (Mindjimba, 2019). Moreover, some
consumers still indicate a preference for fish smoked by the Chorkor kiln, in spite of
the health risks associated with it. Forecasts project that this market force will change
as demand for FTT-smoked fish increases among Africa’s burgeoning middle classes.
In order to catalyse this process, FCWC FishNET is using its leverage as a platform
to encourage small-scale fishing communities to adopt the FTT as their preferred
smoking method. The advocacy channels for popularizing FTT include training of
“change agents”, peer-to-peer learning, and practical field demonstrations. The role
of a change agent is to encourage people to recognize and take an interest in solving
local problems, and to guide them if necessary, so that ultimately a sustainable plan
of action is achieved (FAO, 2011). In the context of the FTT kiln, change agents train
selected fish traders and processors who act as ambassadors for the new technique.
These ambassadors, in turn, train other traders and processors in small-scale fishing
communities. These training sessions compare the Chorkor kiln with the FTT
kiln on issues of fuel efficiency, health, and opportunities in domestic and export
markets. To date, at least 45 individuals in Ghana have benefited from this training,
including youth from coastal communities. The peer-to-peer learning and practical
field demonstrations are an effective strategy for FTT dissemination. For instance,
with support from the FCWC, five traders and processors from Liberia were trained
in Ghana on the construction, usage and maintenance of the FTT kiln. This learning
trajectory is improving the quality of smoked fish products, and is expected to support
efforts to harmonize fish smoking standards, improve trade and add value to the
smoked fish value chain.
There are already indications that the FTT is establishing itself within the market.
Due to the improved quality it offers, smoked fish products are being marketed in
major supermarkets and commercial outlets in Abidjan and Accra. Overall, there is no
doubt that the advocacy and popularization orchestrated by FCWC FishNET has and
will continue to reduce post-harvest losses and create additional value through good
quality smoked fish products for both export and domestic markets.
4.3.3 Enhancing Fisheries Learning Exchanges in small-scale fisheries in the

FCWC subregion
FAO (2019) estimates that the annual discards from global marine capture fisheries
between 2010 and 2014 were 9.1 million tonnes. These discards are often a result of
poor post-harvest storage, handling and processing practices. These practices can be
improved with the help of Fisheries Learning Exchanges (FLEs), which bring together
representatives from different communities to share knowledge and expertise in
fisheries management, encompassing subjects like handling techniques (Rocliffe, 2018).
FLEs help enhance the capacity of fish traders and processors by sharing good
practices within the FCWC. To date, FCWC FishNET members have been involved in
the organization of FLEs on smoking techniques, hygiene, and processing, packaging
and trading techniques. These FLEs have included field visits, on-site demonstrations,
one-to-one dialogue and workshops.
Particular instances include an FLE on improved fish handling, processing and
packaging at the King Mohammed IV Fish Landing and Processing Centre in Abidjan
for FCWC traders and processors. Another FLE, hosted at the Felix Houphouet-
Boigny University, focused on different forms of packaging available to small-scale
fisheries. The key topic was the contamination associated with plastic and cement
papers, especially when compared to traditional and green packaging such as atieke4
leaves and weaved baskets. As an extension of the Felix Houphouet-Boigny University
FLE, FCWC FishNET organized further discussions orientated around new and
emerging value chains in West Africa and how small and medium enterprises can
access them. The discussions included value chains supplying the growing hospitality
industry and the expatriate community in West Africa.
FLEs are proving to be a highly effective channel through which to communicate
relevant market and trade information and share good post-harvest practices relating
to processing, hygiene and packaging, thus fulfilling the criteria outlined under
paragraph 7.10 of the SSF Guidelines.
4.3.4 Promoting informal trade linkages and partnerships

Access to credit and cost of transportation constitute major constraints for small-scale
fisheries in the region. Access to credit in particular is more limiting and bureaucratic for
small-scale fishery traders and processors. Consequently, they either avoid completely
or are refused access to formal credit options. Reasons for this include the inability
of traders and processors to offer collateral, inappropriate and poor bookkeeping
practices, and/or they are unable to navigate the complexities and bureaucratic
4
The Atieke plant is found in West Africa.
procedures associated with assessing formal

credit. Previous negative experiences with
Ponzi5 schemes have further discouraged
fish traders and processors from dealing with
financial institutions. More importantly, banks
and credit institutions consider fish trading
and processing as an informal activity, which
is associated with high loan default. Therefore
the interest rates offered to small-scale fisheries
are higher than those offered to formal sectors,
thus constricting their financial flexibility.
Adding to this, the cost of transporting fish
consignments has greatly hindered both
domestic and cross-border trade activities in
small-scale fisheries. According to Ayilu et al.
(2016), the cost of transportation constitutes
©R. AYILU
about a third of the total marketing costs for

fish traders and processors in the FCWC.
Woman fish trader at the Tuesday Market in Accra
selling processed fish to a customer. Financial institutions have started exploring
the option of providing small loans to traders
through trade associations and networks, although this innovation is still nascent.
A microfinance institution in Ghana is currently piloting this option using a small
network of fish traders and processors in Tema. Village Savings and Loans Association
mechanisms are also being piloted as a channel to support fish processors and traders.
These associations bring together traders and processors to pool their savings for
mutually agreed objectives, like expanding their businesses. In FCWC countries,
non-contractual relations are an important feature of informal economic transactions.
As a result, informal economic transactions and trade partnerships are dependent
on social trust and historical knowledge. The prevailing social trust in the FCWC
subregion owes its existence to the trade networks FCWC FishNET has fostered
through national and subregional fora, trade activations and exhibitions. This trust
allows fish merchants and retailers to deal with one another without immediate cash
payments, usually on a credit basis. Retailers at various fish markets are able to obtain
fish from merchants and wholesalers on credit and repay at a later date to qualify for
new consignment and supply. Social trust guarantees that traders and processors with
minimal capital can gradually expand their trading activities once they establish good
relationships with their creditors. Because community relationships, kinship and trust
are an integral part of trade in small-scale fisheries, these partnerships are very resilient.
For instance, Ghanaian fish processors supply fish products on credit to their Togolese
counterparts as a result of the history between them.
With regards to transport, fish traders and processors are leveraging their trade
networks to reduce costs. For instance, using their established networks, Togolese fish
importers in Ghana have obtained bulk cargo trucks for their fish consignments. Bulk
transport has several advantages: it allows the importers to negotiate reduced transport
rates, and it helps ensure consignments arrive with less damage and fewer defects. In
addition, border inspection post formalities are simplified by bulk inspections of the fish
consignments, thus expediting the timely and safe delivery of fish products. Moreover,
traders note these partnerships allow them to rely on agents to order specific fish
consignments from wholesalers and merchants, eliminating the need for the traders to
travel themselves. All these strategies minimize transportation costs and promote trade
5
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent financial scheme which presents itself as a credible financial institution at
the initial stages of operation and later defrauds customers of their investments.
in small-scale fisheries. Consequently, fish traders are able to increase the volume of
fish imported, thus ensuring an abundant fish supply for rural communities at cheaper
prices, while also playing a crucial role in improving income and livelihood security
and facilitating fish trade in domestic and regional markets.
The development of these trade partnerships and linkages through networking
has proven robust in the face of credit and transport constraints. These actions
contribute towards improving access to markets and facilitating cross-border trade, as
recommended in paragraph 7.6 of the SSF Guidelines.
4.3.5 Facilitating marketing, information sharing and communication

The growth in urban markets and consumption of fish has provided an incentive for
fish trade in West Africa. However, information bottlenecks remain a barrier to the
smooth operations of small-scale fish enterprises and other food commodities such as
grains, tubers and livestock. Access to technology and information enable fish traders
to respond appropriately to price, demand and supply dynamics as well as other market
conditions (Ayilu et al., 2016). To some extent, trade networking has facilitated the flow
of price and market information among small-scale fisheries in the region, in particular
through improved business-to-business and business-to-customer interactions in
fish markets. So-called “market queens” (group leaders) from various markets share
information on price changes and on demand and supply volatilities via WhatsApp,
SMS and Direct calling. Fish traders and processors then use this information to avoid
“empty trips” – i.e. undertaking a market trip only to be met with product shortages.
The price change information also allows fish traders and processors to communicate
any catch volatility to sponsored fishers onshore so they can prepare the necessary
logistics to avoid losses. Furthermore, the market queens achieve a certain “cooperative
power”, allowing them to influence prices as well as manage supply volumes in the
fish market. FCWC FishNET members are also working with the Intergovernmental
Organization for Marketing Information and Cooperation Services for Fishery
Products in Africa (Infopeche)6 to test whether monitoring prices through an online
platform could improve their trade activities. In this regard, market queens in selected
markets have been trained in reporting weekly fish price information.
Facilitating the flow of price and market information can have effects on cross-
border trade as well. Indeed, it is observed that fish traders involved in trade networking
activities are more likely to participate in cross-border fish trade, due to the first-hand
information on cross-border market dynamics offered by their colleagues, especially
concerning price fluctuations and exchange rate volatilities.
The abovementioned activities align with recommendation 7.10 of the SSF
Guidelines, whereby small-scale fisheries should be able to access timely and accurate
market information to help them adjust to changing market conditions.
4.3.6 Improving trade and processing infrastructure

According to Ayilu et al. (2016, p. 13), “Many West African countries have adopted
the WTO agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,
which sets out the basic rules for food safety, animal and plant health standards”. As it
concerns fish and fishery products, this requires infrastructure improvements on board
vessels, at landing and processing sites, and in trading establishments, as many fish
traders and processors are currently unable to meet these standards. Major challenges
include poor hygienic conditions at processing centres and inappropriate handling and
packaging of fish. Post-harvest fish handling and packaging systems are necessary to
ensure fish quality and guarantee a longer storage period for fish products.
6
Infopeche is a 15-country intergovernmental organization whose mandate includes providing marketing
information and cooperation services for fishery products in Africa.
To address these limitations, FCWC FishNET has refurbished a cross-border fish

trading and processing centre (the Manhean Fish Processors and Traders hub) in Tema
(Ghana), working through the FTP and with support from WorldFish. The processing
hub attracts fish traders and processors from neighbouring countries, and distributes a
substantial quantity of processed small-scale fisheries products to fish markets in Benin,
Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Togo. The FCWC FishNET refurbishment
included the addition of a water supply system and washroom facilities. Traders and
processors report that the upgraded facility can now guarantee clean and safe processed
fish products for trade. The improvements also make it easier for them to work longer
and more efficiently during bumper harvests. During these bumper periods, extra
working hours are required to process higher volumes of fish from various landing sites
along the coast. The new amenities offered at the centre spare traders and processors
the need for commuting to alternative locations to bathe, use toilet facilities, and
change working apparel and baby nappies. Anecdotally, the traders further argue that
the high volumes of post-harvest losses usually associated with bumper harvests have
been significantly reduced at the processing facility. This has increased the volume of
processed fish available for both the domestic and regional markets.
It is important to emphasize that enhancing the activities of fish traders and processors
through improved market-related infrastructure in fishing communities supports the
small-scale fisheries post-harvest subsector in producing good quality, safe fish and
fishery products, for both export and domestic markets, in a responsible and sustainable
manner. These initiatives tie directly into recommendation 7.3 of the SSF Guidelines by
contributing towards improving income and food security through reduction in post-
harvest losses and waste and improvements in fish quality and nutrition.
4.3.7 Strengthening research and dialogue in small-scale fisheries

Policymakers at different levels of fisheries governance require succinct research
evidence and data to properly manage post-harvest fisheries and make informed
decisions concerning trading, processing and marketing of fishery products. However,
research in small-scale fisheries in West Africa is inadequate due to lack of data.
Official data do not exist, and collecting primary data remains daunting due to a lack
of cooperation from small-scale fisheries actors, who are mostly informal. Fish traders
and processors are reluctant to divulge information on their trade because they view
researchers as a means of government tax collection. A solution was found to have FTP
researchers use the FCWC FishNET trade networks to collect comprehensive data on
different dimensions of small-scale fisheries from member countries. This underscores
the importance of FCWC FishNET as a channel for determining relevant qualitative
and quantitative data; indeed, FCWC FishNET members were the primary actors
validating the FTP research findings and outcomes.
These research findings and evidence formed the basis for the policy dialogue of
the Ninth Conference of Fisheries Ministers of the FCWC secretariat. As a result of
this dialogue, the FCWC secretariat then declared 2018 the year for promoting trade
in small-scale fisheries at local, national and regional markets. In recognition of the
important role of trade in small-scale fisheries as well as the challenges and constraints
involved, the Conference further recommended policies to assist and facilitate fish
trade among FCWC member countries. This policy direction constituted a major shift
in small-scale fisheries governance and strategy. Moreover, the concept of one-stop
border posts also began to be explored in the FCWC jurisdiction to simplify cross-
border trade. As part of these efforts, a fish trade caravan was led by WorldFish from
Dakar, Senegal to Bamako, Mali, with selected traders interacting with small-scale
fisheries actors to ascertain firsthand the constraints to cross-border trade.
4.4 CONCLUSIONS AND GOOD PRACTICES

This study has offered insights on the role of trade networking in enhancing trade
in small-scale fisheries, showcasing the activities conducted by FCWC FishNET as
a prime example. The study explored trade and market-centred activities which are
connected to specific recommendations of Chapter 7 of the SSF Guidelines. This
includes popularizing the FTT kiln within small-scale fishing communities, developing
Fisheries Learning Exchanges, and stimulating trade partnerships and supporting
simplified cross-border trade measures.
Governments and stakeholders in developing countries need to recognize the
economic, social and cultural importance of fish processing and trading to small-scale
fisheries. Bearing this in mind, we highlight below several good practices from this case
study for governments and development partners to pursue.
1. Knowledge sharing has facilitated the adoption of new innovations in small-
scale fisheries such as the FTT kiln. Continuous promotion of the FTT along
with infrastructure upgrades (e.g. basic sanitary and water supply systems)
at processing and trading centres would significantly contribute to trade in
small-scale fisheries through reduction in post-harvest losses and waste and
through improved fish safety and quality. To effectively deploy the FTT
innovation in the FCWC subregion, construction subsidies to assist small-scale
fisheries are highly recommended. Dwindling marine fisheries stocks coupled
with post-harvest losses are threatening available fish for human consumption.
This phenomena raises food security and livelihood vulnerability concerns
for small-scale fisheries. Therefore, it is recommended that government and
non-government players provide the necessary technical and financial support
to effectively promote FTT usage and enable investments in appropriate
infrastructure upgrades for small-scale fisheries. These initiatives tie into
paragraph 7.3 of the SSF Guidelines which supports measures to improve good
quality, safe fish and fishery products, for both export and domestic markets.
Also, government change agents should educate fish processors and traders on
proper fish processing and handling techniques to ensure their products maintain
good quality when they reach their markets.
2. FLEs foster cooperation and trust and provide a common platform for trade
partnerships and linkages in small-scale fisheries value chains. FLE activities are
effective for exchanging relevant knowledge on market-driven innovations such
as new processing, handling and packaging techniques. However, the activities
of small-scale fisheries processors and traders are constrained by access to capital
for expanding their businesses. Formal credit channels are cumbersome, and
not tailored to their requirements. Thus trade networking is vital for facilitating
effective and stronger trade partnerships. Through trade networking platforms,
traders and processors are able to leverage their kinship networks to make
informal credit arrangements based on mutual “social” trust. Advocacy for FLEs
and stronger trade networks and partnership initiatives will enable access to all
relevant market and trade information for the small-scale fisheries value chain,
allowing traders and processors to benefit from fisheries market opportunities
while minimizing potential livelihood impacts.
3. FCWC FishNET has played a critical role in gathering data, despite the lack
of trust, on the part of small-scale fisheries communities and actors, displayed
towards researchers. Fisheries trade networking groups like FCWC FishNET
form an important node for gathering relevant, quality data and information
on small-scale fishworkers value chains. This approach encourages active
participation of small-scale fishworkers in data collection, in identifying gaps and
in policy dialogue. Integration of fisheries trading networks into data collection
and validation processes facilitates robust research outcomes. This is particularly
important in developing country contexts where small-scale fisheries are mostly

informal and diverse. The FCWC FishNET experience shows the importance of
enhanced cross-sectoral relations and improved communication between fishers,
researchers and policymakers. Therefore, states and development partners should
recognize the importance of trade networks and cooperatives and promote their
organizational and capacity development in all stages of the value chain.
In conclusion, small-scale fisheries governance requires holistic and integrated

consideration of the post-harvest value chain to identify the diverse challenges and
requirements involved. To some extent, promoting the concept of trade networking and
cooperatives is an innovative and effective way of ensuring inclusiveness in small-scale
fisheries in developing countries. Although local-, national- and subregional-level trade
networking or cooperatives constitute an economic burden and require a considerable
length of time to evolve and thrive, the concept remains essential in enabling access
to relevant marketing and trading information on small-scale fisheries. It is therefore
recommended that national and subregional fisheries bodies with a mandate for
fisheries development and cooperation spearhead the formation of small-scale fisheries
trade networks and cooperatives to guarantee their success and sustainability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We acknowledge the WorldFish Centre, AU-IBAR and the FCWC for their
contribution towards improving small-scale fisheries in West Africa. Many thanks
to the women fish processors and traders at the Tema Manhean Fish Processors and
Traders Association and Tuesday Market in Accra for their numerous assistance during
the survey. Lastly, we are grateful to the FAO for providing the funding for this study.
REFERENCES
Abbey, E., Appiah, S., Antwi-Asare, T.O. & Chimatiro, S. 2018. The role of state and
non-state actors in facilitating trading opportunities in fish. Special edition, 2018. Fish
and Fisheries Product Trade and Marketing, AU-IBAR, Bulletin of Animal Health and
Production in Africa, pp. 9–17.
Ayilu, R.K., Antwi-Asare, T.O., Anoh, P., Tall, A., Aboya, N., Chimatiro, S. & Dedi, S.
2016. Informal artisanal fish trade in West Africa: Improving cross-border trade. Policy
Brief No. 37. Penang, Malaysia, WorldFish Center.
Belhabib, D., Sumaila, U.R. & Pauly, D. 2015. Feeding the poor: contribution of West
African fisheries to employment and food security. Ocean & Coastal Management, 111:
72–81.
Chimatiro, S. 2018. Workshop for Exchange of Experiences on Trade and Smoking Practices
in Fisheries Communities in West Africa, April 2018, Grand-Bassam, Côte d’Ivoire.
Chimatiro, S., Banda, A & Tall, A. 2015. Field Methodologies for Fish Trade Corridor
Analytical Studies and Capacity Strengthening. Proceedings of a Writers-shop, April
2005, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Du Preez, M.L. 2018. Gender and Small-Scale Fisheries in Africa. Policy Brief No. 173.
Southern Africa Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA).
Failler, P., Beyens, Y. & Asiedu, B. 2014. Value chain analysis of the fishery sector in Ghana.
Mission Report, Trade Capacity Building Project for Ghana. Accra, UNIDO/MOTI
TCB Project. 106 pp.
FAO. 2011. Culture Change Strategy and Plan of Action for FAO. Rome
FAO. 2015. Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the
Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. Rome. 34 pp. (available at www.fao.
org/3/a-i4356en.pdf).
FAO. 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to food
security and nutrition for all. Rome. 200 pp.
FAO. 2019. A third assessment of global marine fisheries discards. Rome.

FCWC. 2018. Workshop for exchanges of experiences on trade and smoking practices in
fisheries communities in West Africa. Workshop Report, 17–18 April 2018.
Gordon, A., Pulis, A. & Owusu-Adjei, E. 2011. Smoked marine fish from Western Region,
Ghana: a value chain assessment. USAID Integrated Coastal and Fisheries Governance
Initiative for the Western Region, Ghana. WorldFish Center. 46 pp.
ICSF. 2002. Report of the study on the problems and prospects of artisanal fish trade in
Africa. Chennai, India. 86 pp.
Mindjimba, K. 2019. Study on the profitability of fish smoking with FTT-Thiaroye kilns in
Côte d’Ivoire. Rome, FAO.
NEPAD (2014). Policy Framework and Reform Strategy for Fisheries and Aquaculture in
Africa. Midrand: NEPAD.
Rocliffe. S. 2018. Fisheries learning exchanges: a short guide to best practice. Rome, FAO
and Blue Ventures.
Stołyhwo, A. and Sikorski, Z. (2005). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked fish – a
critical review. Food Chemistry, 91(2), pp.303-311.
Tettey, E.O. & Klousseh, K. 1992. Transport of cured fish from Mamprobi (Ghana) to
Cotonou (Benin): trade formalities and constraints, West African Regional Programme
“Improvement of Post-Harvest Utilization of Artisanal Fish Catches in West Africa”.
Bonga Reportage, 1(21).
UNCTAD. 2017. Challenges and Opportunities for Small Scale fishers in Fish Trade.
Presentation notes, WTO Public Forum, 26–28 September 2017.
Wenner, M. & Mooney, T. 1995. Livestock trade and marketing costs in the Burkina
Faso–Ghana corridor. Final Report, September 1995. Prepared for the Sahel West Africa
Office, Africa Bureau, USAID.
West Africa Regional Fisheries. 2017. West Africa Regional Fisheries Program Phase 2 in
Cabo Verde, Gambia, Guinea Bissau and Senegal. Project Information Document.
85
5. Seafood direct marketing:

Supporting critical decision-making
in Alaska and California
Caroline Pomeroy
California Sea Grant, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San
Diego Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz
Sunny Rice
Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program
College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Carolynn Culver
California Sea Grant, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San
Diego
Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara
Victoria Baker
Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program
College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks
ABSTRACT
Seafood direct marketing (SDM) allows fishermen to sell their catch directly to
consumers or via fewer intermediaries than in the dominant supply chain. In the United
States of America, fishermen are drawn to SDM arrangements as a means of adapting to
regulatory, operational, environmental, social and economic challenges. However, SDM
is not always feasible or suitable for individuals, fisheries or communities. Recognizing
this, university-trained advisors affiliated with Sea Grant Extension Programs (SGEPs)
have developed a good practice for assisting small-scale fishermen and communities in
evaluating and utilizing SDM in their particular context. Guided by the SGEP model,
the practice uses a science-based approach grounded in principles of non-advocacy,
trust, collaboration and effective communication. This case study describes the
development and application of the good practice by SGEPs advisors in the American
states of Alaska and California to help fishermen and others make well-informed
decisions about SDM. To implement use of this practice they recommend: recognizing
and working with fishing community members as experts and co-educators (partners);
collaborating to identify and address needs by sharing and building information;
refraining from advocacy; recognizing that SDM is not an “all or nothing” strategy;
developing contextually grounded outreach materials; and using multiple information
delivery methods and dissemination channels. Use of the good practice consistent with
these recommendations can contribute to further implementation of the Voluntary
Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food
Security and Poverty Eradication.
Keywords: Seafood marketing, California fisheries, Alaska fisheries, seafood production,

collaborative research, non-advocacy, extension, Sea Grant, fishing communities, outreach.
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Seafood direct marketing (SDM) is defined as “selling a [seafood] product to a user at
a point on the distribution chain [beyond] the primary processor” (Johnson, 2007).
Also referred to as “seafood alternative marketing” to more accurately reflect the
range of options, it involves fishermen1 selling their catch to the final consumer or
working via fewer intermediaries than in the dominant supply chain. Culver et al.
(2015) have highlighted eight types of SDM arrangements, which vary in terms of the
business skills, time and resources required, types of products that can readily be sold,
and other factors (Appendix 1, Figure 5.1). SDM arrangements can provide outlets
for lower-volume, higher-value (price-per-pound) fisheries, reducing vulnerability to
the variability and uncertainty of pricing that often characterize long supply chains,
especially those tied to global markets. SDM can also enhance connections between
fishermen and consumers, providing fishermen with social, economic and political
support to sustain their activities, and communities and consumers with more direct
access to nutritious, local food products.
SDM is not new to West Coast fisheries of the United States of America. Off-the-
boat sales, local farmers’/fishermen’ markets, and direct sales to restaurants have long
been used by a small proportion of fishermen to sell their catch. However, as fishermen
have faced challenges maintaining economically and socially viable businesses, interest
in SDM as an option for claiming more of the total value of their catch, and in some
cases for improving their connection with consumers and communities, has grown.
For more than 25 years, Sea Grant Extension Programs (SGEPs) (Box 5.1) in the
United States of America have assisted small-scale seafood producers and fishing
communities in the identification, evaluation and utilization of alternative marketing
strategies appropriate for their particular context.2 The SGEP model is a strategy that
builds understanding of local needs and facilitates collaborative exploration of options
for addressing those needs through research, education and outreach. It also builds
partnerships to achieve shared goals. Community members may request assistance or
SGEP advisors may identify needs through conversations with them. SGEP advisors
often provide assistance to fishermen and others at no charge, but may pursue
BOX 5.1
National Sea Grant College Program
The National Sea Grant College Program (NSGCP) is a non-regulatory federal

programme within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
of the Department of Commerce of the United States of America. It is a network of 34
programmes based at colleges and universities in American coastal states and territories.
Each Sea Grant programme features an extension programme with local advisors (also
known as agents or specialists). These advisors are typically university-trained, with
expertise in specific areas such as biological or social science, economics or marketing. The
advisors engage in applied research, education and outreach projects to further NSGCP’s
mission of enhancing the practical use and conservation of coastal and marine resources
to support a sustainable economy and environment. Their work entails collaboration with
communities to help identify and address information needs. The SGEPs are partially
funded by the federal government, with matching support provided by state government
and non-governmental entities.
1
We use the term ‘fisherman(men)’ as it is accepted and typically preferred by men and women who fish
off the United States West Coast.
2
For more information on the SDM and other activities of the individual SGEPs: https://seagrant.noaa.
gov/extension.
5. Seafood direct marketing: Supporting critical decision-making in Alaska and California 87
FIGURE 5.1
Alternative markets at a glance
This comparison chart

points out some key
differences among the eight
alternative market types in
their most basic form

Source: Culver et al., 2015.
additional funding (e.g. grants) to cover costs and/or provide stipends to collaborators
(including fishermen).
Key tenets of the SGEP model are non-advocacy, trust, effective communication
and a science-based approach (Dewees, Sortais and Leet, 2004). Consistent with the
principles of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries
in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines), the SGEP
model promotes the inclusion of diverse individuals and groups, meaningful and
respectful participation, and consideration of environmental, social and economic
viability. Several SGEPs have used this model to provide SDM assistance to fishermen
(i.e. the SDM good practice), encouraging and facilitating careful consideration of
business options based on the unique circumstances of the fishermen, their community
and consumers.
This case study describes the application of the SGEP model for providing SDM
assistance in the American states of Alaska and California. Following a brief overview
of the two states’ commercial fisheries (Figure 5.2), we describe how the model was
used to address challenges faced by fishermen and fishing communities in each context
as a good practice. Next, we highlight the outcomes and impacts and future steps for
building on accomplishments to date. We then discuss implications for small-scale
fishermen, communities and policies in the United States of America and elsewhere.
We conclude with recommendations for applying this good practice in other contexts,
consistent with Chapter 7 of the SSF Guidelines.
FIGURE 5.2
Map of the North American West Coast highlighting the American states of Alaska (AK) and
California (CA), where the SGEP model has been applied for seafood direct marketing

February 2020.

Credits: Created with mapchart.net ©
5.1.1 Background
Fishermen have been drawn to SDM as an alternative or complement to long seafood
supply chain arrangements in an effort to adapt to various challenges. In the 1990s
and early 2000s, complex shifts in American regulatory systems, global markets, and
socio-economic and environmental conditions led to fundamental changes in American
fisheries, posing challenges and opportunities for fishing communities. In some cases,
increased competition from farmed products and wild-caught seafood from other
countries led to stagnant or declining ex-vessel prices, while operating costs continued
to increase (Sumaila et al., 2007; Pomeroy, Thomson and Stevens, 2010; Henry, Rhodes
and Eades, 2008). In other cases, in an effort to ensure resource sustainability, state
and federal fisheries management authorities implemented measures to limit or reduce
fishery access, capacity and effort. This resulted in reduced domestic production
of many species and increased reliance on imported seafood, creating marketing
challenges for fishery participants (Ahmed and Anderson, 1994).
Alaska and California support a great diversity of commercial fisheries. Species
commonly caught in the two states include salmon, herring, groundfish, halibut,
shrimp and crab, with fishermen in Alaska also targeting cod, scallops and clams, and
fishermen in California targeting lobster, squid and albacore. Gear types are similarly
diverse: pot/trap, dive, drift and set gillnet, purse seine, trawl, longline, troll, jig and
(specific to Alaska) dredge. Each state has a range of commercial fishing operations.
The smallest include one-person hook-and-line operations such as 18-foot (5.5 m)
salmon hand trollers in Alaska and 12-foot (4 m) skiffs in California.3 Larger fishing
3
For descriptions of the gear types described, https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/project/discover-california-
commercial-fisheries.
operations include groundfish trawlers, longliners and coastal pelagic species seiners
(most under 80 feet [25 m], with three to six crew members); Alaska also has large,
corporate-owned pollock factory trawlers (e.g. 340 feet [104 m], with up to 140 crew
members).
Commercial fisheries are important to both states. Commercial fishing and seafood
processing are a major part of Alaska’s economy and cultural heritage. Together they
represent the largest source of non-government employment in the state, providing
70 000 seasonal and year-round jobs (Alaska Sea Grant College Program, 2018). In
California, commercial fishing and seafood production have long contributed to the
state’s – and many coastal communities’ – economy and cultural heritage (Pomeroy,
Thomson, and Stevens, 2010). However, the two states’ fishing communities and
processing operations differ in various ways. For example, less than 10 percent of
Alaska’s 240 coastal communities along 40 000 miles of shoreline are connected by road;
most are accessible only by boat or airplane (Alaska Sea Grant College Program, 2018).
By contrast, California’s coastal fishing communities, while varying in population and
distance from major transportation and population centres, have access to secondary
roads, if not highways. The two states also differ in terms of the nature and provision of
shoreside infrastructure, goods and services. For example, while ice is publicly available
at most harbours in California, in Alaska it is generally only provided by seafood
processors. Further, while seafood landed in remote communities in Alaska typically
requires processing before being transported to out-of-state markets, many fisheries
in California, with nearby infrastructure and buyers, support local seafood markets.
Some women also fish, although more commonly they are involved in shoreside
support: provisioning fishing operations, bookkeeping, participating in business
and fishery management processes and, especially in the case of SDM, handling the
catch “from dock to dish.” Many small-scale fishermen come from families with a
multigenerational history of working in fisheries and seafood production. Many,
especially in Alaska and northern California, live and work in coastal communities
that are substantially engaged in and dependent on fisheries (Norman et al., 2007;
Pomeroy, Thomson and Stevens, 2010). In other cases, primarily in central and
southern California, small-scale fishermen are located in larger, more diversified
urban communities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles. Here they play a smaller
role relative to the urban whole, but remain important to the fisheries system and the
particular places where they live and work.
5.2 METHODS
This case study presents a review and synthesis of the SDM research, education and
outreach efforts of the Alaska and California SGEPs since the mid-1990s. Sources of
information include grey and peer-reviewed literature; materials developed by the
two SGEPs; periodic impact and outcome reporting; observation; and interviews
and other communications with fishermen, those in the larger seafood value chain,
port managers, agency personnel, and Sea Grant extension colleagues throughout the
United States of America.
The definition of small-scale fisheries varies depending on the context (FAO, 2015).
For this case study, we define small-scale fisheries as those involving primarily owner-
operated, relatively small vessels (under 58 feet [18 m] in Alaska, under 35 feet [11 m]
in California), run solely by a captain or by a captain and a small crew (4 or fewer
crew members in Alaska, 2 or fewer in California), with social and economic ties to
particular coastal communities. While most fishermen in both states sell their catch
to traditional “first receivers” and long supply chain buyers, others sell some or all
of their catch directly to restaurants, retailers and/or consumers. Depending on the
species, customer needs and preferences, and logistics, the resulting seafood products
may be sold live, fresh, frozen or in various processed forms.

SGEP advisors provide fishermen and communities with practical information about
SDM options and associated opportunities, challenges and other key considerations.
If fishermen decide to pursue SDM, the advisors also provide them with regulatory,
logistic and marketing guidance. SGEP advisors use a variety of dissemination methods:
one-on-one consultations, informal conversations, workshops, public presentations,
feasibility studies, print and online publications, and dedicated websites. Finally, they
refine and adapt these efforts and materials in an iterative process based on feedback
from users. Notably, SGEP advisors do not advocate for SDM; they view dissuading
those who are not well suited to SDM as equally important to assisting those with the
capacity and desire to pursue it. The following examples illustrate how the SGEPs in
Alaska and California have applied the SGEP model to address local needs associated
with SDM.
5.3.1 Alaska Sea Grant SDM assistance programme

In the mid-1990s, global market forces – primarily competition from the rapid increase
in world production of farmed salmon and consolidation of the American seafood
processing industry – prompted Alaskan commercial fishermen to look for ways to
earn more revenue from their catch. Some sought to capture more of the final value
of their product for themselves by becoming seafood direct marketers. This choice
is complex and not without additional costs (Figure 5.3). As part of their business
relationship with fishermen, many seafood processors in Alaska offer services such
as loans for vessels and gear, free access to ice and gear storage, bonus payments once
the “pack” is sold or, in some cases, shares in the seafood processing business itself.
In some fisheries, processors offer price-per-pound quality bonuses to fishermen who
use refrigerated seawater systems. In more remote areas, processors also provide tender
services, whereby contracted vessels transport the catch from offshore or remote
fishing grounds to shore-based processing plants.
Given Alaska’s small population, large size and vast distance from major market
centres, most seafood must be processed and/or frozen for transport to customers. As
FIGURE 5.3
Functions assumed by fishers under SDM
Fisherman Receiver/Processor Wholesaler/ Restaurant/ Consumer

Distributer Retailer
Catch
fish Purchase Purchase
Process
Resell Consume
Distribute
Sell

such, seafood direct marketers face many of the same challenges larger processors in
Alaska face: high costs for transporting the catch from coastal communities due to lack
of road networks and limited air-freight space; state and federal regulations that are not
always well coordinated; and financial risks related to high up-front and operational
costs of fishing and processing. In addition, direct marketers must contend with limited
processing capacity suitable for small-scale operations in coastal communities and the
challenges of producing a high-quality product on board vessels of limited size.4 They
also often struggle to balance the need to be fishing when the season is open with the
SDM imperative of timely shoreside marketing and delivery.
To help address these challenges and opportunities, the Alaska SGEP has
conducted a range of activities related to SDM with the broad goals of:
• Building fishermen’s capacity to operate consistently with management, taxation
and seafood safety regulations that govern the processing, transport and sale of
seafood products;
• Preventing potential losses to small-scale fishermen by making them aware of the
challenges and pitfalls before they begin SDM;
• Increasing fishermen’s understanding of proper seafood handling and food
safety to ensure high product quality and enhance the reputations of both direct
marketers and Alaska seafood in general; and
• Facilitating conversations among direct marketers to better enable them to
advocate for themselves and learn from each other’s mistakes and successes.
When salmon prices dropped markedly in the early 1990s due to competition from
farmed salmon, fishermen became increasingly interested in SDM, a practice that was
first identified and regulated in Alaska in 1984.5 In response, the Alaska Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (ADCCED) asked the Alaska
SGEP to develop and publish information on advantages and disadvantages of SDM to
help fishermen make sound decisions about whether to invest their time and resources
pursuing it. The result was the Alaska Fisherman’s Direct Marketing Manual (Johnson,
1997). Initially geared toward fishermen in Alaska, this publication is still considered
the go-to SDM resource for the region, and subsequent editions have been expanded
to include information for fishermen operating in Washington and Oregon. Since
2004, Alaska Sea Grant has distributed more than 5 700 copies of the manual in print
and online. The fifth edition of the manual (Johnson, 2018) covers business planning,
e-commerce, packaging and shipping, custom processing, the seafood distribution
system, handling to maintain seafood quality, and more. An appendix, “Is Direct
Marketing for Me?”, describes the challenges involved and the characteristics and skills
needed to succeed in SDM, and provides a tool fishermen can use to assess their own
capacities for pursuing it. (See Appendix 2 for additional SDM tools and resources.)
Since 2002, the Alaska SGEP has offered SDM workshops and courses based on
the manual and other needs identified by SDM practitioners.6 Initially conducted in
person, in 2017 the SGEP began conducting online webinars for a fee. This format
has enabled more fishermen from around the state to participate, facilitating cross-
fertilization of ideas and eliminating travel costs for instructors and fishermen. The
five-session course is offered in the fall when most fisheries are idle, with up to 20
participants attending at a time. Homework assignments lead participants through the
4
In Alaska, with the emergence of SDM, small processors specialized in smoking, canning and handling
small-volume fishery products have expanded to become “custom processors” for seafood direct
marketers. They often accept small orders and charge a per-pound fee for specialty processing, labelling,
freezing and/or storing product.
5
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/license/fishing/pdfs/allowable_activities.pdf.
6
For information, https://alaskaseagrant.org/event/introduction-to-starting-and-operating-a-seafood-
direct-marketing-business-2018/.
development of an action plan for their SDM business. For the final session, fishermen
with established direct markets help teach the class by sharing their experiences and
answering students’ questions.
In 2008, the Alaska SGEP conducted a statewide survey to assess fishermen’s
training needs and identified a high level of interest in SDM. In response, the SGEP
developed the Fish Entrepreneur newsletter (Haight and Rice, 2008) to facilitate
communication and information sharing among direct marketers so they could
advocate for themselves. The newsletter addressed topics including pricing strategies,
methods for improving salmon quality with onboard “pressure bleeding,” preparing
for regulatory inspections, upcoming events, and interviews with existing direct
marketers.
The Alaska SGEP also has produced technical information on seafood quality,
handling and food safety. Examples include Care and Handling of Salmon: The Key to
Quality (Doyle, 1992) and videos specific to setnet and drift gillnet fishermen working
from small open skiffs. In addition, in partnership with the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, SGEP advisors have developed and led workshops on
seafood handling for fishermen.
Corollary to these efforts, the SGEP launched the Alaska Fisheries Business
Assistance Project, “FishBiz”7 in 2006, also with financial support from ADCCED.
The goal of this effort was to “professionalize” Alaska’s small-scale fishermen by
encouraging them to understand and analyse their operations as bona fide businesses
and providing business management tools to help them succeed. Focused more
broadly, the FishBiz website provides business planning templates, information on
minimizing risk, sources of information for new entrants into fisheries, and an Excel
workbook to help fishermen analyse projected expenses and income under different
fishing scenarios, with a version designed specifically for direct marketers.8
Finally, Alaska SGEP advisors have participated in local infrastructure initiatives. In
one instance, an advisor led two community surveys to ascertain interest in supporting
a community-owned, certified processing facility for seafood direct marketers. In
another case, the SGEP provided leadership to establish initial operating policies
for the Petersburg Community Cold Storage, a publicly owned facility built with
state grant funds on public land. Specific policies were set and equipment purchased
to ensure small-scale operators had access to the facility and were not crowded out
by large processors or “anchor tenants”.9 As other communities have considered
similar projects, the SGEP has provided information and insights on the advantages
and challenges of building and managing these types of facilities (Knapp, 2008). The
Petersburg facility continues to serve both larger anchor tenants and smaller direct
marketers, with all operating costs covered by user fees.
5.3.2 California Sea Grant SDM assistance programme

The California SGEP’s efforts to assist small-scale fisheries with SDM began in earnest
in 2005.10 Several factors motivated these efforts, including the substantial downsizing
of the state’s fisheries through increasingly stringent restricted access programmes,
catch limits and other measures; provisions for expanded stakeholder and broader
public involvement in state and federal fishery management11; and expanded capacity
7
http://fishbiz.seagrant.uaf.edu/.
8
http://fishbiz.seagrant.uaf.edu/and-diversify/direct-marketing.html.
9
https://www.ci.petersburg.ak.us/index.asp?SEC=A38C27BF-CFA9-40BF-921E-CB487EE33FFF&Type=B_
BASIC.
10
California SGEP advisors have provided seafood processing and marketing assistance since 1974, albeit
not specific to SDM.
11
California Marine Life Management Act of 1998 and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, US Public Law 94-265 et seq.
of the Sea Grant extension network nationwide, including the hiring of additional
fisheries extension personnel.
In the mid-2000s, California SGEP advisors conducted informal discussions with
community members to assess local needs to help inform development of their research,
education and outreach activities. They identified challenges facing California’s small-
scale fisheries including substantial and problematic misunderstanding about fisheries
at many levels. In particular, they learned that residents of California lacked accurate
information and knowledge about local commercial fisheries. Some did not even realize
they existed, while others had misperceptions about their operations, environmental
impacts, socio-economic relevance and management. California’s fishery participants
and associated communities were struggling to maintain economically viable businesses
amid increasing operating costs, stagnating or declining ex-vessel prices, and reduced
production associated with regulatory downsizing. These factors made it difficult
to maintain links to markets that required larger and more consistent catches than
fishermen could provide. At the same time, the rapid expansion of the local food
movement, consumers’ growing interest in locally produced food, and the proliferation
of alternative marketing strategies for agricultural products increased fishermen’s
interest in SDM.
Recognizing the potential for SDM to help address some of the challenges facing
the state’s small-scale fisheries, California SGEP advisors began to expand their work
in this area. To increase awareness and understanding about local commercial fisheries,
they developed the Discover California Commercial Fisheries website,12 synthesizing
biological, oceanographic, regulatory and socio-economic information related to the
state’s fisheries including region- and port-specific information. They also developed
a series of regional seafood posters (Figure 5.4).13 The posters did not advocate buying
locally caught seafood, but instead provided information about when and how species
are fished.
California SGEP advisors also began to explore ways to improve the economic
and social viability of small-scale fisheries, conducting two studies to investigate the
feasibility of SDM. The first was a 2011 feasibility study for a community-supported
fishery (CSF). The SGEP advisor was inspired by the experience of community-
supported agriculture programmes, in which consumers invest in a farm by paying for
a share of the season’s production up front. Given the differences between agricultural
and fishery products (e.g. perishability, handling requirements, consumption patterns),
it was unclear whether such a marketing arrangement would work for seafood. To
address this question, a SGEP advisor worked with others to conduct a feasibility study.
The feasibility study included two surveys. The first survey targeted fishermen
to identify what and how much product they would be willing and able to provide.
The second survey targeted consumers to assess demand for and flexibility in being
offered lesser-known products – i.e. what they would be willing to buy. A seafood
tasting event also was held to bring the two groups together, with demonstrations
to educate consumers on how to handle and prepare various products. Based on
the positive results of the feasibility study, a CSF was developed. A programme
evaluation after the first two years found that it was meeting its objectives of increasing
consumer understanding, improving attitudes toward local fishing, and providing
improved financial and social support for fishermen. Although the experiences of the
participating fishermen have not been evaluated formally, early comments indicated
that they were obtaining a higher price per pound for the small portion of the catch
they were selling through the CSF, and that they valued the increased education of and
connection with the community.
12
https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/project/discover-california-commercial-fisheries.
13
https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/project/discover-california-commercial-fisheries/regional-seafood-posters.
The second study was initiated in

FIGURE 5.4
2013 by California SGEP advisors in
Example of a regional seafood poster created by
California SGEP advisors and colleagues to educate collaboration with colleagues from the
consumers and the broader public about California University of California Santa Barbara
wild-caught and cultured seafood and SGEPs in other states. The goal of
the project was to expand understanding
of the diversity of SDM arrangements
fishermen were using in a range of
settings on the country’s east and west
coasts, and how they could help address
the regulatory, economic and social
challenges facing West Coast fishermen.
Through interviews, the project team
identified the key characteristics of each
type of SDM, the conditions required
for establishing and maintaining each
type, and the impacts and implications
of SDM for fishermen’s operations as
well as the well-being of both fishermen
and local fishing communities. Integral
to the project was working with several
other states’ SGEPs to learn how
they had been assisting fishermen and
communities with SDM.
The project team used the study
findings to develop the Market Your
Catch website, expanding on the
substantial foundation provided by
Alaska SGEP’s Fishermen’s Direct
Marketing Manual (Johnson 1997,
2007, 2018). The website provides a
clearinghouse for information resources
and tools developed by many SGEPs
and others.14 Like the manual, the Market Your Catch website does not connect
fishermen with customers, but provides information about different types of markets
and customers and key considerations for evaluating the feasibility and utility of SDM
given their situation (i.e. what they fish for, their actual or potential customer base,
their skills, the logistical resources available, and their social and economic support
system). The website also provides information on how to get started in or to expand
SDM. This information was disseminated further through workshops in California,
Oregon and Washington and through a web-based presentation to SGEP advisors
throughout the nation. It continues to be used during one-on-one consultations with
fishermen.
While working on these projects, it became evident that the regulations related
to selling one’s catch were a major constraint for fishermen seeking to participate in
SDM. Permit requirements are complex; they vary from state to state and even from
county to county. The permit process was further complicated because there was a
critical disconnect between natural resource and food systems management (Olsen,
Clay and Pinto Da Silva, 2014), with the relationship between fisheries and SDM not
well understood by resource management agencies or those with food handling and
distribution oversight. For example, natural resource agencies oversee fishing and the
14
http://marketyourcatch.msi.ucsb.edu/.
landing of the catch (from boat to dock or beach), and issue the licenses and permits
required for fishermen and fish buyers, respectively, to sell and receive the catch. Food
system management agencies (e.g. public health, food and agriculture, weights and
measures) oversee transport, handling, processing and storage of seafood once it has
been landed dockside. For fishermen interested in selling their catch “off-the-boat” –
a site not considered within the purview of food system authorities – it was unclear
whom they should talk to, what rules they needed to follow, and what permits they
needed.
As a result, to assist potential seafood direct marketers, the California SGEP
developed and posted general information online about permits potentially required
for SDM and the local and state agencies with authority to issue them. More specific
permit guidance was not provided, as this depends on the type and location of the SDM
and the products sold, and thus is best provided by the regulatory agencies themselves.
Nonetheless, providing the agency contact and associated permit information in a
central location has been useful. Others have recognized the permit pages as a template
for organizing this type of information and California SGEP advisors are working with
SGEP colleagues throughout the network to generate similar information for other
coastal states.
In addition, the California SGEP has engaged with county environmental health
departments through seminars and one-on-one discussions to educate them about
California’s fisheries and the range of SDM types that might be of interest to fishermen
and fishing communities. They have developed outreach materials to inform the
public about safe seafood handling and consumption during harmful algal blooms.
They also have helped to inform and encourage the development of local and state
policy to streamline SDM permitting processes, which are not as well established for
seafood products as they are for agricultural products. One policy success has been
the enactment of the “Pacific to Plate” legislation (AB- 226, 2015) facilitating the
establishment and operation of dockside seafood markets. Dockside markets have
long been an important outlet for a few small-scale fisheries such as the Newport
Dory Fishing Fleet, which has been selling directly to the public for more than 125
years.15 This legislation paved the way for others to more readily develop such seafood
direct markets, and resulted in the establishment of a new market (the Tuna Harbor
Dockside Market16) involving several fishermen in San Diego. It also has made it
easier for established dockside markets to process product on site, whereas fishermen
previously had to rely on nearby seafood retailers with government-approved facilities
and permits for this function.
5.3.3 Outcomes and impacts of the SDM good practice

Taken together, the efforts of the Alaska and California SGEPs to promote SDM
demonstrate practical implementation of several recommendations presented in
Chapter 7 of the SSF Guidelines, as follows (Appendix 2). First, the SGEP advisors’
engagement of fishing communities in research (the CSF and SDM studies and training
needs assessments described above) has built understanding of needs, options and
considerations for SDM, with materials developed from these efforts in turn building
capacity for the post-harvest sector (paragraph 7.3 of the SSF Guidelines). Further,
information provided through classes, workshops, websites and other outreach efforts
has helped seafood direct marketers maintain product safety and quality, which is
critical for the seafood industry, consumers and the state. Second, feasibility studies
that consider sustainability in terms of both supply and demand have supported
15
For more information: https://doryfleet.com/ and http://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/General_
Plan/07_Ch6_HistoricalResources_web.pdf
16
http://thdocksidemarket.com/new/
development of marketing mechanisms that have enhanced the income and thus the
overall security of small-scale fisheries (paragraph 7.4). The information about various
SDM arrangements and associated regulations that the SGEPs have gathered and
provided has increased awareness and understanding among small-scale fishermen,
communities and agency personnel, thus allowing them to make informed decisions on
whether to invest in SDM infrastructure. Third, small-scale fishermen are evaluating
new options (e.g. selling to institutions, via CSFs and via buying clubs) and accessing
new markets locally, regionally and/or nationally (paragraph 7.6). Some of these
markets also have supported sales of under-utilized species, as fishermen have been
able to directly explore consumers’ interest in new products. Last, the SGEP efforts
have helped to build capacity by providing resources, facilitating development of
infrastructure and informing policy, all of which have enabled small-scale fishermen to
participate in local food movements and other marketing opportunities occurring on
different scales (paragraph 7.10).
Despite these successes, the Alaska and California SGEPs still face several challenges.
For instance, the web-based resources produced are not accessible to the full range of
individuals and groups that would benefit from them. Many fishermen are not frequent
users and/or readers of websites, although this is changing with the entry of new,
younger participants. And while the majority of fishermen speak and read English,
some small-scale fishermen do not, or they only speak English as a second language.
More effort is required to reach them, both linguistically and culturally. Furthermore,
while Alaska Sea Grant’s Fish Entrepreneur newsletter has fulfilled its function as an
information resource, it has not generated the anticipated engagement or collaboration
among direct marketers to pursue common needs and interests. This may stem from
seafood direct marketers’ reluctance to share details about their business strategy with
potential competitors.
Similarly, while the policy change in California has highlighted the need for
improved SDM permit processes, its impact has been limited. It has institutionalized
and streamlined this process for a single type of SDM, one already established in
some places. This has led many policymakers and the public to believe that all of the
challenges associated with securing government approval for implementing SDM have
been addressed, when in fact challenges facing other types of SDM persist. Adapting
permit processes for direct sales of agriculture products to fisheries products would
help to expand SDM options.
Not all types of SDM are logistically or politically feasible, or suitable for all fishermen,
communities and contexts. For example, while dockside sales have long been permitted
and widely used in Alaska, they are not permitted at some harbours in California due
to concerns about visitor safety on the docks. In other cases, off-the-boat sales have
been encouraged while dockside markets have not, due to logistical considerations such
as the needs of other harbour users for access to those areas. For individual fishermen,
some are not willing or able to spend the time waiting for customers as required for
off-the-boat sales and dockside markets. And in some communities, up-front payments
required of CSF customers are not economically feasible.
While interest in SDM is high, participation in both states appears to be steady but
limited. In 2018, of the 8 697 permit holders who fished in Alaska, 259 participated
in SDM and another 380 registered as dockside “catcher/sellers.”17 SDM requires
interpersonal and business skills, access to a reliable and flexible customer base, and
appropriate infrastructure to support the handling of the catch from the dock to the
customer. Moreover, each of the steps in the supply chain – even the small ones –
requires time. For a fisherman, this can mean foregoing time fishing unless someone
17
For data on Alaska, see https://www.cfec.state.ak.us/gpbycen/2018/MenuStat.htm. Analogous data for
California are not readily available.
else fulfils these shoreside functions. In fact, a decision to not engage in SDM after
evaluating ones’ circumstances and options also is valuable, as it saves time and money
that would have gone toward something that likely would not have worked.
Those who do engage in SDM tend to be motivated by factors beyond obtaining
a higher price for their catch. These include dissatisfaction with processor quality
practices, interest in the marketing aspects of SDM, having a family (or other)
connection to the end market, and a desire to improve connections within the
community. In some cases, families engage in SDM out of a shared desire from both
spouses to participate in the family business. Other SDM participants are motivated
by a commitment to environmental stewardship to more carefully target their fishing
effort (e.g. to minimize bycatch and habitat impacts).
Based on outcomes to date, the next steps for the two SGEPs include:
• Further evaluation and updates of SDM information. It is important to
continue to evaluate the utility and efficacy of written products and classes/
workshops, including where, how and in what format they have been provided/
disseminated. These likely will need to be updated given rapid changes in
communication methods and small-scale fisheries demographics. In particular,
younger fishery participants typically use different means for communicating and
sharing information, notably social media, as compared to older participants.
• More directed outreach with a broader range of cultural and social groups.
Consistent with the states’ sociocultural and ethnic diversity, small-scale
fisheries participants come from a diversity of backgrounds, and they would be
better served if the materials were translated into other languages, and classes/
workshops were adapted to ensure cultural appropriateness.
• Working with government agencies to expand their capacity to support
SDM. There is a persistent need in the United States of America to coordinate
regulatory processes for establishing and operating SDM arrangements. Adapting
existing policy for agricultural direct marketing to SDM may help address this
need. Education of resource and public health agencies about fisheries and
seafood safety also is essential for ensuring that fishermen can readily sell their
catch and consumers can access properly handled and safe local seafood.
• More explicit integration with climate change considerations. Changing
environmental conditions are contributing to changes in the distribution of fish
(e.g. Perry et al., 2005; Link et al., 2009; Pinsky et al., 2019). To enable small-scale
fishermen and fishing communities to adapt to changing resource availability,
more flexible rules to enable both catching and marketing available species may
be needed. In addition, climate change is expected to increase the frequency and
severity of harmful algal blooms with negative consequences for small-scale
fisheries.18 Investigations of how SDM efforts can continue to operate while
addressing emerging health-related concerns from biotoxins will undoubtedly be
needed.
5.3.4 Implications
The good practice of assisting with SDM evaluation and development as described here
has implications for small-scale fishermen, communities and policy in the United States
of America and elsewhere. For fishermen considering SDM, it can reduce the risk of
making choices that may not be suitable for them given their personal, fishery and
community context. The information provided increases their ability to design SDM
arrangements that are tailored to their particular circumstances. Broader community
engagement through SDM can help build shared understanding of those involved
in the local seafood supply chain, from fishermen to consumers. That engagement
18
For more information: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/webdam/download/65032821.
also can facilitate access to and sharing of social and financial capital necessary to
assist in the establishment and operation of SDM. This can be done informally
and opportunistically or through more formal arrangements such as cooperatives,
marketing associations or broader community organizations.
In many contexts, SDM is a complement rather than an alternative to existing
marketing arrangements. For those involved in long supply chain marketing, it can
have negative or positive effects. The amount of seafood sold via SDM typically is
quite small, and the particular products may be the same as or similar to those that long
supply chain buyers handle. As such, direct marketers are rarely able to compete on
price; however, they often place added emphasis on quality to gain a market advantage.
This in turn encourages other harvesters and processors to improve their own handling
practices, which can lead to enhanced product quality and safety, positively affecting
the reputation of the fishery and its products overall.
Further, SDM can benefit the larger supply chain by highlighting the positive
attributes of local products. Many traditional seafood buyers and processors, even
some initially concerned about reduced deliveries from fishermen who pursue SDM,
have indicated that the small amounts of product used for SDM efforts have not
negatively affected their operations. Moreover, they have benefited from the increased
consumer knowledge of local products resulting from SDM and from the SGEPs’
outreach efforts. Similarly, small-scale fish buyers have tended to benefit from SDM
because it provides them with access to product that otherwise would be purchased by
larger, vertically integrated seafood businesses (i.e. their competitors).
Because permit requirements for SDM can be complex, engagement of agencies
responsible for overseeing seafood handling, safety and commerce also is essential. Their
participation ensures that accurate information is provided for the various options that
may be explored. In both Alaska and California, agency personnel have reviewed SDM
materials, co-authored publications on requirements for SDM, worked extensively on
quality handling efforts, and attended SDM workshops to answer fishermen’s questions.
To those seeking to assist fishermen and communities with identifying and assessing
SDM options, the following also are recommended:
• Work with the experts. Engage existing direct marketers to help write, teach and
evaluate the efforts.
• Remain neutral. Emphasize that SDM is not for everyone. Dissuading someone
from SDM where it is impractical or risky is as important as assisting someone in
integrating SDM into their fishing business.
• Recognize that SDM is not an “all or nothing” strategy. Interest in SDM, and
its suitability for a given context, may vary over time. Interest in – and arguably
the need for – direct marketing tends to ebb and flow as dockside prices and other
conditions fluctuate.
• Use multiple delivery methods, and adjust them depending on the context
and the assistance needed. Couple the provision of information materials and
workshops with ongoing one-on-one consultations with existing and potential
direct marketers. This is particularly important when small-scale fishermen begin
to explore and try actual markets and marketing techniques.
• Develop suitable materials and disseminate them through appropriate
channels. In developing SDM materials, focus on practical considerations, present
the information in culturally appropriate and user-friendly ways, and distribute it
through diverse avenues accessible to the range of potential users. The materials
should address questions raised during ongoing engagement (e.g. individual
consultations, previous workshops, collaborative research) and be tailored to
seafood direct marketers’ community and policy context. For example, developing
brief topical pamphlets and distributing them online and through community-
based groups or public facilities can be done at little or no cost.
5.3.5 Potential for application in other contexts

While SDM may not be applicable in all countries and communities, the SDM good
practice described here can be applied in many contexts. Trusted individuals or groups
can assist fishermen and communities with assessing their needs and evaluating SDM
opportunities while refraining from advocating particular actions. They should have a
sufficient understanding of the community context and the skills to navigate complex
relationships between fishermen and others in the seafood supply chain. This requires a
sustained commitment over time. Ongoing efforts to extend the SGEP model to other
countries as, for example in Indonesia with the Sea Partnership Program19, provide
opportunities to expand use of the practice there and elsewhere.
The expanded use of SDM in other countries may be more feasible today than it has
been in the past. Improvements in communication, including widespread use of social
media, transportation infrastructure and seafood handling technology, provide new
opportunities for connecting fishermen with consumers locally and further afield and
facilitate the production and distribution of safe, high-quality seafood. SDM in turn
can contribute to poverty eradication by potentially maintaining or enhancing access to
a local, nutritious food source for communities where it is produced, and by enabling
fishermen to retain more of the value of their catch than they would through long
supply chains. However, the increased revenue comes at the cost of additional time,
effort and, in some cases, possible loss of logistical and other assistance from traditional
buyers. In addition, seafood direct marketers typically do not have access to a diversity
of product sources that can help buffer against variability in catches, and they depend
on their customers being willing and able to accommodate this uncertainty. Domestic
and international tourism can be part of this customer base, with seafood marketed
directly by fishermen through restaurants, hotels, and other venues. While evidence
suggests that SDM in the United States of America has improved economic outcomes
for some small-scale fishermen, many fishermen involved in SDM cite non-monetary
social benefits such as increased independence, control over how their product is
handled, and connections with their communities and seafood consumers as indicators
of success and enhanced well-being (Culver et al., 2015; Haig-Brown, 2012).
5.4 CONCLUSION
Fishermen and communities on the West Coast
of the United States of America perennially
face challenges to their livelihoods, be they
regulatory, operational, environmental or
economic. Recognizing these dynamics, Alaska
and California SGEP advisors have conducted
research, education and outreach to assist
fishermen and their communities in the careful
consideration and, where appropriate, adoption,
of SDM as a way to address these challenges.
Using the place-based SGEP model, SGEP
advisors have developed a good practice and
assisted individuals and communities in building
capacity to produce and market safe seafood
products through SDM.
©C. CULVER
Efforts to date have helped to support sound

decision-making, build SDM capacity, and
expand understanding – on the part of fishermen, Selling the catch at the Ventura Harbor Saturday
market in California.
19
For more information: https://www.slideshare.net/OregonSeaGrant/development-of-an-indonesian-
sea-grant-partnership-program.
community members and policymakers – of the practicalities, considerations and

limitations of SDM. With advances in communication technologies, increased
understanding of the nutritional benefits of seafood, desire for locally sourced products
and persistent uncertainty in global trade, opportunities to use SDM likely will grow.
Yet this growth undoubtedly will continue to be slow, as establishing and maintaining
SDM poses its own challenges, and depends on the individuals and the context.
Individually and collectively, the efforts described in this case study illustrate
how the SDM good practice can inform implementation of the recommendations of
Chapter 7 of the SSF Guidelines (FAO, 2015). Specifically, it enhances capacity by
supporting the small-scale fisheries post-harvest sector through SDM (paragraph 7.3).
This good practice not only helps enable enhanced financial security for small-scale
fishermen by providing access to additional markets (paragraph 7.6) and market
information (paragraph 7.10), it also helps prevent them from pursuing SDM when it
would not be financially advantageous (paragraph 7.4).
The Alaska and California SGEPs, individually and in collaboration with others, will
continue to apply and improve this good practice to facilitate small-scale fishermen’s
consideration of SDM. In doing so, they will contribute further to the implementation
of the SSF Guidelines recommendations related to value chains, post-harvest and trade,
while reinforcing the principles of respect of cultures, consultation and participation,
feasibility, and social and economic viability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge seafood direct marketers and other fishing community
members in Alaska, California and elsewhere in the US for sharing their stories,
knowledge, insight and expertise; Quentin Fong, Pete Granger, Glenn Haight, Terry
Johnson and Cynthia Wallesz for their extensive input and helpful review; Joseph
Zelasney, Alexander Ford and Lena Westlund at FAO for thoughtful review, guidance
and support; and our colleagues in the larger US Sea Extension Network. We also
acknowledge support from the Alaska and California Sea Grant programs and the
National Sea Grant College Program, NOAA, US Department of Commerce.
REFERENCES
Alaska Sea Grant College Program 2018. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Strategic
Plan, 2018-2021. Fairbanks, AK, USA: Alaska Sea Grant College Program. (available at
https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2018-2021-strategic-plan.pdf).
Bunting-Howarth, K. 2013. Fundamentals of a Sea Grant Extension Program. Second
Edition ed., Washington, DC: National Sea Grant College Program. (available at http://
nsglc.olemiss.edu/projects/advocacy/files/extension-fundamentals.pdf).
Culver, C., Stroud, A., Pomeroy, C., Doyle, J., Von Harten, A. & Georgilas, N. 2015.
Market Your Catch. Website developed as a product of the project, Toward resilience
and sustainable seafood supply: assessing direct marketing programs for West Coast
fishing communities, B. Walker, C. Pomeroy, C. Culver and K. Selkoe, co-PIs. [Online].
Available: marketyourcatch.msi.ucsb.edu.
Dewees, C., Sortais, K. & Leet, W. 2004. Conserving California fish: extension approaches
applied to contentious marine-fisheries management issues. California Agriculture, 58,
194-199.
Doyle, J. 1992. Care and handling of salmon: the key to quality. Fairbanks, AK, USA: Alaska
Sea Grant. (available at https://seagrant.uaf.edu/bookstore/pubs/MAB-45.html).
FAO. 2015. Voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries in the context
of food security and poverty eradication, Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/
voluntary-guidelines-small-scale-fisheries/guidelines/en/).
Haig-Brown, A. 2012. Bloodlines: Knutson family meshes Southeast salmon with specialty
marketing. National Fisherman. 93, 24-25.
Haight, G. & Rice, S., eds. 2008. The fish entrepreneur: resources for Alaska’s direct seafood
marketers (Developing pricing strategies for direct marketers). Fishbiz: Alaska Fisheries
Business Assistance. 2 (available at https://seagrant.uaf.edu/bookstore/pubs/M-92.html).
Henry, M., Rhodes, R. & Eades, D. 2008. The flow of South Carolina harvested seafood
products through South Carolina markets. University Center Research Report 09-2008-
03. Clemson, SC, USA: Clemson University Center for Economic Development.
(available at https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6253581.pdf).
Johnson, T. (ed.) 1997. Alaska fisherman’s direct marketing manual. Prepared for the
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Trade and
Development (ADCEDD) and the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, Juneau, AK,
USA: ADCEDD.
Johnson, T. (ed.) 2007. Fishermen’s Direct Marketing Manual. 4th ed. Seattle, WA, USA:
Washington Sea Grant. (available at https://wsg.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/
uploads/Fishermens-Direct-Marketing-Manual.pdf)
Johnson, T. (ed.) 2018. Fishermen’s direct marketing manual, 5th ed. Seattle, WA, USA:
Alaska Sea Grant and Washington Sea Grant. (available at https://seagrant.uaf.edu/
bookstore/pubs/MAB-71.html).
Knapp, G. & Reeve, T. 2008. A village fish processing plant: yes or no? a planning handbook.
Anchorage, AK, USA: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska.
(available at https://seagrant.uaf.edu/map/pubs/village/villagefishplant.pdf).
Link, J., Hare, J. & Overholtz, W. 2009. Changing spatial distribution of fish stocks in
relation to climate and population size on the Northeast United Sates continental shelf.
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 393, 111-129.
Norman, K., Sepez, J., Lazrus, H., Milne, N., Package, C., Russell, S., Grant, K., Lewis, R.,
Primo, J., Springer, E., Styles, M., Tilt, B. & Vaccaro, I. 2007. Community profiles for West
Coast and North Pacific fisheries: Washington, Oregon, California, and other US states.
Seattle, WA: NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center. (available at https://www.nwfsc.
noaa.gov/assets/25/499_01082008_153910_CommunityProfilesTM85WebFinalSA.pdf).
Olson, J., Clay, P. & Pinto Da Silva, P. 2014. Putting the seafood in sustainable food
systems. Marine Policy, 43, 104-111.
Perry, A.L., Low, P.J., Ellis, J.R. & Reynolds, J.D. 2005. Climate change and distribution
shifts in marine fishes. Science, 308, 1912-1915.
Pinsky, M.L., Selden, R.L. & Kitchel, Z.J. 2020. Climate-driven shifts in marine species
ranges: scaling from organisms to communities. Annual Review of Marine Science, 12,
153-179.
Pomeroy, C., Thomson, C. & Stevens, M. 2010. California’s North Coast fishing
communities: historical perspective and recent trends. La Jolla, CA, USA: California Sea
Grant and NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Science Center. (available at https://
caseagrant.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/FullRept.pdf).
State of California. 2015. AB-226 Retail food safety: fishermen’s markets. [Available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB226]
Sumaila, U.R., Marsden, D., Watson, R. & Pauly, D. 2007. Global ex-vessel fish price
database: construction and applications. Journal of Bioeconomics, 9, 39-51.
US Congress 1996. Sustainable Fisheries Act. Public Law 104-297. ( available at https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-110/pdf/STATUTE-110-Pg3559.pdf).
Appendix 1
Types of seafood direct marketing arrangements

Type of market Description
Off-the-boat/over-the-bank sales Catch sold directly from boats at the docks, a beach or a riverbank
Fishers’/farmers’ markets Catch sold directly to consumers as part of an established community
market
Community-supported fisheries Catch sold directly to consumers who buy a certain amount of
seafood up front (“subscriptions” or “shares”), with deliveries to a
predetermined location on a set schedule for a fixed period of time
Seafood buying clubs Catch sold directly to a coordinator of a food buying club
Online markets Catch sold by communicating with or accepting direct orders from
customers using electronic technologies, such as eLists, eServices and
online sales
Restaurants or retail market sales Catch sold directly to restaurants and retail markets
Institutional sales Catch sold directly to food service operators such as schools,
hospitals, private and government organizations, who then prepare
and serve the product to consumers
“Your Own Market” or restaurant Catch sold directly to consumers at a fisher-operated structure such
as a fully outfitted building, roadside stand or food truck
Source: Culver et al., 2015
Appendix 2
Alaska and California Sea Grant good practice elements addressing the SSF Guidelines Chapter 7
recommendations related to value chains, post-harvest and trade
7.3 Provide appropriate

infrastructure (a),
7.4 Support
associations and
7.6 Facilitate access to
local (f), national (g),
7.10 Facilitate access
to relevant market and
organizational individual fishers and international (h) trade information (j)
structures (b), to promote their markets and introduce
and capacity capacity to enhance trade regulations and
development (c) for their income and procedures to support
producing quality and livelihood security (d), trade in markets (i)
safe fish products and marketing
mechanisms (e)
Alaska
Fishermen’s Direct
C d, e f, g
Marketing Manual
Community cold storage
A d, e f, g, h
project
Individual consultations:
business information and C d, e f, g, h j
assessment
Fish Entrepreneur and
attempts to get direct b, c d, e
marketers organized
Workshops: direct
marketing, quality C d, e f, g
handling
California
Community-supported
d, e f j
fishery feasibility study
Seafood direct marketing
C d, e f, g j
arrangements study
Market Your Catch website C d, e f, g j
Workshops: direct
marketing, seafood safety
C d, e f, g j
and quality, commercial
fisheries
“Pacific to Plate”
legislation/dockside e f, i
markets
105
6. Fair Trade: Certification of a

yellowfin tuna handline fishery
in Indonesia
Rui Bing Zheng

Ashley Apel
Sven Blankenhorn
Fair Trade USA
Deirdre Elizabeth Duggan

Jaz Simbolon
Yayasan Masyarakat dan Perikanan Indonesia (MDPI)
Helen Packer
Anova Food
ABSTRACT
Fair Trade enables greater equity in value chains and ensures the benefits of trade and
export are spread among producers. For a fishery to receive Fair Trade Certification,
it must first comply with the Capture Fisheries Standard and its core objectives of
fisher and worker empowerment, economic development of communities, social
responsibility, and environmental stewardship. This case study outlines the ways in
which the Fair Trade model aligns with several provisions laid out in the Voluntary
Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the context of Food
Security and Poverty Eradication. The recommendations pertain particularly to
Chapter 7 of the SSF Guidelines on value chains, post-harvest, and trade, through
the case of the certified Indonesia Western and Central Pacific Ocean yellowfin tuna
handline fishery.
Keywords: Small-scale fisheries, Indonesia, yellowfin tuna, handline, Fair Trade,

social responsibility, community development, empowerment, fisheries management,
certification.
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In 2014, Fair Trade USA adapted its model of certification and market-based incentives
to support small- and medium-scale capture fisheries, as well as shift the seafood
industry toward more socially and environmentally sound practices. For a fishery to
achieve Fair Trade Certification, it must comply with the Capture Fisheries Standard,
a progressive socio-economic and environmental standard for wild capture fisheries.
The standard is aligned with several of the provisions laid out in Chapter 7 of the SSF
Guidelines regarding value chains, post-harvest and trade. This case study documents
how Fair Trade’s intervention has affected the Indonesia Western and Central Pacific
Ocean yellowfin tuna handline fishery (Fishery Progress, 2018), and the relevance
these interventions have to Chapter 7 of the SSF Guidelines.
120°
PROVINCES OF
1. ACEH
6.1.1 Fishery context
2. BALI
Indonesia is the world’s largest island nation with over 17 0003. BANGKA-BELITUNG
islands and 54 000 km
4. BANTEN
of coastline. Its fisheries play an important role in providing employment and income.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
Manila
over six million people are involved in the Indonesian seafood 5.sector,
BENGKULUand an estimated
6. GORONTALO
95 percent of fishery production comes from small-scale fisheries. Indonesia is also one
tuna (Thunnus albacares) produced is 200 000 tonnes, with7.over

of the main producers of tuna globally. The approximate annual volume of yellowfin
IRIAN JAYA
PHILIPPINES
tonnes) caught by handline. Highly graded raw material is
30 percent
8. JAKARTA rest
exported, with
(61 000
the
Eastern Indonesian archipelagic waters are an important9. JAMBI

destined for local markets such as food service and hospitality.
region for yellowfin tuna
fishing. For many coastal communities in the region, tuna10. JAWA
fishing BARAT
is a major source of
C H I N A operations are often carried out in remote communities, where11. accessibility,

JAWA TENGAH
income and one of the few economic opportunities available. Small-scale tuna fishery
education
and socio-economic conditions range from variable to poor 12. (Duggan
JAWA and TIMUR Kochen,
EA 13. KALIMANTAN BARAT
2016, p. 31). As yellowfin tuna is a highly sought-after export commodity, sourcing
from Indonesian handline fisheries for export markets has been established for many
SU
years andLtheUnumber S EofAbuyers sourcing and volume of fish14.being
KALIMANTAN
exported from the SELATAN
area are steadily increasing. 15. KALIMANTAN TENGAH
Handline fishing is the dominant method in Eastern Indonesian archipelagic waters.
Due to the nature of the fishery, handline fishing generates more jobs per volume
of fish landed, compared to other, more mechanized methods. Handline fishers use
homemade kites attached to their fishing lines, which cause the bait to move erratically,
a characteristic which adult yellowfin find alluring. The amount of fish caught depends
on the equipment the fishers can afford (e.g. small boats with 15-horsepower engines)
wan
C E A N
120°
and the distance fromPROVINCES
anchoredOFfish aggregating devices, which act as a secondary
INDONESIA
1. ACEH 16. KALIMANTAN TIMUR Kepulauan
2. BALI 17. LAMPUNG Talaud
C EL EBES
C I F I
3. BANGKA-BELITUNG 18. MALUKU
FIGURE 6.1
4. BANTEN 19. MALUKU UTARA
A total of 38 Fisher Associations are located on Buru Island, Seram Island, North Maluku
A
Manila 5. BENGKULU 20. NUSA TENGGARA BARAT
Islands, Halmahera21.Island,
6. GORONTALO and in the
NUSA TENGGARA Toli-Toli district
TIMUR
7. IRIAN JAYA 22. RIAU
PHILIPPINES 8. JAKARTA 23. SULAWESI SELATAN
Indonesia
o T 9. JAMBI
10. JAWA BARAT
24. SULAWESI TENGAH
25. SULAWESI TENGGARA
OUTH C H INA 11. JAWA TENGAH 26. SULAWESI UTARA
12. JAWA TIMUR 27. SUMATERA BARAT
SEA 13. KALIMANTAN
Toll-Toll district: BARAT
10 registered 28. SUMATERA SELATAN
0°
SULU SEA 14. KALIMANTAN SELATAN 29. SUMATERA UTARA
15. KALIMANTAN TENGAH 30. YOGYAKARTA
an
iak
Samarinda
Halmahera Island: 96 registered
Seri Begawan
apen Kepulauan Ma
15
Talaud
C ELEBES
C I F I C O C E A N
ALAYSIA
Jayapura Sorong
aya
Bor neo T North Maluku Islands: ...
r
14Wamena
s sa
Kalimantan
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Samarinda 0° Seram Island: 265 registred
e r7 EA
Manokwari Biak
ka
15 Sorong Biak Yapen

Palangkaraya
sei na t ien r14 Laut

u
Ma
P
Teluk
Jayapura
r
Cenderawasih
s sa
New
EA
l
ka
u Buru Island 233 registered

Wamena
Ma
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
B a n ja r m a s P
mika
Laut
7
l
S E A Guinea Gulf of
AV A New
Timika Guinea Gulf of
S E A
Buton
Ujungpandang
Mun
aya
rabMaduraBA L IKangean B A Na D A SEA Kepulauan
c
SEA The boundaries and names shown and the designations

Carpentaria
n
a
Selajar
used on this map do not imply official endorsement or Aru
Buton Carpentaria
Su
s
Ujungpandang
Mun
ya
acceptance by the United
Wetar Nations.
Selat Madura
12 2 Sumbawa Alo Babar
Kepulauan
Dolak
B A Na D A SEA
Dili
Flores Tanimbar
c
BAL I SEA
r
20 21 United Nations.
TIMOR-LESTE Merauke
a
Selajar
B ar
S AV U S E A
dura
a t am b o k
Source: Map conforms to: Map No. 4110 Rev. 4 United Nations January 2004.
o a li
ARAFU RA SEA
ra m
Lesser Sunda Islands

n p Kangean
as
Timor
De L 10°
s
Sumba
M Kupang
Dolak
Sawu
Wetar
Roti
Madura
O2C E A N Sumbawa
TIMOR SEA
Alo Kepulauan
I A N Babar
Ashmore Is.
Dili
(AUSTRALIA)
Darwin
Flores Tanimbar
Cartier I.
Merauke Gulf of Gulf of

(AUSTRALIA)
r
Carpentaria
INDONESIA INDONESIACarpentaria
6. Fair Trade: Certification of a yellowfin tuna handline fishery in Indonesia 107

option if no free-swimming schools are
found during a fishing trip. While the
chances of catching fish are higher near
these devices, the tuna caught are often
smaller in size and there is a higher risk
of harvesting juveniles.
The Fair Trade Certified supply
SOURCE: FAIR TRADE USA.

chain is located between the Maluku
and North Maluku Islands as well as in
Central Sulawesi in Eastern Indonesia.
Approximately 100 handline fishers in
Assilulu and Waepure villages on Ambon
and Buru islands were engaged in 2013 to Hayunan Wangse of Waepure Village in Buru flies a kite with
field test the Capture Fisheries Standard. a fishing lure that mimics a flying fish on the surface.
The group achieved certification in 2014.
There are now over 800 small-scale fishers registered in 38 Fair Trade Fishers’
Associations across multiple islands and districts. Fishers harvest yellowfin tuna on
daily fishing trips from small vessels with a maximum crew of two people. They target
large yellowfin tuna by following dolphins, which indicate the presence of tuna, and
may catch the fish at the surface or further below. The fish is landed and then hand-
processed into clean loins at designated stations, before delivery to a central processor
in the city of Ambon or Bitung.
BOX 6.1
FAIR TRADE USA
Fair Trade USA, a non-profit organization, was founded in 1998 and

is the leading certifier of Fair Trade goods in North America. The
organization reaches nearly one million producers globally and has
delivered USD 551 million in additional profits to farmers, workers, and
fishers since its inception, through its market-driven model.
Fair Trade as a movement emerged as a response to the adverse
conditions faced by small-scale producers in developing countries, such as lack of market
access, price volatility, and poor bargaining power. The model improves the conditions of
these producers through three main interventions:
1) Certification using a comprehensive social, economic and environmental standard;
2) Delivery of Fair Trade Premium funds into the hands of producers for product sold
on Fair Trade terms; and
3) Increased market access and product differentiation through the Fair Trade label.
Capture Fisheries Standard

Since its inception, Fair Trade’s Seafood Program has delivered over USD 1.5 million in
Premium funds to fishing communities on top of the price of their catch. The Capture
Fisheries Standard has benefited over 5 000 fishers and fishworkers in eight fisheries
globally through adherence to stronger standards, greater organization, and collective
action.
6.1.3 Fair Trade Capture Fisheries Standard

Given the success and replicability of Fair Trade’s Agriculture Program, which certifies
fresh produce, coffee, tea and other consumer goods globally, the organization began
research on the seafood sector, resulting in the development of the Capture Fisheries
Standard (CFS) in 2014 to test its model in fisheries. The CFS provides the opportunity
for fishers to incorporate core elements of Fair Trade in their practices, while receiving
support to further commercialize their product.
Fair Trade USA and partnering Conformity Assessment Bodies audit and certify
supply chains to help ensure that fishers and processing workers are paid fair prices
and wages, work in safe conditions, protect the environment, and receive Fair Trade
Premium funds to improve their livelihoods. The CFS framework follows the Fair
Trade agricultural standards closely, specifically the requirements concerning basic
human rights, wages, working conditions and access to services. Several criteria have
been modified to apply to a marine setting, but the tenets and model remain the same.
A number of technical documents including the International Labour Organization’s
Core Conventions and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries were
referenced in the development of the standard.
The CFS is a progressive standard beginning at Year 0 and extending to Year 6. The
criteria become more rigorous annually, leading to comprehensive socio-economic
and environmental improvements over time. After Year 6, the fishery is audited
against the same Year 6 criteria to ensure improvements are maintained. In-person,
third-party audits are held on an annual basis. Upon certification, all traders of the
certified product are also required to abide by Fair Trade USA’s Trade Standard, the
chain of custody standard ensuring traceability and fair trading practices. The main
organizational objectives of the CFS are as follows.
• Empowerment: The CFS supports fishers in developing the necessary skills to
effectively negotiate with supply chain actors regarding the purchase, processing
and marketing of their products. The empowerment process includes organizing
a Fair Trade Fishers’ Association, electing a Fair Trade Committee, creating a
Fair Trade Premium Plan, and determining how to spend the premium in the
community (as further detailed in section 6.1.4).
• Economic development: The CFS aims to improve the stability of fishers’ incomes
by ensuring a transparent and stable trading relationship with their buyer(s) and
FIGURE 6.2
Capture fisheries standard infographic
Source: Fair Trade USA.

by requiring payment of a Fair Trade Premium on every Fair Trade Certified

product sale. The standard also establishes requirements to ensure adequate
wages and wage growth for workers. For instance, by Year 3, employers are
required to meet with waged crew members and worker representatives annually
to discuss how wages and productivity can be improved, including ideas for how
to move toward living wages over time. Additionally, the resource management
section of the CFS aims to strengthen and stabilize fish stocks to ensure that local
communities can continue to depend on them for their livelihoods.
• Social responsibility: The CFS protects the fundamental human rights of
those involved in the fishery. Health and safety measures are established to
protect fishers and processing workers from work-related injuries. Fishers are
encouraged to use the Fair Trade Premium to improve access to and quality of
health care and education in their communities.
• Environmental stewardship: Registered fishers must adopt responsible fishing
practices and work to protect fishing resources and biodiversity. This includes
data collection and monitoring to provide better information on the state of
fish stocks and to mitigate the impacts of fishing. For small- and medium-scale
fisheries that face challenges with data availability and management, the CFS
builds the capacity of fishers to meet the resource management criteria over time.
With these main objectives in mind, the CFS is organized into six sections
addressing different aspects of fishing, processing and facility management, and group
administration (Figure 6.3).
The requirements under each section apply to the Certificate Holder (the entity
responsible for the implementation of the CFS), fishers and crew members on fishing
vessels, and/or workers in processing plants. The standard may be viewed in its entirety
on Fair Trade USA’s website: https://www.fairtradecertified.org/business/seafood.
FIGURE 6.3
Capture fisheries standard infographic

6.1.4 Fair Trade Fishers’ Association and Fair Trade Premium

The development of Fair Trade Associations and Committees, and the management
of the Fair Trade Premium led by fishers, embodies the SSF Guidelines
recommendations 7.4 (“efforts to support associations of fisher and fish workers and
to promote their capacity to enhance their income and livelihood security, as well as
marketing mechanisms”) and 7.9 (“efforts to ensure adverse impacts by international
trade on the environment, small-scale fisheries culture, livelihoods, and food security
are equitably addressed”).
To participate in Fair Trade, fishers who are registered must form at least one
democratically run Fishers’ Association (unless they already belong to a legal
cooperative, in which case the cooperative serves as the association). Through the
cooperative or association, they coordinate responsibilities on resource management,
vessel safety, and trade relationships with buyers. The association represents the fishers
on any matters affecting their fishing activities, including CFS requirements, laws,
fishery regulations, and fishery-related infrastructure.
From the associations, individuals
are elected into one or more Fair Trade
Committees to manage the use of the Fair
Trade Premium funds. These committees are
then responsible for managing and spending
the funds on behalf of the participants, and
for tracking and reporting their use.
For every kilogram of product sold on
Fair Trade terms, a Fair Trade Premium
is paid by the local processor (often the
SOURCE: MDPI
Certificate Holder), or the importer

within the country of the product’s final

destination. The premium rate is set per
Fishers attending a Fair Trade Committee meeting.
species and, if necessary, per region; all
rates are publicly available online.1 The premium is paid directly into an account
managed by the Fair Trade Committee for the realization of common community
goals. A spending plan (Fair Trade Premium Plan) must be developed in accordance
with the CFS, and is based on a needs assessment outlining community gaps and
priorities, which is conducted in the first year. The committee may choose to fund
activities that its members agree are relevant for their priorities. Long-term projects are
encouraged, and not all Fair Trade Premium funds must be spent each year.
At least 30 percent of the Fair Trade Premium funds must be used toward
environmental projects that contribute to the sustainability of the fishery and/or
marine ecosystem, such as developing or improving waste management systems and
facilities, creating or enforcing a marine or terrestrial protected area, developing an
environmental education programme, or fisher training and data collection efforts.
6.2 METHODS
Collated primary and secondary evidence was used to create the case study. In 2018,
Fair Trade USA contracted the Charmelian consulting group (based in the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) to conduct an independent evaluation
of the programme’s socio-economic and environmental impact from 2014 to 2018. The
methods and findings for this case study draw heavily from that report, with additional
follow-up and research focused on the tuna fishery in Indonesia. The data sources used
in reference to both the evaluation and in this case study include:
1
Available at https://www.fairtradecertified.org/sites/default/files/filemanager/documents/Standards/
FTUSA_STD_PricePremiumDatabase_EN_1.11.0.pdf.
• Audit reports and applications: Data from audits were collated to show the
change in the number of fishers, vessels, and workers over time, from the time of
certification.
• Household surveys: Surveys with fishers were carried out in 2015, 2016 and 2018.
Survey questions covered income sustainability, environmental sustainability,
individual and community development, and empowerment. (Appendix 1 for a
list of survey questions.)
• Transaction data: Transaction data sourced from purchase and sales reports
of certified fish included product information, price per unit, volume, species,
transaction date, and type of contract.
• Interviews with programme participants: Interviews were conducted with
key supply chain and Non-governmental Organization (NGO) stakeholders
to collect qualitative information on experiences with the Fair Trade Seafood
Program in Indonesia.
Fair Trade USA conducted an analysis of the Capture Fisheries Standard to compare
how it overlaps with the SSF Guidelines recommendations on value chains, post-
harvest and trade. Other published articles and secondary evidence were also reviewed
to analyse the impacts in Indonesia, such as Borland and Bailey’s 2019 article “A tale of
two standards: A case study of the Fair Trade USA certified Maluku handline yellowfin
tuna (Thunnus albacares) fishery” and Duggan and Kochen’s “Small in scale but big in
potential: Opportunities and challenges for fisheries certification of Indonesian small-
scale tuna fisheries”, published in 2016.

Prior to sharing the results of the Fair Trade Seafood Program analysis, it is important
to identify two partners who played critical roles: Yayasan Masyarakat dan Perikanan
Indonesia (MDPI) and Anova Food.
MDPI is an NGO that works with small-scale fishers in Indonesia to support
responsible and sustainable fisheries. At the inception of the CFS project, MDPI was
an extension of Anova’s Fishing & Living Initiative and was thus a natural partner
to handle the CFS aspects involving producers. Today, MDPI is an independently
registered organization, partnering with multiple industry stakeholders in tuna
fisheries to implement traceability and sustainability-focused initiatives. It remains the
main implementation partner for the Fair Trade programme in Indonesia.
Anova was an early market partner and supporter of Fair Trade. Participation in
the programme enabled it to be a “prime mover” in product differentiation and in
fulfilling its social and environmental commitments (Pollard et al., 2018, p. 41). As a
result, Anova has been able to sustain relationships with its current buyers and double
its supply volumes with others (Pollard et al., 2018, p. 45).
6.3.1 Producer impact

The fisher-led management of the Premium funds is a tangible example of Fair Trade’s
alignment with SSF Guidelines recommendation 7.4 to support fishers’ associations
and build their capacity to enhance their income and livelihood security. Sales of
certified product have earned Indonesian fishers USD 280 000 (as of December 2018)
in cumulative Fair Trade Premium funds on top of the price paid for their catch. Funds
have been applied at a community level toward a variety of social and environmental
projects, such as:
• Savings accounts for children’s education;
• School supplies;
• Illness and bereavement funds;
• Donations to local community centres and mosques;
• Education on endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species;

• Waste management facilities;
• Improvements to landing sites and gear;
• Trainings on topics such as post-harvest handling to improve product quality.
BOX 6.2
Fair trade fisher spotlight
There are numerous Fair Trade

Fishers’ Associations in South
Seram. It is an important fishing
area given the proximity to central
processors in Ambon. Following
participation in the Fair Trade
programme, fishers report higher
rates of engagement with other
fishers and in negotiations with
buyers.
SOURCE: MDPIREGISTERED FISHERS
La Tohia (in yellow) is a 38-year-

old fisher from South Seram
and the head of the Fair Trade
Committee. He spends his time
assisting the associations in various
ways, including negotiating with
the National Electric Company,
La Tohia and other Fair Trade registered fishers. installing lights at the landing sites,
and training fishers to record fishing
trips and interactions with ETP species in their logbooks (data collection is a requirement
of the CFS).
His local association, Tuna Yapana, have used Fair Trade Premium funds to pay for
fishing gear, school supplies for children, and renovations to the local mosque. They have
also used funds to purchase meal containers and thermoses for fishing trips to reduce
plastic waste (a requirement of the CFS). In the future, La Tohia hopes the group will
develop Fair Trade Premium projects with mid- to long-term impact, such as registering
fishers with the government health care and labour pension plan, and the creation of a
children’s fund that supports education up to the university level.
In this way, Premium funds are also increasing fishers’ status as contributors to
society and lessening the extractive effects of international trade on small-scale fisheries.
This is a conditional stipulation of paragraph 7.9, which states that “assessments ...
[should] ensure that adverse impacts by international trade on the environment,
small-scale fisheries culture, livelihoods and special needs related to food security are
equitably addressed.”
In a household survey of participants conducted in 2016, 63 percent of respondents
knew how the Fair Trade Premium was spent and 73 percent were satisfied with the
results. In compliance with the CFS, fishers have also been given safety-at-sea and first
aid training, with first aid kits now available at all landing sites – a small but measurable
change in isolated villages that are often far removed from health care facilities.
The structural community components of the Fair Trade model, such as the creation
of fishers’ associations and committees, have also become increasingly important to
fishers, as demonstrated by the findings of the survey conducted in 2015 and again in
2016 (Figure 6.4). In 2015, 68 percent of respondents rated the Fair Trade Premium as
FIGURE 6.4
2015 and 2016 household survey results
What is the most important benefit you see in the Fair Trade program?
48%
Community Fund 68%
Formation of a fisher association 20%

12%
Trainings 14%
1%
Potential increased income 10%

15 %
I don't understand/refused 4%
0%
Other 4%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

2016 2015
the most important benefit of the Fair Trade model. In 2016, that rating decreased to
48 percent, while the fishers’ perception of the benefits of having a Fair Trade Fishers’
Association increased from 12 percent to 20 percent.
Prior to certification, all fishers operated independently. With the introduction of
Fair Trade Associations, fishers were now formed into groups based on geography.
In addition to Fair Trade Premium management, the associations began meeting
regularly to exchange information, assess community needs and communicate with
their intermediaries. This platform allowed fishers to engage in broader community
and political issues, which they found valuable. The survey data in Figure 6.5 also
shows an increase in fishers raising their concerns with association leadership year on
year, pointing to greater levels of producer engagement and agency.
FIGURE 6.5
Household survey results with Y0–Y2 representing the survey year
Have you shared feedback with your fishers' association leadership in the last year?
8
21 14
13
9 1 13
12 51 55
55 7
2
1
52
78
31 45
12 59 62 20
12
39
Y0 Y0 Y0 Y0 Y1 Y2 Y0 Y1 Y0 Y1
AMBON ASSILULU BISA BURU SERAM TOLITOLI
Yes Refused No
6.3.2 Worker impact

Fair Trade Certification also covers workers in the processing plants, with annual
audits to ensure CFS requirements on human rights and working conditions are met,
such as:
• Discrimination and abuse prevention;

• Freedom from forced labour;
• Protection of minors;
• Freedom of association;
• Wage protection and transparency on conditions of employment;
• Occupational health and safety;
• Access to health care and other services.
6.3.3 Environmental impact

CFS resource management criteria detail the requirements for data collection,
stock health, governance structure and proper waste management, which are key
components to achieve a sustainable, responsible fishery. The implementation of Fair
Trade’s resource management requirements bring SSF Guidelines recommendation 7.8
into practice by ensuring “that effective fisheries management systems are in place to
prevent overexploitation driven by market demand that can threaten the sustainability
of fisheries resources, food security and nutrition.”
The Indonesian supply chain, led by Anova with fisher programmes implemented
by MDPI, was already part of a Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) when it entered
the Fair Trade assessment. Both FIP and Fair Trade requirements have led to
improvements in data collection and product traceability, with increasingly higher
numbers of fishers completing logbooks as mandated by the CFS. This has contributed
to a wider understanding of fishers’ impact on the yellowfin tuna stock as well as
secondary and bycatch species. According to the CFS, a data collection system must
be in place by Year 1, with increasingly rigorous documentation on catch data required
by Years 3 and 6. In addition, by Year 1, logbooks of registered fishers must reflect
an estimated catch of primary species of at least 50 percent of total fishing trips. That
number increases to 75 percent by Year 3 and 90 percent by Year 6. Notably, although
the demand for certified handline tuna is increasing, there are CFS safeguards in place
to ensure the tuna is not overfished by registered fishers.
Fishers have also received training on ETP species status and conservation needs,
in particular dolphins and seabirds, which they encounter regularly. Moreover, several
groups have taken it upon themselves to promote knowledge and protection of ETP
species within the wider community, using Fair Trade Premium funds. Although not a
direct outcome of the trainings, Fair Trade registered fishers have uniformly abandoned
the widespread practice of turtle egg consumption and are actively educating family
and friends to follow their example. The enhanced awareness of marine sustainability
among fishers has prompted direct actions to protect natural resources, as supported
by Fair Trade seafood sales (SSF Guidelines recommendation 7.9).
For producers, it is an ongoing challenge to meet the rigorous environmental
standards required by Fair Trade, which includes developing a fisheries management
plan. This is especially difficult due to the limited scientific understanding communities
have of the impact created by different management measures. Furthermore, the
governance structure places handline fisheries outside of international quotas, and
there is limited historical data on catch. To meet this challenge, MDPI staff are utilizing
a simplified method to train fishers in basic stock management measures and assist
them in articulating basic approaches, such as limiting fishing activity via “no fishing
Fridays.” Such actions could be acknowledged by local government and enshrined in a
simple harvest control rule (Pollard et al., 2018, p. 49). In addition, Fair Trade requires
that 30 percent of the Fair Trade Premium be spent on environmental projects – a
criterion that helps ensure stock health and environmental sustainability.
In 2019, the North Buru and Maluku Fair Trade Fishers’ Associations of the
handline yellowfin tuna fishery became the first of its kind in Indonesia to undergo
a Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) full assessment. The Fair Trade Committee on
North Buru Island was selected to coordinate with MDPI and other stakeholders to
compile the documentation required. As remarked by Blane Olson, managing director
of Anova Technical Services, “Years of data collection and sustainable fishery practices
by Fair Trade fishers have set the stage for fulfilling the rigorous demands of MSC
certification for this handline fishery, and we couldn’t be more thrilled” (Kearns, 2019).
The implementation of the CFS provided a pathway for the fishery to work
toward the MSC assessment. “It is extremely difficult to meet the MSC standard for
a small-scale fishery, composed of thousands of independent one-manned vessels that
operate on remote islands,” added Saut Tampubolon, Executive Director of MDPI.
“The Fair Trade Committee (FTC) and Fair Trade Associations, which have been in
place in North Buru for five years, give an organized structure for the MSC Unit of
Assessment. This major advantage of utilizing an existing FTC makes MSC potentially
possible” (Kearns, 2019).
6.3.4 Enabling conditions

A key factor in Fair Trade’s success in Indonesia has been its partnership with MDPI.
The country’s environment, which includes the world’s second-longest coastline, is
logistically complex. Implementation of the CFS required on-the-ground expertise,
local knowledge, and a network of trained community organizers responsible for
replicating the model in multiple islands and communities. MDPI has been responsible
for introducing Fair Trade concepts and requirements to local communities since the
beginning of the programme in Indonesia. MDPI staff train Fair Trade Committee
members (using outside training bodies when necessary) in organization, financial
literacy and bookkeeping. The organization also collaborates closely with the
committee to ensure that fishers understand their roles and responsibilities and have
the tools and acumen to successfully use the Fair Trade Premium to its maximum
advantage. Furthermore, MDPI’s knowledgeable and dedicated staff provide the
necessary local personnel to ensure both initial and ongoing certification of this supply
chain. The cooperation and partnership of the local processors PT. Harta Samudra and
Blue Ocean Grace International have also been essential in the implementation of the
programme, as both entities abide by the CFS.
Finally, Anova Food has been a critical partner in Indonesia and within the
American retail market. As the Certificate Holder and importer of the certified
tuna, Anova is responsible for annual fiscal audits and on-the-ground programme
implementation. Its staff and sales teams have fully supported Fair Trade Certification
since its adoption in 2013 and played a significant role in delivering the product on
retail shelves. Between 2015 and 2016, sales volume increased over 280 percent, and
demand for the certified product has steadily increased through its marketing efforts,
as well as those of Fair Trade USA (Business Wire, 2019). Anova’s ongoing support of
the FIP for yellowfin tuna in Eastern Indonesia has also been an important factor in its
success, allowing for synergies between the FIP and the Fair Trade programme under
MDPI, such as data collection, bycatch documentation and community participation
in fisheries governance.
6.4 CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED
6.4.1 Implementation cost

As with many certification and/or improvement programmes, one of the most
significant challenges is the ongoing cost. In this case, the Certificate Holder bears the
cost of certification. Fair Trade audits are conducted annually, and those in Indonesia
require several weeks to complete. This fact, coupled with the difficult geography of
Eastern Indonesia and the remote location of several of the fishing villages, keep audit
costs high. The demand for the product, the visibility of the Fair Trade programme,
and the aggregation of fishers into organized clusters also increase the presence of
opportunistic buyers. These buyers increase local competition and decrease the
potential volume of Fair Trade product sold, while bypassing investment in long-term
socio-economic and environmental improvements.
Significant financial resources are also needed to support MDPI and capacity
building on the ground. Landing sites and processing locations have had to undergo
improvements to product traceability and worker safety systems. These costs are borne
by the processor and are difficult to pass on to buyers. Regarding product traceability,
currently yellowfin tuna loins are tagged as Fair Trade and coded with landing site
details after they have been landed. Upon delivery to central processing plants, this
information is entered into a tracking system and then, in the case of the Anova supply
chain, uploaded onto a blockchain platform.
In Indonesia, Anova has partnered with MDPI and USAID to implement full
chain traceability by working with all actors in the supply chain including fishers,
intermediaries and processors/exporters (Fishing & Living, 2019). At the fisher level,
electronic vessel monitoring systems such as Spot Trace and Pelagic Data Systems
are being utilized to gather more accurate catch data. At the intermediary level, a
mobile application called Trafiz developed by USAID OCEANS is progressively
being deployed to contribute to traceability at landing sites by recording transactions
electronically and uploading them into an online database. Finally, at the processor/
exporter level, an electronic tally system (Trace Tales) developed by MDPI and funded
by USAID OCEANS has been installed in multiple processing plants. The blockchain
platform will integrate a number of existing traceability tools to move toward
continuous, tamper-proof traceability all along the value chain.
Blane Olson, Managing Director of Anova Technical Services, explains that “with
the addition of our new blockchain technology programme, we’re able to easily access
and share powerful information about the fish-to-market journey with customers and
consumers, while ensuring that fish is caught from clean ocean waters by fisher[s] who
operate under Fair Trade standards, which are certified by MDPI and Fair Trade USA
to ensure fair wages and safe working conditions.”
6.4.2 Navigating intermediaries and inclusion in Fair Trade

Intermediaries play an integral social and economic role in these fishing communities.
They facilitate production, support post-harvest processing and grading, act as money
lenders, and collect and transport raw product to processors. Gaining the trust and
cooperation of intermediaries as leaders of these communities has been essential in
implementing the CFS and in the formation of associations (Bailey et al., 2016).
This process of building trust and cooperation with the intermediaries across
all Fair Trade Certified sites was a multiyear process enabled by MDPI staff. At
times, community building was challenging, as some intermediaries viewed fishers’
associations and committees as a threat to their operations and methods. MDPI
worked closely with cooperative intermediaries at the beginning of the programme, in
particular those who were also fishers and who had close ties to the local community,
and then expanded outward. As the Fair Trade programme has adapted to the
Indonesian context to involve intermediaries, likewise intermediaries have evolved to
run their businesses within the bounds of fishers’ associations and involving greater
levels of communication and transparency with fishers. Intermediaries who are also
fishers are part of fishers’ associations. For those who do not fish, the local association
has the option of including them in meetings as non-voting members.
The associations help resolve issues between intermediaries and fishers, as in a recent
case involving price transparency. In a number of villages, fishers were being quoted
different prices for similar products, and there was confusion about how grading
affected price. In addition, certain intermediaries were claiming non-certified fish as
certified to achieve higher commercial prices. Many of the fishers raised these concerns
with their associations and with MDPI. Through conversations with intermediaries
and with coaching and training efforts by MDPI staff, these issues were ultimately
resolved.
6.4.3 Market pull

Additional challenges occur at the American market level. While Fair Trade brand
recognition is high with 60 percent of American consumers reporting they recognize
the logo, Fair Trade Certified seafood is not as well known. Thus it is critical to work
with Fair Trade’s brand partners and to equip their sales and marketing teams with
the tools they need to grow sales and recognition of Fair Trade Certified seafood. The
sustainable seafood movement has been successful over the past 20 years with American
and European retailers, the majority of whom have sustainable seafood commitments
for wild caught seafood (CEA, 2017). However, most of these commitments are
centred on environmental sustainability. Hence Fair Trade and other NGOs involved
with addressing social issues in seafood production are working diligently to modify
current retailer commitments to adopt social criteria in seafood sourcing, including a
commitment to Fair Trade.
A dedicated buyer willing to pay a higher price for a certified product is essential to
the success of any Fair Trade Certification, as well as similar interventions. Fair Trade’s
model is marketdriven, and its effectiveness hinges upon demand from an end buyer.
Without sales on Fair Trade terms, there is no producer impact or price incentive
that compels supply chain actors to adhere to higher levels of compliance and more
equitable trade practices.
6.5 CONCLUSIONS
The Fair Trade Seafood Program in Indonesia is a story of continuous improvement,
beginning with four Fair Trade Fishers’ Associations in Ambon and Buru and
expanding to 38 Fair Trade Associations with over 800 fishers on multiple islands, each
with its own logistics, cultural dynamics and local politics.
The model has brought positive changes to communities in Indonesia through
group organization, adherence to rigorous standards, and additional income for
producers. Fair Trade is the only certification that guarantees a price premium. Since
the Seafood Program’s beginning, over a quarter of a million United States dollars
have been delivered to participating Indonesian small-scale fishers. With ongoing
support from MDPI, these fishers are identifying a range of projects and investments
to improve their livelihoods and the marine environment.
Additionally, the development of Fair Trade associations and committees have
strengthened fishers’ capacity, enhanced their income and livelihood security, and
supported data collection and fisheries management systems to prevent overexploitation
of natural resources. Organized fishers’ associations, built on community input and
collaboration, have provided the necessary social structure to enable stronger data
collection and traceability, as well as advance progress for FIPs and toward a full MSC
assessment.
Fair Trade USA and its partners have been able to replicate the successes seen in
Indonesia in other fisheries and countries, specifically in Mexico, the Maldives, the
United States of America and the Solomon Islands. The types of certified species and
associated fishing gear have also grown, with Pacific shrimp (suripera net), Atlantic
scallops (scallop dredge), Alaskan salmon (drift net and setnet), and skipjack tuna (pole
and line) all certified between 2015 and 2017.
In 2020, the CFS will undergo a major revision. As part of that process, Fair
Trade USA will update its standards to increase its impact on small- to medium-scale
producers worldwide.
REFERENCES
Bailey, M., Bush, S., Oosterveer, P. & Larastiti, L. 2016. Fishers, Fair Trade, and finding
middle ground. Fisheries Research, 182(October 2016): 59–68 (available at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.11.027).
Borland, M.E. & Bailey, M. 2019. A tale of two standards: the case of the Maluku handline
yellowfin tuna fishery. Marine Policy, 100 (February 2019): 353–360.
Business Wire. 2019. Anova Food Recognizes MDPI and Indonesian Partners following
Successful Blockchain Technology Program Implementation. Business Wire, 26 June
2019. (also available at https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190626005595/en/
Anova-Food-Recognizes-MDPI-Indonesian-Partners-Successful).
CEA (California Environmental Associates). 2017. Progress Toward Sustainable
Seafood – By the Numbers. Packard Foundation, Seafood Metrics Report, June 2017.
speakingofseafood.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Seafood-Metrics-Report-2017.pdf
Duggan, D. & Kochen, M. 2016. Small in scale but big in potential: opportunities and
challenges for fisheries certification of Indonesian small-scale tuna fisheries. Marine
Policy, 67(May 2016): 30–39.
Fishery Progress. 2018. Indonesia Western and Central Pacific Ocean Yellowfin Tuna –
Handline. In: Fishery Progress [online]. Fort Collins, USA. https://fisheryprogress.org/
fip-profile/eastern-indonesia-yellowfin-tuna-handline
Fishing & Living. (September 23rd 2019). Retrieved from http://fishing-living.org/#sthash.
SqliBrTl.dpbs
Kearns, M. 2019. Handline Tuna Fishery Becomes First of Its Kind in Indonesia to Pursue
Full MSC Assessment. SeafoodSource Official Media, 27 February 2019. (also available
at www.seafoodsource.com/news/environment-sustainability/handline-tuna-fishery-
becomes-first-of-its-kind-in-indonesia-to-pursue-full-msc-assessment).
Pollard, I. et al. 2018. Learnings and best practice of the Fair Trade seafood program.
Confidential report prepared for Fair Trade USA (unpublished).
Appendix 1
List of fisher survey questions

Gender
Birth year
Fishers’ association name
How many children (age 18 or younger) live in your household?
In the last year was there a time that you or someone in your household skipped a meal or ate a smaller meal
because you did not have enough money to buy food?
No
No answer
Yes
In the last year, how often did that happen?
1–2 months
Don’t know
Every month
Many months
No answer
Have you attended a safety-at-sea training in the last 12 months?
I don’t remember
No
No answer
Yes
During the last month, how often did you take a life jacket to sea?
Always
Don’t know
Never
No answer
Sometimes
During the last month, have you had an accident while fishing?
Don’t know
No
No answer
Yes
How many years have you been a fisher?
Which of the following best describes you?
Don’t know
I am a captain and I do not own the boat
I am a captain and I own the boat
I am a crew member
No answer
How much did you earn from fishing in the last month?
In comparing this month with the same month last year, has the income from fishing changed?
Don’t know
I didn’t catch fish during the prior season
It has decreased
It has increased
It has not changed
No answer
Other than fishing, what other sources of income are there for your household? Please select all that apply.
Agriculture
Business
Manufacturing
List of fisher survey questions (Continued)

No other sources of income
Other employment (for example, construction)
Remittance
Seafood processing
Tourism
How much of your income comes from fishing?
All
Don’t know
Less than half
Most
No answer
When you have an unexpected need for money (e.g. boat damages, illness/death in family), how do you get it?
Borrow money
Government assistance
I don’t know what to do
Insurance policies
Other
No answer
Remittance
Savings
Who do you borrow money from?
Bank
Boat owner/supplier
Don’t know
Family/friend
Microfinance Institution
Other
Other informal lender
No answer
Do you know how the Fair Trade Premium is being spent?
Don’t know
No
No answer
Yes
Are you satisfied with the way the Fair Trade Premium is being spent?
Dissatisfied
Don’t know
Neutral
No answer
Satisfied
Have you shared a complaint or recommendation with your fishers’ association leadership in the last year?
Don’t know
No
No answer
Yes
Were you satisfied with the way leadership addressed your complaint or recommendation?
Don’t know
Not satisfied
No answer
Satisfied
List of fisher survey questions (Continued)

Why didn’t you share complaints or recommendations?
I did not know how to share my opinion
I did not think my opinion would make a difference
I have been satisfied with operations
I was afraid to share my opinion
Other
No answer
What is the most important benefit you see in the Fair Trade programme?
Don’t know
Formation of a fishers’ association
I don’t see any potential benefits
Other
Potential increase in income
Premium funds
No answer
Trainings
Since you’ve joined the Fair Trade programme, what has been the biggest challenge in participating?
Changes in fisheries management
Don’t know
Finishing trainings
Fishers’ association membership rules
Having to collect data
No challenges
Other
No answer
Taking part in meetings and gatherings
123
7. Madagascar’s mud crab fishery:

How fishers can earn more while
catching less
Zbigniew Kasprzyk
Independent fisheries consultant
Antananarivo, Madagascar
Adrian Levrel
Blue Ventures
London, UK
ABSTRACT
Madagascar, one of the poorest countries in the world, has large coastal communities
who rely heavily on various small-scale fisheries, such as mangrove mud crab (Scylla
serrata), for income. There has been a marked increase in mangrove mud crab fishing
due to high international demand, and it is now the country’s third most valuable
seafood export. This has led to overfishing, with documented decreases in quantity and
average size of catches. Additionally, post-harvest losses along the value chain lead to
lost value, due to poor handling, transport and storage. This lost value further reduces
the earnings and food security of the coastal communities who depend on this fishery.
The Smartfish Programme, jointly implemented by the Indian Ocean Commission
and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and funded by the
European Union, worked with the Government of Madagascar’s ministry responsible
for fisheries resources and locally-based NGOs including Blue Ventures and WWF, to
assess methods of reducing exploitation of the fishery and increasing benefits to fishers
and the wider supply chain. This case study reviews practical approaches to recover lost
value in the mangrove mud crab fishery, highlighting low cost interventions that can
increase yields even in the face of falling catches. The value of catches were augmented
by obtaining higher prices for export crabs (around half of the annual harvest) and
reducing post-harvest losses, providing a practical example of how low-cost changes
in behaviour, logistics and technique can reduce post-harvest losses, helping fishers to
earn more while catching less.
Keywords: Mud crab, Scylla serrata, Madagascar, mangroves, mangrove fisheries, value
chain improvement, post-capture losses, small-scale fisheries, traditional fisheries.
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Approximately 30 000 traditional fishers work in Madagascar’s mangrove mud crab
fishery, mostly in areas of the West coast exhibiting mangrove forests in proximity to
seafood buyers. Fishers fish on foot or from non-motorised wooden pirogues (sailing
or paddled outrigger canoes) using simple equipment. Market demand has increased
significantly since the late 2000s, particularly for live crabs, leading to overexploitation
in all but the remotest regions, with a marked trend of reductions in fishing yields and
the average size of crabs harvested. At the same time, population growth and economic
migration to the coast have led to more people exploiting mangroves, in particular for
charcoal production and construction timber, as well as harvesting fish and crustaceans
for local and foreign markets. Small-scale fishers who live in the mangroves typically
have no farmland and rely heavily on mud crab fisheries for their livelihoods.
In the early 2000s, it became clear that mangrove forests and crab stocks were
being overexploited. Subsequently, Madagascar’s government ministry responsible
for fisheries resources (Ministère des Ressources Halieutiques et de la Pêche - MRHP,
merged into the Ministère de l’Agriculture de l’Elevage et de la Pêche in 2019)
decided to develop a new policy for the sector. The SmartFish Programme1, jointly
implemented by FAO and the Indian Ocean Commission, began working with MRHP
in 2011 with the aim of making the mud crab fishery more sustainable by:
• Enhancing the value of the crab sector by reorienting exports to live crabs, which
are more lucrative than frozen crabs and can be sold for twice the price;
• Reducing post-harvest mortality to under 20 percent by the end of 2015, compared
to 32 percent in 2013 (with peak losses of 50 percent in the rainy season).
The challenge for fishers could be summed up as: “Can you earn more while catching
less?” Ten improved practices for catching and handling crabs were developed with the
aim of improving the quality of live crabs handled across all links in the value chain.
These good practices were tested and disseminated directly to fishers, wholesalers and
collectors. The result has been that the crabs are now healthier and more robust, with
a better meat yield, and are more able to survive both domestic transport and export.
These good practices align with the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable
Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF
Guidelines; FAO, 2015), particularly: reducing post-harvest losses throughout the
sector (paragraph 7.5), facilitating access to the international market through the export
of live crabs (paragraph 7.6), and increasing the quantity of crabs sold on the local
market and thereby contributing to food security (paragraph 7.7). Identifying simple
innovations together with fishers and collectors, and involving them in development,
testing and skills transfer to spread the good practices, has been at the heart of the
intervention strategy (paragraph 12.3).
The MRHP achieved widespread adoption of post-harvest handling practices by
using a participatory process linking decentralized departments, actors in the sector,
and fisheries experts. This case study details the process the SmartFish Programme
followed for identifying, testing and disseminating good practices on the ground
in all five of the coastal regions of Western Madagascar that contain mangroves. It
also provides recommendations on how to replicate this positive experience in other
mangrove areas of Madagascar, as well as other African countries with mangroves and
mangrove crab fisheries.
7.1.1 The mangrove crab sector in Madagascar

The mangrove crab, Scylla serrata (Forskal, 1755), also known as the mud crab, is one
of the largest and most sought-after crab species in the Portunidae family. It is found
in the intertidal zones of estuaries and mangroves in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
It is adapted to subtidal (constantly submerged) zones and can tolerate significant
variations in salinity – from 1 to 30 percent (Ali et al., 2004).
According to remote sensing carried out in 2010, Madagascar has around 2 000 km²
of mangroves (Jones et al., 2016). In 1997, this represented 20 percent and 2 percent
1
The SmartFish Programme is a European Commission funded initiative to develop and support the
implementation of the Eastern and Southern Africa and Indian Ocean (ESA-IO) fisheries strategy for
sustainable management of the fisheries sector.
7. Madagascar’s mud crab fishery: How fishers can earn more while catching less 125
of the total in Africa and the world, respectively

(ONE and ANGAP, 1997). The vast majority
of Madagascar’s mangroves are located on the
country’s West coast (Figure 7.1).
Official figures from MRHP state that the
national maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for
mangrove crab is 7 500 tonnes a year (Ralison,
1987). This estimate is based on a hypothetical
production level of 2.5 tonnes/km² for 3 000 km²
of mangroves.
Sustainable exploitation of both mangrove
The mangrove crab, Scylla serrata (Forskal, 1755).
fisheries and forests has become critical, and
not just for the sake of crab fisheries. The
mangrove forests provide a habitat for many
other crustaceans and fish, as well as a host
of other valuable ecosystem benefits, such as
protection against storm surges and sequestration
of carbon dioxide.
Mangrove crab fishing in Madagascar
is exclusively traditional: it is carried out in
©K. ZBIGNIEW.
inaccessible mangrove areas on foot or in small
non-motorized pirogues, using very simple and
inexpensive fishing techniques (e.g. hooks, crab
hoop nets, keepnets and lines). A national survey Female mud crab fishers launching pirogue
carried out in 2013 showed there are about 30 000 among mangroves.
mangrove crab fishers in Madagascar, of which
21 percent are women (MRHP and PASP, 2014). FIGURE 7.1
Women processors generally handle storage and Simplified map of the mangrove zones in
Madagascar
sale, often assisted by their children.
Crabs are generally handled live, covered in
mud. Collectors, wholesalers and local market
vendors have collection permits and wholesaler
or vendor cards. The proportion of informal
actors in the sector is shrinking and both formal
and informal operators use few employees and
little capital. With almost no access to credit,
they have little funds of their own to invest in
collection resources. In stark contrast, export
companies have processing plants that typically
meet international standards (Kasprzyk, 2014).
Previously, crab fishing was considered by
fishers, collectors and fishery authorities to be
of lower importance than fishing for shrimp and
fish. Indeed, catches from 1985 to 2008 were
well below MRHP’s hypothesised MSY of 7 500
tonnes. However, in 2009, crab fishing increased
significantly when shrimp companies adapted
some of their processing infrastructure to crab
to compensate for falling shrimp production.
Traditional fisher production has increased from
4 052 tonnes in 2012 to 6 018 tonnes in 2017
Map conforms to: Map No.
(Figure 7.2), with its value increasing in parallel. 4170 Rev. 18.1 United Nations,
Source: Kasprzyk and Levrel, 2018. February 2020.
FIGURE 7.2
Growth of mangrove crab catches in Madagascar since 1985
Estimated catch (tonnes) Maximum sustainable yield (MYS)
8 000
6 000
Tonnes
4 000
2 000
0
1985 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Year
2012: improvement in estimation method; 2016: new estimate by Z. Kasprzyk.
Source: MRHP statistical services*.

* https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jFLw4UQFvh99ww71FEKJedg0Oq627J8E0aVKHQ1LUW8/edit?usp=sharing
7.2 REDUCING POST-HARVEST MORTALITY

This part of the study is directly linked to paragraph 7.5 of the SSF Guidelines.
Methods
The SmartFish Programme implemented the “crab project”, which actively engaged
actors from each step in the supply chain with the aim of addressing post-harvest
mortality and identifying good practices to reduce post-harvest losses (Table 7.1). The
project began by mobilizing dynamic and innovative local supply chain actors and
identifying a range of technical solutions with them. These were then tested, optimized
and presented to actors and partners for their approval. These same actors and partners
were also involved in the awareness-raising and dissemination stages.
TABLE 7.1
Process of identifying post-harvest good practices
Phase Mobilizing actors and resources Outputs
1. Introduction on In-depth study and analysis of the situation on Estimation of post-harvest losses and causes
the ground, baseline the ground at each link in the chain
survey and preliminary Engagement and awareness raising of technical Identification of innovative local practices
analysis services and local authorities that could be optimized or improved
Recruiting local agents that know the terrain A range of technical solutions proposed for
well to act as facilitators each link in the sectoral chain
Identifying dynamic individual actors
2. Testing a range of Setting up a testing mechanism for technical Evaluation of the technical solutions using
technical solutions solutions with the actors identified survey data and opinions gathered in
Training of operators with follow up by workshops
facilitators List of good practices for approval
Broad geographical coverage and sufficient
duration to observe clear results
3. Approval of good All the identified sector actors engaged to List of approved good practices to
practices approve the selected good practices disseminate
List of actors and facilitators to mobilize for
demonstration and training on the ground
4. Dissemination of Producing a teaching toolkit for training and Follow-up evaluation of adoption of good
good practices communication practice and the impact on post-harvest
Organizing awareness-raising and dissemination losses
campaigns
Post-harvest mortality diagnostics

To reduce cold-chain investments, mangrove crabs are handled live at each link in the
supply chain. Mortality rates are significant between the moment of capture and the
arrival at final destination (i.e. factory/market).
The SmartFish crab project conducted numerous field surveys in 2012 and 2013
assessing mortality at each link in the supply chain (Table 7.2).
TABLE 7.2
Post-harvest mortality in the crab sector in Madagascar
Link Mortality rate*
Fishing and storage in villages (with fishers) 7%
Storage in villages and transport to collectors (with wholesalers) 7%
Storage at collection points including transport and delivery to the factory/market 16%
located on the coast (with collectors)
Transport between coastal villages and Antananarivo for crabs exported live by air or 5%
sold in the capital (with collectors)
Sale at local market/bazaar (with vendors) 6%
* Outside of cyclone season.
Source: Surveys conducted by the SmartFish Programme crab project in 11 of the 17 administrative districts in the
country that contain mangroves. FANOITRA NGO & Kasprzyk, 2016
The mortality rate varies significantly depending on the remoteness and accessibility
of the fishing villages or camps, the way that collection is organized, and the final
destination of the crabs. Mortality also increases significantly in cyclone season (values
presented in Table 7.2 are for outside of cyclone season only).
Annual losses in 2013 were estimated at 1 300 tonnes – a commercial loss of USD 4.5
million (Kasprzyk, 2016). These are total losses, as the dead crabs are not fit for human
consumption or use in animal feed, due to toxins that quickly develop after death.
The main causes of this elevated mortality, some of which are illustrated in
Figure 7.3, are:
a) The way the collection is organized and the extended period of time during which
crabs are handled, from when they are caught to final delivery (up to a week or
more for remote villages);
b) Use of inadequate storage and transport, leading to crabs being crushed;
c) Crab suffocation due to the inadequate quantity and quality of mud and the lack
of watering;
d) Late tying of crabs’ claws, which encourages injuries (as they are carnivorous and
cannibalistic);
e) Sale of crabs without claws in certain regions of Madagascar (if claws are removed,
crabs are injured and therefore more vulnerable).
Phases 1–3: Identification, testing and approval of good practices

Once the losses had been quantified, the MRHP set a goal of reducing the estimated
mortality of 32 percent by a third. With the support of SmartFish, it implemented a
programme with sector stakeholders based on two principles:
• Identifying simple, low-cost technical solutions using locally available skills and
materials, and promoting local good practices;
• Achieving broad geographical coverage, with numerous pilot sites for
demonstration.
Between November 2012 and January 2014, practices were identified, tested and
approved. Consultants carried out several visits to villages, allowing them to identify
the actors (fishers, wholesalers and collectors) who reported lower mortality than
FIGURE 7.3
Practices associated with a high level of post-harvest mortality
Hook fishing at low tide (injured crabs)
Too fine a mesh in keepnets

(catching undersized crabs)
Unloading baskets that people carry on their heads Outdoor storage
Transport in large overloaded baskets Transport without protection against the sun and rain
Transport in lorries without shelves Placing crabs for sale on the ground
others. After analysing techniques, these methods were individually tested over several
months by the leaders of other villages.
In collaboration with the World Wildlife Fund, SmartFish carried out 716 tests
and demonstrations in 33 villages in four of Madagascar’s six mangrove regions.
This involved providing fishing materials as well as training to 205 fishers while
approximately 2 500 fishers had access to the demonstrations in their villages.
At each demonstration site, the project monitored and evaluated post-harvest losses
in comparison with the baseline established during the initial surveys. This made it
possible to quantify the reduction in mortality, and to also analyse the adaptability of
the innovations as well as their profitability (i.e. additional revenue and amortization
period). Importantly, a fisheries expert regularly supported the local consultants,
spending more than 75 days working in coastal villages and towns between November
2011 and September 2015.
This work was ultimately used to produce SmartFish Manual No. 35, entitled
“Enhancing the value of mangrove crab through reduction of post-harvest losses”,
which was published in French and Malagasy by SmartFish, the European Union and
FAO in 2014, detailed in the next section - dissemination.
TABLE 7.3
Brief description of the ten good practices published by SmartFish
Point in sector value chain Good practice Principles
Fishing 1. Crab hoop net Catching larger specimens, in deeper water
Storage 2. Storage hut Sheltering crabs awaiting collection
(fisher)
3. Live-crab storage cage Keeping the crabs in their natural
environment (no losses)
Storage 4. Storage hangar Limiting losses through appropriate storage
(collector)
5. Live-crab storage enclosure Keeping the crabs in their natural
environment (no losses)
Transport 6. Adapted carts (shelves) Reducing crab crushing, protecting them
(collector) against the sun and rain
Transport 7. Wooden box for transport Reducing crab crushing, maintaining
(collector/wholesaler) favourable transport conditions
Transport 8. Improved shelves for transport Reducing crab crushing, maintaining
(collector/wholesaler) by pirogue favourable transport conditions
Transport 9. Improved shelves for transport Reducing crab crushing, maintaining
(collector/wholesaler) by lorry favourable transport conditions
Transport 10. On-board motor for transport Reducing transport time
(collector/wholesaler) by pirogue
Phase 4: Dissemination of good practices

The second phase of the project involved broader awareness raising and dissemination
activities, consisting of the following elements:
• Producing a detailed technical manual in French and Malagasy for all actors in the
sector;
• Producing an awareness-raising/dissemination toolkit (again in French and
Malagasy) based on the manual, presenting the various tools to different target
audiences;
• Broadcasting on local radio stations in local dialects, so as to reach as wide an
audience as possible;
• Organizing regional and interregional workshops for training and demonstration;
• Setting up three mobile demonstration units in the villages to show training
videos, make practical demonstrations, and distribute the different tools or
dissemination kits.
The programme specifically targeted each of the actors in the sector (fishers,
wholesalers and collectors) as well as those around them – i.e. their spouses and
children (who participate in crab handling) and the broader public that uses mangrove
resources. Children attending school are often the only literate members of the
household, and are thus more inclined than adults to take on the good practices and
innovate. Technical services, local authorities and development partners in coastal
zones were involved at each stage.
TABLE 7.4
Description of the awareness-raising toolkit
Tools Content Target audience and use
Technical manual, format 17x25 cm Code of conduct for operators and Actors in the sector (collection businesses,
(80 pages) detailed description (photos, drawings) individual collectors), fishing and
of ten good practices for strengthening coastal environment authorities, Non-
crabs and reducing post-harvest losses governmental Organizations (NGOs) and
projects
Information posters (five) in A2 Instructions for assembling and using All actors in the sector. Display: village
format, coated the tools for fishing, transporting and billboards, markets, village and
storing crabs recommended in the community schools, administration offices,
technical manual local offices of NGOs and projects.
Fact sheets (ten) in A4 format, Concise fact sheets on the ten good All actors in the sector. Distributed by
double-sided and laminated practices described in the technical mobile demonstrations units to people
manual interested in a particular technique.
Radio programmes (three) Code of conduct and good practices, in General public (radio is the only media
the form of a sketch or a short play in accessible for the majority of remote
different coastal dialects villages)
Training video (43 minutes) Manufacture and use of the tools All actors in the sector and the general
recommended in the good practices public. Disseminated in the villages by
mobile demonstration units.
Comic, format 21x30 cm (15 pages), Raising awareness among the young Children aged 10–14 years and their
bilingual, in Malagasy and French about the benefits of mangroves, the families in mangrove areas. Distributed in
importance of protecting them, and the village schools.
existence of post-harvest good practices.
Illustrated cloth wrap (lambahoany), Illustrations showing the good practices Women. Distributed by the mobile
format 170x112 cm, fabric with and reminding people of the minimum demonstration units and during regional
four-colour screen printing catch size workshops.
Illustrated mats in A3 format, Illustrations showing the good practices Local restaurants (gargotes), fishers’
double-sided and laminated and reminding people of the minimum families. Distributed by the mobile
catch size demonstration units and during regional
workshops.
Key elements of training and dissemination

Regional and interregional workshops in the coastal towns of West Madagascar were
key to the success of the project. From 2014, these brought together a total of 270
people, of which 52 were fishers and 140 were actors elsewhere in the value chain.
During the workshops:
• The MRHP services demonstrated their engagement and raised awareness about
new legislation being prepared.
• The operators and partners had the opportunity to approve the good practices
selected for dissemination, and so were fully involved in the dissemination.
• The participants had the opportunity to engage in debate and exchange opinions
on sustainable use of crabs and mangroves, while gaining technical training and
expertise.
• An innovation contest was launched to identify new practices or improvements
to those that had already been disseminated.
What set these workshops apart was that they included practical training and
demonstrations, in addition to the presentations and debates. This was important
in that it allowed the operators to participate and demonstrate their expertise. The
fishers and wholesalers, who were generally quite passive during the presentations and
debates, were very active during the sessions on assembling and optimizing better gear,
such as crab hoop nets, live-crab cages or other wooden boxes.
The main challenge for the dissemination campaign was the remoteness of the
mangrove areas. Reaching the fishing villages is difficult and time-consuming, as
they are accessible only by sea. For this reason, SmartFish set up three mobile
demonstration campaigns in April and May 2015, each lasting six weeks and travelling
around in motorized boats. Each mobile unit consisted of three or four people,
including at least one practitioner capable of demonstrating how to make and use the
different innovations. The mobile unit was equipped to show training videos and had
a dissemination kit. It adapted to the life and work schedule of the fishers and their
families in order to reach as many people as possible.
Importantly, the people demonstrating the good practices in the villages were the
best fishers, intermediaries and collectors. After they themselves had been trained, their
new knowledge and evident professionalism enabled them to train other village actors
(Box 7.1 and Figure 7.4).
BOX 7.1
A typical day for a mobile demonstration unit
In the morning, while the fishers were at sea, the demonstration unit met the younger
pupils (10–14 years) at school and gave them the comic with explanations and discussions.
At the same time, a member of the unit did a brief survey with the local operators on fishing
and post-harvest losses, to understand the local context before the afternoon session.
In the afternoon, a meeting was held with the fishers and other supply chain actors. The
fishers were first given the floor to express their opinions. Then the discussion broadened
to the causes of crab mortality and how the villagers themselves could reduce their losses.
Next, the unit showed the training video on good practices (43 minutes), and then
demonstrated specific good practices (crab hoop nets, live-crab cages, etc.). The fishers,
wholesalers and collectors were invited to participate and the most active and interested
people received laminated fact sheets, the technical manual and other items from the
dissemination kit.
At the end of the day, the unit put up displays in public places (offices, markets and
schools) and the headquarters of local groups, NGOs and projects active on the ground.
The results of the mobile demonstration units were as follows:

• 46 fokontany (village-level administrative unit) visited involving nearly 9 800
fishers, of whom 4 000 were specialized in crab fishing;
• 2 060 fishers trained, 1 090 children received a comic;
• 140 technical manuals, 1 430 laminated sheets, 225 posters, 90 placemats and
illustrated cloth wraps;
• Participation of mayors, village chiefs, knowledgeable elders, presidents of
grassroots community organisations, head teachers and teachers.
Radio broadcasts were translated into official Malagasy and the two coastal dialects,
and broadcasted 74 times by eight local radio stations in five large coastal towns. Radio
was also used to inform the public of the aims of the mobile demonstration units. Radio
broadcasting was a low-cost way of spreading the key messages to fishers, wholesalers
and collectors who had had no direct contact with the government or project trainers.
Even where collectors had easier access to the authorities or the project, radio still
served to advise and update them.
FIGURE 7.4
Demonstration in the village and distribution of the comic
©FAO ©FAO
Reduction in post-harvest losses
TABLE 7.5
Mortality rates: progression between 2013 and 2015
Mortality rate (%)
Stage in the value chain (actor)
2013 2015
Fishing and storage in villages (fishers) 7.0 2.5
Storage in villages and transport to collectors (wholesalers) 7.0 2.5
Storage at collection points including delivery to factory/market located on
16.0 6.5
the coast (collectors)
Transport between coastal towns and Antananarivo (collectors) 5.0 5.5
Sale at local market/bazaar (vendors) 6.0 6.5
Cumulative mortality:
• Coastal town delivery 23.0–36.0 11.5–18.0
• Antananarivo delivery 28.0–41.0 17.0–23.5
Source: Fanoitra and Kasprzyk, 2016.
Over the duration of the project, the results obtained were satisfactory:
• In two years, the mortality rate dropped from 32 percent to 17.5 percent.
• This represents a gain of 600 tonnes of crabs with a market value of USD 2.1 million.
• The objective of reducing the mortality rate by a third was exceeded.
• Each kg of crab “saved” translates into an additional USD 1 for the fisher.
Mortality was successfully reduced in the supply chain mainly where the fishers,
village intermediaries and collectors were active. This was achieved thanks to
the improved practices being broadly disseminated and taken up with the strong
involvement of local supply chain actors. Collectors and traders working together in
the fishing areas were able to reduce the length of time the crabs were stored. In 2012,
collection happened once a week or less; in 2015, storage did not last longer than three
days, and collection took place two or three times a week.
However, mortality did not drop among the collectors that transport live crabs to
Antananarivo. This is explained by the increase in distance between the coastal towns
where collection takes place and the capital: in 2013, crabs sent to Antananarivo came
from Mahajanga and Morombe (a distance of 570–700 km), but now an increasing
number come from Antsohihy, Ambanja and even Toliara (a distance of 750–1 000 km).
Longer routes cause higher crab mortality.
7.3 ENHANCING MARKET ACCESS

This part of the study relates to paragraph 7.6 of the SSF Guidelines.
7.3.1 Increasing the sale price
Reorientation and growth of exports

TABLE 7.6
Production and exports of crabs between 2012 and 2017
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016* 2017
Description
Q V Q V Q V Q V Q V Q V
Catches 4 052 - 6 014 - 6 946 - 7 306 - 6 300 - 6 018 -
Exports 2 454 3 221 4 465 3 594 3 156 3 008
- - - - - -
(in live weight)
Exports 1 100 4.92 1 966 12.19 3 401 20.80 2 836 16.61 2 345 11.85 2 317 10.73
(in finished
products)
Live 29 0.16 881 8.07 2 476 17.17 2 205 14.49 1 668 9.27 1 715 8.13
Frozen 1 040 3.82 1 084 4.06 925 3.63 632 2.12 677 2.58 602 2.60
Semi-preserved 31 0.94 1.4 0.06 - - - - - - - -
Q – quantity (tonnes); V – value (USD millions); *2016: new estimate by consultant;
Conversion coefficient in live weight: live crab (1.0), frozen whole crab (1.1), frozen crab in pieces (2.2), raw crab
meat (6.1), pasteurized crab meat (10.0).
Source: MRHP statistics service.
Until 2012, crabs frozen in pieces made up 93 percent of the tonnage and 73 percent
of the value of exports; small amounts of live crab were sold to neighbouring
Mauritius and Réunion. Frozen crab was primarily sold to Europe, in particular to
France (Kasprzyk, 2014). Then in 2013 the MRHP began granting various permits for
collection and export of live crabs, which was quickly reflected in exports (Table 7.6).
There was a 49 percent increase in total crab production in 2017 compared to 2012
(Figure 7.2); over the same period, the tonnage of live weight exports increased by only
23 percent, while the value of exports increased by a multiple of 2.2.
This large increase in export value is essentially explained by the significant increase
in the proportion of live crabs exported (3 percent in 2012, more than 70 percent from
2014 onwards) and their higher value: the average live weight price per kilogram is
1.7 times higher than that of frozen crabs. Europe, the main importers of frozen crab
before 2012, has now been overtaken by Asia (in particular China).
Impact on sale price and fishers’ income

Surveys were carried out to quantify the reduction of losses and improvement in
incomes achieved by the crab project, 191 people - fishers, intermediaries and collectors
were surveyed in September and October 2015 in 38 villages and 8 Western coastal
towns (Ambanja, Antsohihy, Mahajanga, Namakia, Soalala, Belo-sur-Tsiribihina,
Morondava and Morombe) in 11 districts. The results showed that the price went from
a national average of less than USD 0.5 per kg at the start of 2012 to over USD 1.1 per
kg at the end of 2015. For pirogue fishers in Boeny region, their income increased by
26 percent between 2011 and 2015, despite their catch decreasing by 33 percent over
the same period (Table 7.7). This is mainly attributable to the increase in sales price.
Reduction in post-harvest losses also contributed, but to a lesser extent.
The national average however hid significant price disparities between regions:
USD 1.88 per kg for the regions of Sofia and Diana, USD 0.74 per kg for Boeny
and Menabe, and just USD 0.38 per kg for Atsimo-Andrefana. These disparities
are explained by the differences in quality of crabs collected and the higher costs of
TABLE 7.7
Average catches and earnings of pirogue fishers in 2011 and 2015 – Boeny region
Description 2011 2015
Monthly catch (kg) 261 196
Sale price (USD/kg) 0.47 0.74
Gross monthly income (USD) 114 144
Sources: Kasprzyk, 2012; Fanoitra et al., 2016.
transport in more remote regions. Moreover, the average price increase across all these
regions has since incentivized all actors in the sector to adopt the new practices.
The additional income gained by reducing losses is substantial among collectors
and wholesalers (Table 7.8). Fierce competition has pushed these actors to take up
the techniques disseminated by the project. Income generated then sometimes helps
to finance the materials needed to make further improvements in fishing and storage
equipment. The collectors and wholesalers are currently continuing the work of the
project by applying and disseminating the good practices, and stand to earn more by
doing so.
TABLE 7.8
Additional monthly income earned thanks to the reduction in mortality (national average)
Monthly Reduction in losses Additional monthly income
Unit sale price
Actor production due to the reduction in losses
(USD/kg) % kg
(kg) (USD)
4.5
Fisher 194 1.00 9 9.54
(7.0–2.5 = 4.5)
4.5
Intermediary 2 221 1.40 100 140
(7.0–2.5 = 4.5)
9.5
Collector 3 939 2.20 374 823
(16.0–6.5 = 9.5)
Source: Fanoitra et al., 2016.
Impact on local market

Opening the market for exports of live crabs led to fears that it might decrease the
amount available for local consumption. In fact, the opposite has been observed: local
consumption and sales have more than tripled, from 628 tonnes in 2012 to 1 964 tonnes
in 2017 (Table 7.9).
TABLE 7.9
Distribution of crab catches in 2012 and 2017 (in tonnes)
Description 2012 2017
Total catches 4 052 6 018
Distribution
• post-harvest losses 970 1 050
• exports 2 454 3 008
• local consumption 628 1 964
Source: Kasprzyk and Levrel, 2018a.
The relatively weak growth in quantity of crab exports may be because of the
significant tonnage rejected by collectors/exporters of live crabs, due to the crabs being
weak, injured, low meat yield and, above all, below the standard size. On average,
exporters reject between 40 and 45 percent of the crabs supplied to them. These are sold
immediately to local traders and, to a lesser extent, to frozen crab exporters. Some of
the crabs that are not sold are eaten by the fishers themselves. The estimated amount
of catch eaten by fishworkers has increased from 5 percent to 9 percent in Mahajamba
Bay (Kasprzyk, 2012; Kasprzyk and Levrel, 2018b).
Management measures
In 2006 an initial attempt to put in place a management plan was met with resistance
among actors in the sector. The only rules accepted were a minimum carapace size of
100 mm, which only protected 10 percent of mature females (Rafalimanana, 2006), and
a ban on catching egg-bearing females and soft-shell crabs.
Subsequently the increase in fisher income made it more feasible to introduce
new management measures in the sector. In addition, catches increased significantly,
exceeding 90 percent of the MSY in 2014–2015. From 2015 on, the MRHP took several
important decisions to better regulate crab harvesting:
• Capping the annual catch at 5 000 tonnes;
• Fixing the total authorized export quota to 4 250 tonnes a year (in 2015, the
export quota had been set to 3 600 tonnes and was distributed between nine
operators located in five regions);
• Increasing the minimum carapace size for crabs caught from 100 to 110 mm;
• Closing the fishery for four months each year (the closure law also prohibited the
collection, sale, purchase, transportation, storing and export of live and processed
crabs). As the majority of fishers target multiple species, they are able to continue
earning from fish, shrimp or other catch during the closure;
• Banning the harvest of soft-shell crabs or egg-bearing females, and of fishers and
wholesalers handling crabs without legs or claws before sale;
• Banning the cutting, collection, transport and sale of mangrove wood.
7.3 CONCLUSIONS
7.3.1 Lessons from the SmartFish Programme crab project

The fishers of Madagascar’s West Coast are already among the poorest and most
marginalized people in the country. Rapid population growth and coastal migration
are causing pressures on nearshore fisheries and mangroves. In this context, work
to reduce post-capture losses and so enhance the value of crab harvests both reduces
poverty and facilitates better natural resource management.
The Madagascar experience shows that even when catching less crab, the fishers,
wholesalers and individual collectors were able to maintain or even increase their
income. This became possible thanks to a) the higher price of high-quality crab
(healthy, with a higher meat yield) suitable for live export, and b) the reduction in
post-harvest losses through broad uptake of good practices. The price incentive, along
with the involvement of all the actors in the sector in co-designing improvements and
promoting their adoption, helped the MRHP to enhance the value of the crab sector
and encourage sustainable management.
Alongside the development and implementation of fisheries or ecosystem
management measures, maintaining or improving the income of fishers should have
a positive impact on fisheries resources, and also protection of the mangrove forests.
When fishers earn a better living thanks to the mangroves, we expect them to be less
inclined to cut and sell mangrove wood, and also show greater interest in fighting
timber trafficking and cutting mangroves for charcoal.
The success of this project has been possible due to certain conditions:
• The strong international demand for wild crab, at a higher price, has facilitated
improvements in fishing and post-harvest practices.
• The MRHP has been willing to collaborate actively with the SmartFish
Programme and to quickly enact the recommendations of inclusive national and
regional workshops.
• Actors in the sector co-designed improvements and tested them out in actual
operations. This meant that the good practices used technical innovations that
were inexpensive and could be readily made with local materials.
• These same actors promoted the use of good practices and helped their widespread
uptake. Above all, action on the ground was key to the project’s success.
7.3.2 Sustaining the achievements of the project in Madagascar

The challenges of joint management
The national workshop held on 21 March 2006 recommended a participatory approach
to possible changes to the crab fishery management plan and its effective application
on the ground (MAEP, JICA and Océan Consultant, 2006). For administrative
and political reasons, the next workshop did not take place until March 2012. This
national workshop initiated the shift of exports to the live-crab market and committed
to reduce post-harvest mortality by a third. Following this, the MRHP used five
regional workshops between November and December 2014 to publicize the proposed
management measures that would be introduced in 2015. The SmartFish technical
manual on enhancing the value of mangrove crab by reducing post-harvest losses was
disseminated during these workshops.
In November 2015, the national workshop on the results of the SmartFish crab
project concluded that the 2012 objective of reducing estimated losses of 32 percent by
a third had been achieved (losses dropped to 17.5 percent of catch). The workshop’s
recommendations included:
• Further reducing post-harvest mortality to 12.5 percent;
• Extending awareness raising and demonstrations to new areas, including the
Melaky region and the Mangoky delta;
• Mobilizing the resources necessary for effective implementation of the
management measures specified in the regulations.
However, when the project ended in June 2016, the question of continuity arose,
particularly of how to inclusively bring together all fishery actors to maintain dialogue
and improve the fishery. Following this, in 2017, the MRHP called off the seasonal
closure for crab fishing which caused concern amongst many stakeholders that this
would place the resource in danger, given the real risks of overfishing. Closed seasons
are often applied in other countries; they are easy to control, and effective at restoring
stocks (Razafindrainibe, 2006).
Regulation enforcement challenges

In a study carried out by Blue Ventures entitled “Summary of recent events that
have influenced the crab sector and its management”, it was shown that fishers,
wholesalers and vendors on local markets often do not respect the minimum catch size
or the protection of egg-bearing females and soft-shell crabs. The limited number of
inspectors in the national fisheries monitoring service, the Centre de Surveillance des
Pêches, makes it difficult to monitor on the ground. The annual catch quota has also
been exceeded. Furthermore, a ban on cutting mangrove wood encountered many
challenges due to overlapping jurisdictions; use of mangrove wood is governed by the
ministry responsible for environment and forests.
Based on these events and on field observation, the MIHARI network (a national
small-scale fisheries platform) prepared and organized two interregional workshops,
as well as a national feedback workshop entitled “Enhancing the value of production
and responsible management of the mangrove crab” (Meilleure valorisation de la
production et gestion responsable du crabe de mangrove) in the second half of 2018.
During the workshop, the participants prioritized the following actions:
• Restoring a national closed season lasting three months (September to November)
beginning in 2019;
• Modifying the maximum authorized quantity of crabs exported to match the
current production quota;
• Strengthening communication of all crab sector regulations using innovative,

adaptable approaches;
• Training fishers and distributing the good practice guide to all other actors in the
crab value chain.
In the presence of MRHP officials, the participants formulated and approved

15 recommendations for 2019/2020. These concerned re-evaluating crab stocks;
preserving and restoring mangroves; enhancing the value of crab production; and
improving and promoting systems (particularly community-based) for follow-up,
control and monitoring. These recommendations will be implemented by the fishery
authorities and various projects, NGOs and fishers’ organizations.
Ensuring the continuity of the technical innovation process

It is crucial that the MRHP maintain the process of working with the crab sector to
identify, co-design and disseminate new good practices that will enhance the value of
crab catches. Such an approach has been at the heart of the project’s success to date.
The MIHARI network could play a key role in engaging fishing communities and
facilitating dialogue. In 2018 Blue Ventures published a new guide for good practices
in the crab sector. The 16 solutions it proposed, together with the 10 proposals in
Technical Manual No. 35 published by SmartFish in 2014, should enable operators to
learn how to earn more while catching less (Figure 7.5).
The 2018 Blue Ventures guide details innovative ways to keep crabs alive and support
the management of the fishery. It was produced as part of a competition launched by
SmartFish in 2015. Two years later, in December 2017 and January 2018, experts met
with 35 competition participants to observe and test on site how viable their proposed
technical solutions were. Ultimately, 16 innovations were judged effective and worth
including in the guide. The 50-page guide, in French and in two local Malagasy dialects,
was given to MRHP staff, exporters, collectors, wholesalers and fishers in 2018 during
workshops organized by MRHP with MIHARI and Blue Ventures.
7.3.3 Replicability in other Indian Ocean nations

Madagascar’s experience could be shared with many countries in the Western Indian
Ocean that have mangroves. Specific experience in managing the crab fishery and its
supply chains has been developed in these countries alongside this, making exchanges
of experience potentially very fruitful.
Regional collaboration could be accelerated by organizing an international forum
in Madagascar to exchange experiences, involving the economic operators and fishery
authorities of the countries concerned. Irrespective of the technical solutions that
are ultimately applied, the Madagascar experience tells us that their success depends
on certain preconditions, including: i) a firm resolve on the part of the national
government to develop the crab sector in the interests of small-scale operators (fishers,
wholesalers, collectors); and ii) the existence already of a relatively well-developed crab
fishery, with experienced collectors and exporters, particularly of live seafood.
FIGURE 7.5
Examples of good practices
Crab hoop net with bait bags Double crab hoop net
Live-crab storage cage Storage hut
Improved storage hangar Transporting crabs by bicycle
Adapted cart Removable shelves/transportation pirogue
Rapid transportation van Covered market for live crabs (Ambanja)

REFERENCES
Ali, M.Y. et al. 2004. Biological studies of the mud crab Scylla serrata (Forskal) of the
Sundarbans mangrove ecosystem in Khulna region of Bangladesh. Pakistan Journal of
Biological Sciences, 7(11): 1981–1987.
Jones, T., Glass, L., Gandhi, S., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Carro, A., Benson, L.,
Ratsimba, H., Giri, C., Randriamanatena, D. and Cripps, G. 2016. Madagascar’s
Mangroves: Quantifying Nation-Wide and Ecosystem Specific Dynamics, and Detailed
Contemporary Mapping of Distinct Ecosystems. Remote Sensing 8(2).
FANOITRA (NGO) & Kasprzyk, Z. 2016. Sensibilisation et vulgarisation des interventions
pilotes permettant de réduire les pertes post capture et d’améliorer le revenu des opérateurs
de la filière du crabe Scylla serrata à Madagascar. Final report. Antananarivo, SmartFish,
EU & FAO.
FANOITRA (NGO), Kasprzyk, Z., Randriamahaleo, B. & Rasolonjatovo, A. 2016.
La réduction des pertes après capture dans la chaîne de valeur du crabe Scylla serrata
et son impact sur les revenus des opérateurs à Madagascar. Rapport d’atelier national.
Antananarivo.
Kasprzyk, Z. 2012. Une analyse global de la chaîne d’approvisionnement de la pêcherie du
crabe de mangrove à Madagascar. Antananarivo, SmartFish, EU & FAO.
Kasprzyk, Z. 2014. Meilleure valorisation des crabes de mangrove à travers la réduction des
pertes après captures. Technical Manual No. 35. Antananarivo, SmartFish, EU & FAO.
Kasprzyk, Z. & Levrel, A. 2018a. La filière du crabe de mangrove à Madagascar : Guide
de bonnes pratiques. Antananarivo, MIHARI & Blue Ventures.
Kasprzyk, Z. & Levrel, A. 2018b. La chaîne de valeur et les opportunités de meilleure
valorisation des principaux produits halieutiques de la baie de Mahajamba. Antananarivo,
Blue Ventures.
Le Reste, L. 1976. Etat de nos connaissances sur le crabe de vase Scylla serrata (Forskal) à
Madagascar. Paris, ORSTOM.
MAEP, JICA & Océan Consultant. 2006. Évaluation du stock de crabes de mangrove
Scylla serrata exploité par la pêche traditionnelle de Madagascar. Déroulement des ateliers
et plan de gestion et d’aménagement de la pêcherie aux crabes de mangrove Scylla serrata
à Madagascar. Technical report. Antananarivo.
MRHP & PASP. 2014. Enquête cadre nationale. Antananarivo.
ONE & ANGAP. 1997. Monographie nationale sur la biodiversité. Antananarivo, UNDP,
ONE & ANGAP.
Rafalimanana, T. 2006. Filière crabe à Madagascar. In Z. Kasprzyk, T. Razalimanana, E.
Ranaivoson, H. Randriamiarana & H. Razafindrainbe, eds. Évaluation de stock de crabe
de mangrove Scylla serrata exploité par la pêche traditionnelle de Madagascar et Plan
de gestion et d’aménagement de la pêcherie aux crabes de mangrove à Madagascar.
Antananarivo, MAEP & JICA.
Ralison, A. 1987. Les ressources halieutiques. Nosy Be, Madagascar, Centre National des
Recherches Océanographique.
141
8. State-led fisheries development:

Enabling access to resources and
markets in the Maldives pole-and-
line skipjack tuna fishery
Zacari Edwards
International Pole and Line Foundation
London, United Kingdom
Hussain Sinan
Marine Affairs Program
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia
B3H 4R2, Canada
M. Shiham Adam
Malé, the Republic of the Maldives

Alice Miller
London, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
The Maldives is a nation heavily reliant on its marine resources, none more so than
the skipjack tuna caught in its pole-and-line fishery. Maldivian citizens derive huge
benefits from the fishery as a result of effective State stewardship of the resource.
This paper presents key actions along the value chain of the Pole-and-Line Skipjack
Tuna Fishery Maldivian Government has taken to support and facilitate improvements
along the value chain of the Pole-and-Line Skipjack Tuna Fishery and by extension
demonstrates how these many government actions have resulted in an alignment with
the recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing
Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty
Eradication, particularly paragraphs 7.6-7.9. By highlighting the good practices of
the Maldivian Government, this paper pinpoints the key lessons that can be learned
from the case of the Maldives as well as the actions that can be replicated by other
governments from countries highly dependent on fisheries affected by globalized
market demands.
Keywords: The Maldives, pole-and-line tuna fishing, government engagement, market

access, international trade, environmental ecolabelling, social protection.
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.1.1 Implementation of the SSF Guidelines in the context of the Maldives

skipjack tuna value chain
This paper examines the Maldives pole-and-line skipjack tuna value chain to highlight
good practices and successful initiatives consistent with the recommendations in
in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines), specifically
those pertaining to paragraphs 7.6–7.9 (FAO, 2015) for enhancing small-scale fisheries
value chains, post-harvest and trade in the context of food security and poverty
eradication.
The paper is structured as follows: Sections 8.1.2–8.1.3 offer an overview of
the pole-and-line skipjack tuna harvest and post-harvest sectors in the Maldives.
Section 8.2 outlines the methods used in the case study analysis. Section 8.3 examines
the activities concerning post-harvest and trade in the context of state-led interventions
for enabling market access (paragraph 7.6); safeguarding local food security from
the impacts of international trade (paragraph 7.7); supporting equitable distribution
of benefits (paragraph 7.8); and mitigating adverse impacts from international trade
(paragraph 7.9). Finally, Section 8.4 discusses the replicability of the approach taken in
the Maldives to other fisheries, and by extension outlines the scope for applying that
approach elsewhere.
8.1.2 Overview of the Maldives Pole-and-Line Skipjack Tuna Fishery

As an archipelagic nation located in the central Indian Ocean, and with an exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) covering an area of 900 000 km2 (3 000 times its land mass), the
Maldives has historically been heavily dependent on its marine resources (Hemmings,
Harper and Zeller, 2011). The pole-and-line tuna fishery is both the oldest and largest
fishery in the Maldives, and has been a mainstay in the country for centuries (Gray,
1889; Anderson and Hafiz, 1996). As a result, the tuna sector is one of the most
important sectors of the national economy, accounting for 67 percent of total exports
(National Bureau of Statistics, 2018); 4–12 percent of gross domestic product in the last
ten years (National Bureau of Statistics, 2018); around 11 percent of the labour force
(National Bureau of Statistics, 2014); and 85 percent of the total protein consumed by
Maldivians (FAO, 2003).
The target species of the pole-and-line fishery is skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus
pelamis), with yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) caught as a secondary species due
to their conspecific schooling behaviour1. The Maldives is the third largest producer of
pole-and-line tuna in the world, behind Japan and Indonesia. The fishery can land over
68 000 tonnes of skipjack per year, representing over one-fifth of the total global supply
of pole-and-line caught tuna and 18–20 percent of the total catch of skipjack from the
Indian Ocean (Figure 8.1) (Hohne-Sparborth, Adam and Ziyad, 2015; Gillett, 2016).
Finally, crucially for the domestic market, the pole-and-line fishery also currently
accounts for 60–70 percent of all the tuna caught in the Maldives (Ahusan et al., 2018).
There are approximately 677 licensed commercial pole-and-line vessels employing
7 981 registered fishers in the Maldives. However, using average crew number estimates
from Miller et al. (2017) and the total number of vessels registered in the country
(including licensed commercial vessels and vessels fishing for subsitance), the number
of fishers could be as high as 10 832. Typically, these pole-and-line vessels will fish
for 1–2 days per fishing trip, employing both free-school fishing and anchored fish
aggregating devices (aFADs) within a single trip.
1
Yellowfin tuna at its infant stage school together with skipjack tuna.
8. State-led fisheries development: enabling access to resources and markets in the Maldives pole-and-line skipjack
tuna fishery 143
Pole-and-Line fishing vessels (Masdhonis) are built within the country by private
companies and are owned and operated by Maldivian citizens. Ownership is kept
within families and close relatives are often selected as captains of the vessels. The crew
members are selected by the captain based on their locality, often inhabiting the same
island as the captain. Every licensed pole-and-line vessel is also licensed to conduct
handline fishing; however only a select few vessels, mostly from the northern atolls,
switch from pole-and-line (targeting skipjack tuna) to handline gear (targeting adult
yellowfin tuna for the fresh/frozen tuna market).
As a highly selective form of fishing, the pole-and-line fishery exhibits extremely
low rates of bycatch, discards, and catches of (or interactions with) endangered,
threatened and protected (ETP) species (Ahusan et al., 2018). This is supported by
Miller et al. (2017), who observed 161 pole-and-line fishing events and reported that
the total bycatch was only 0.65 percent of the total tuna catch by weight. Furthermore,
there is very little waste associated with the retained bycatch, including juveniles and/
or unsold lower-quality fish, with the large majority consumed by the fishers, their
families and/or distributed among local communities (Lecomte, 2017).
There are a number of additional environmental benefits associated with pole-and-
line fishing in the Maldives. In terms of marine plastic pollution, the rate of gear loss
is extremely low, and therefore the ghost fishing impacts of lost monofilament fishing
lines is low to zero. The fishery also performs strongly with regard to reducing its
carbon footprint: its fuel use intensity (FUI), ranging between 197 and 328 litres of
fuel use per tonne of tuna caught (l/t) (Miller, Adam and Baske, 2017), is one of the
lowest in the world for a commercial fishery targeting skipjack tuna. This figure is less
than 80 percent of the FUI of other tuna pole-and-line fisheries (e.g. Atlantic bluefin),
and under half the global average FUI for all vessels with fuel records (600–639 l/t)
(Parker and Tyedmers, 2015; Parker, Vázquez-Rowe and Tyedmers, 2015). This has
been achieved in part through the use of collector vessels gathering catch out at sea, as
well as the use of the heavily regulated, state-deployed aFADs.
FIGURE 8.1
Total catch of skipjack tuna in the Indian Ocean compared to the catch of skipjack
tuna from pole-and-line vessels in the Maldives, 1950–2017
700 000
Skipjack tuna catches (tonnes)
600 000
500 000
400 000
300 000
200 000
100 000
0
1950
1953
1956
1959
1962
1965
1968
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
2013
2016
Indian Ocean Maldives
Source: IOTC, 2019.
8.1.3 Post-harvest sector overview

The skipjack tuna value chain is complex, with tuna sometimes going through
numerous routes before reaching consumers. Overall, pole-and-line fishers are able to
directly sell their skipjack tuna to at least eight distinct actor groups along the value
chain (Figure 8.2). These include fresh/frozen tuna processing companies, canning
processing companies, collector vessels out in the ocean, port-based patrons that act
FIGURE 8.2
Value chain mapping Maldives skipjack tuna
Boat Boat
Ice plants Fuel shops builders designers Gear shops FADs
Fishing
vessels
Collector Collector
vessels vessels
13 vessels 4 vessels
MIFCO HORIZON
Addu cold Felivaru Small &

Kooddoo Oilvaali cold Maandhoo Ensis processing medium Cottage Katsuobushi Local
storage processing plant processing plant plant industry Intermediaries
cold storage storage enterprises plants market
2 000T 2 000T Cold storage 2 000T 1 500T Cold storage 2 800T Cold storage 1 500T
Processing: 50T/day Processing: 80T/day Processing: 25T/day
Pounched/ Dried/smoked/
Frozen tuna canned Fresh tuna katsuobushi Pounched/
tuna tuna Frozen tuna canned Fresh tuna Dried/smoked
tuna tuna
91% 39% 20% 73%

LOCALS/TOURIST HOTELS & GUEST HOUSES
3% 32% 19% 25% CONNECTION KEY

Fishing vessels
Processing plants
2% 15% 11% 1% Cols storage
Small & medium enterprises
1% 6% 10% 1% Katsuobushi
Cottage industry
Cold storage
1% 4% 8%
Local market
Intermediaries
EXPORT
Support services
as intermediaries, dry processing businesses, dry processing cottage industry workers,

market stall owners at local fish markets, and consumers.
There are three broad categories of consumers that skipjack can reach from
the Maldives. There are premium export markets such as Germany, Ireland, the
Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, and the United States of America who purchase tuna primarily as canned and/
or pouched products. The Maldives also exports around USD 28 million in frozen
skipjack tuna to Thailand, where it is canned and re-exported to the premium markets.
There is only a small market for fresh or chilled skipjack tuna. There are also regional
and international markets like Sri Lanka and Japan, respectively, who predominantly
purchase dry processed skipjack from the Maldives. Finally, there are domestic
consumers, including locals and tourists.
Canned tuna is sold by two skipjack tuna processing companies: the state-owned
Maldives Industrial Fisheries Company (MIFCO) and the privately owned Horizon
Fisheries. Salted and dried/smoked tuna are also part of the local diet, with the cottage
industry and processing companies catering to this market (which includes tuna that
might not have reached export quality standards). Domestic consumers can also
purchase unprocessed tuna directly from fishers, from food stall traders at local fish
markets, and from individuals working in the cottage industry.
Normally, the pole-and-line fishing and processing sectors in the Maldives operate
independently from each other. Fishers own fishing vessels and supply both the
industrial processors and the local community with skipjack tuna. The industrial
processors receive fish either from one of their collector vessels or directly from
the vessel at the processing facility (Gordon and Sinan, 2015). The remainder of
the catch can be sold to the small-scale processors processing dried fish or to the
island communities, through local markets or directly to consumers (Sinan, 2011).
Intermediaries also operate as a liaison between resorts and hotel chains, buying tuna
from fishing vessels or local markets and selling it on.
tuna fishery 145
8.2 METHODS
In order to examine the good practices of the Maldivian Government within the
country’s pole-and-line skipjack tuna value chain, this paper employed a case study
research strategy. This was based primarily on a desk-based data analysis of accessible
and relevant data sets, and on a literature review of academic reports and/or other
literature within the public domain concerning the Maldivian Pole-and-Line Skipjack
Tuna Fishery and value chain. Once the available data was collated, it was validated
with in-country experts to ensure that the findings were representative and fully
reflective of the data available in the Maldives.
Small-scale fisheries such as the pole-and-line fishery in the Maldives are typically
comprised of complex and extensive trade networks, and contain a diverse range of
employment roles throughout the chain (Jacinto and Pomeroy, 2011). As such, this
paper also drew upon theoretical literature analysing small-scale fisheries value chains
to support its examination of the practices of the Maldivian skipjack tuna pole-and-line
fishery in the context of SSF Guidelines 7.6–7.9.
8.3.1 Overview
In order to assess how the practices of the Maldivian Government are consistent with
SSF Guidelines paragraphs 7.6–7.9, it is important to understand the wider context of
the global tuna market. The tuna sector is a globalized marketplace in part due to the
highly migratory nature of tuna, but also due to the extensive demand for it across the
globe. Over the last 20 years, with the emergence of the sustainable seafood movement,
there has been a growth in market-based approaches to address the sustainability of
tuna fisheries. The effect of this has been an increase in sustainability and traceability
requirements being placed on both government institutions and seafood industry
stakeholders.
However, the process of trying to meet increasingly stringent standards and/or
competing with other fisheries’ sustainability claims can place a financial burden on
producers, and can act as a barrier to trade, particularly for small-scale fisheries. In
the case of the Maldivian pole-and-line skipjack fishery, state intervention has played
a critical role in meeting the sustainability requirements of international markets to
ensure sustained economic prosperity of its fishery sector.
8.3.2 State-led enabling of market access

Due to its long history of fisheries regulation, the Maldives has been well placed to meet
the changing market requirements for transparency and data provision highlighted
above. The Maldivian Government has been producing complete time series of tuna
catches from as early as 1954. Both the Fisheries Law No. 5/87 of the Republic of
Maldives and the corresponding General Fisheries Regulation 1987 established the
institutions responsible for implementing fisheries management regulations. These
government actions not only provided a strong basis for future regulations to build
upon, but also have acted as a basis for ensuring the country is in a strong position to
meet the market demands for demonstrably well-managed, transparent fisheries.
For example, in response to the requirements of the European Union Regulation
to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) in
2010, the government in consultation with fishers and the processing industry brought
significant changes to the fisheries management system to ensure the Maldives could
continue exporting to European Union Member States. Commercial fishing vessels
were obliged to obtain fishing licenses and were mandated to report catch and effort
data via logbooks, which slowly superseded the itemized reporting from island/atoll
administrative offices. Moreover, retailers and wholesalers who purchased sustainably
caught pole-and-line tuna pressed local processors to obtain third party certification
for the Maldivian pole-and-line fishery to ensure continued access to the global market.
Following pressure from the domestic processing sector, the Maldivian Government
agreed to support the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification process
through financial assistance and technical support to the Maldives Seafood Processors
and Exporters Association (MSPEA). This support was vital in terms of eventually
achieving certification for skipjack tuna in the Maldives, and since 2012, all canned pole-
and-line caught tuna that is exported to international markets is now MSC certified.
As such, the role of the government in facilitating this process helped to guarantee
Maldivian market actors sustained access to export markets, which by extension also
helped to ensure that the pole-and-line fishery could continue to provide a vital and
sustainable source of income for those involved in the value chain.
In order to meet the growing traceability requirements of the market, the government
also established and implemented a vessel monitoring system (VMS) in 2013 via the 1st
Amendment to the Regulation on licensing for fishing, processing and aquaculture
targeted for export (2013/R-60). This amendment made it mandatory for all licensed
fishing vessels to be tracked via VMS in order to obtain and keep fishing licenses. A
review of the VMS in 2018 identified key areas of improvement that the Maldivian
Government has since been working to resolve in collaboration with the World Bank
and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
The implementation of traceability technologies increased further in the Maldives
with the government’s introduction of the Fishery Information System (FIS) in 2016.
FIS is a web-enabled database developed to maintain and capture fishery data. The
system allows the maintenance of fishing vessel information, tracking and issuing of
fishing licenses, compiling of fish purchase data from commercial buyers (processors),
and compiling logbook data reported by fishing vessels. FIS was developed based on
different processing flows used by different companies after extensive consultations and
testing. Since its implementation, the database has been the centre of operations for the
processing companies. Because FIS provides a direct document verification portal for
European Union authorities to verify the catch documents, it functions as a traceability
tool enabling the fishery to meet the ever-increasing traceability demands being placed
on the sector.
In response to sustainability concerns being raised in the market around the tuna
industry’s reliance on aFADs, the government has also been encouraging fishers to
increase their free-school fishing2 activities, with the aim of meeting bycatch mitigation
targets set at the national level. A key example of this is the government’s work,
in partnership with the International Pole and Line Foundation (IPNLF), trialing
“concept vessels” that introduce bird radar and fish sonar onto pole-and-line vessels to
help with free-school location (Figure 8.3). To date, two vessels have begun to use these
systems, with a view to encouraging other fishing vessels to follow suit. Through the
concept vessels, the Maldivian Government is iteratively modifying tuna vessel design
to increase the quality of the product and the economic efficiency of fishing operations.
Finally, in response to publicized concerns of market actors regarding the impact
of live bait fishing on the ecosystem, the Maldivian Government developed a live bait
fishery management plan in 2013 in consultation with fishers and stakeholders (Gillet,
Jauharee and Adam, 2013). The plan was centred on the facilitation of strengthened
data collection, monitoring and compliance, and also outlined a number of prospective
legal stipulations to help meet these goals.
At a national level, the prospective stipulations included the expansion of exclusion
zones in the Maldives for bait fishing activities, i.e. around tourist resorts (1500 m),
2
Free-school fishing means fishing on a free-swimming school of tuna – i.e. without the use of (or association
with) aFADs.
tuna fishery 147
FIGURE 8.3
Infographic for the Maldivian Pole-and-Line concept vessel

Source: IPNLF, 2019.
within designated dive sites and marine protected areas. The plan also proposed, if
necessary and in consultation with the stakeholders, a ban on the sale of bait fish species
for food and recommended the requirement that the Maldives Research Centre should
pre-approve new types of bait fishing methods. In addition, a number of regulatory
responsibilities were proposed at the atoll level whereby at their own discretion local
authorities could potentially: restrict the use of bait fish attracting lights; restrict the
size of bait fishing nets; introduce bans on the use of scuba gear for bait fishing; ban
any bait fishing-related activities that are shown to disrupt coral reefs; and introduce
any temporary area closures for bait fishing activities.
Overall, the Government of the Maldives has been extremely proactive in
supporting and promoting the pole-and-line tuna fishery. Moreover, it has actively
created a policy environment whereby members of the value chain can optimize the
benefits they derive from the fishery.
8.3.3 State-led safeguarding of local food security from impacts of

international trade
The domestic demand for and consumption of skipjack tuna is growing in the
Maldives, with the state-owned processing company MIFCO now making the
majority of its sales to domestic consumers. Maldivian citizens consume an average
of 94 kg of skipjack tuna each year (Lecomte, 2017), and allocate approximately one-
fifth of total household food expenditure to seafood, with skipjack tuna being the
most widely consumed fish within this group (National Bureau of Statistics, 2016).
The historical abundance of tuna supply in the Maldives has meant that no laws have
been required to date to ensure continued access to skipjack tuna products. Domestic
skipjack consumption mostly consists of fresh fish; however, the domestic market also
includes low-grade canned skipjack tuna processed in the Maldives.
Recognizing this dependence on tuna for food and nutrition, the government has
worked to ensure that skipjack tuna continues to be landed in high volumes within the
country, and to ensure the domestic market continues to receive a steady supply of
tuna products. This has been achieved in part by introducing a number of protective
policies that limit the competition the subsector faces when it comes to fishing tuna
within the Maldivian EEZ.
Foreign fishing activities have principally involved longline fishing, and have been
regulated within the Maldives since the introduction of the Fisheries Law in 1987. This
regulation partitioned the EEZ, with Maldivian-owned fishing vessels allowed to fish
throughout the EEZ, and foreign fishing vessels only permitted to fish beyond the first
75 nautical miles. Over time, subsequent government administrations have introduced
regulatory measures under the Fisheries Law 5/87 that have partitioned further areas
of the EEZ for different types of fishing. Through this gradual prohibition of foreign
fishing activities within Maldivian waters, the government has helped to ensure that
a majority of the fish caught within the Maldivian EEZ is landed in the country,
increasing the availability of tuna for domestic production and consumption.
In 2008, in response to pressure from Maldivian pole-and-line and handline fishers,
the government decided not to renew any foreign licenses to longline vessels, which
ensured that all foreign licenses expired by the end of 2010. In 2011, the government
began to issue licenses to longline vessels again but only if they were locally owned
and operated. In addition, the Longline Fishery Regulation in 2014 offered further
protection to pole-and-line vessels by restricting Maldivian longline vessels from
fishing within the first 100 nautical miles of the EEZ, in effect creating a new fishing
area for the exclusive use of commercial one-by-one fishing vessels3.
In 2014, the Maldivian Government further refined the regulation (2014/R-388) with
better monitoring of the fishery, including the local crew. In addition, the amendment
to the General Fisheries Regulation 1987 (2011/R-21) offered further protection to
Maldivian fishers as it prohibited any foreign crews from working on fishing vessels
that operate in common fishing areas designated for exclusive use by Maldivians (i.e.
within the first 75 nautical miles). The government actions described above have
contributed to improved food security in two ways. Directly, they have allowed for
a sustained amount of tuna to enter the domestic market, with over half of the landed
fish consumed locally. Indirectly, they have helped facilitate the continued rates of
employment within the pole-and-line fishery and ancillary sectors, thus helping to
ensure a sustained income for Maldivian citizens working in these sectors.
8.3.4 Equitable distribution of benefits from international trade

Harvesting sector
As a result of ongoing government efforts to develop the sector, the Pole-and-Line
Skipjack Tuna Fishery has continued to play an important economic role in the Maldives,
both in terms of the foreign exchange earnings it generates and its contribution to the
incomes of those working in the sector. The fishery generates an approximate annual
value of USD 104 000 000 in exports, encompassing over half of the total export of
fishery products by weight (51.2 percent) and representing 37.7 percent of the total
value of fishery exports in the country, second only to yellowfin tuna (JICA et al.,
2018). Roughly 8 percent of the local population work in the primary fishery sector in
the Maldives, with around 40 percent of the total workforce aged 18–24 years (HIES,
2016). In total, the fishery is a key source of income for many people, both directly
3
One-by-one fishing refers collectively to pole-and-line, handline or trolling fishing methods.
tuna fishery 149
and indirectly supporting around 30 000

livelihoods (Howgate and Leadbitter,
2016).
Developing the sector has been vital
in facilitating the increased equitability
of the fishery, allowing businesses in
the Maldives to derive more value from
the products that are exported, as well
©IPNLF.
as allowing fishers in the Maldives to
receive a higher price for the fish that Pole-and-line fishing in the Maldives.
they land. Two of the most significant
developments have been the mechanization of fishing vessels and the introduction of
aFADs, locally called Oivaali Kandhufathi.
In 1987, the government introduced a vessel mechanization programme, providing
finance and design expertise to kick-start the introduction of a new generation of vessels.
Together with FAO and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the
Maldivian Government started to establish the aFAD installation programme mainly
to provide a means for vessels to fish during low fishing season (Naeem and Latheefa,
1995). To date, only the government is permitted to install FADs, which are reserved
for use by pole-and-line fishers only; the private sector is not permitted to install them.
Owing to the fishery improvements implemented by the government, pole-and-line
fishers are extremely well paid compared to other professions in the Maldives, earning
an average monthly income at least twice as high as the national per capita average of
USD 1 500. However, the fishery is seasonal, and therefore this figure can fluctuate
between USD 400 and USD 3 000 per month throughout the year (Lecomte, 2017).
Fishing vessels in the Maldives also employ a catch share system, in this case meaning
that two-thirds of the profit generated by these fishing vessels is distributed evenly
among the general crew, with an extra share to the captain and the bait master. Overall
the high income received by the fishers reflects the value placed on the pole-and-line
fishery, making it an increasingly attractive sector to work in.
Post-harvest sector
In 2003, the Maldivian Government partially privatized the post-harvest sector, which
had until then been wholly controlled by the state-owned MIFCO. The government
divided the country into four different zones and allowed private parties to purchase
and process fish in each zone. Initially, four private companies invested in the process.
However, due to declining skipjack landings since 2006 (Figure 8.1), three of the
companies have ceased operating, leaving Horizon as the only private pole-and-
line skipjack tuna processor in the Maldives (Sinan, 2011). These closures have also
meant MIFCO remains the dominant processor for pole-and-line skipjack tuna in
the country. As a result, MIFCO has worked to improve its network of cold storage
infrastructure on remote atolls and its canneries, which in turn has been integral to the
fishing industry and enabling Maldivian fishers’ access to export markets.
In response to political pressure to maintain price parity between Maldivian skipjack
and the skipjack landed in Bangkok, the government has also begun setting the price of
skipjack tuna destined for export markets (Hohne-Sparborth, Adam and Ziyad, 2015).
The price is based on the international price of skipjack tuna in Bangkok, but includes
a fixed price premium (not connected to any certification schemes) that is applied on
top of the variable Bangkok base price (Lecomte, 2017). The price set by the Maldivian
Government also factors in the costs and earnings of the vessels and the operating costs
of companies. Bangkok frozen skipjack prices fluctuate significantly, and companies
in the Maldives balance this out using annual earnings and profits earned from value
addition and export to high-value markets. The Maldivian Government also provides
financial assistance through loans and grants

to MIFCO when the cash flow is low. In this
way, the government helps guarantee a stable
income for pole-and-line vessels supplying export
markets (although this price does not apply to
pole-and-line vessels that supply local markets).
Domestically, the government enforces a
minimum base price under Section 12 of the
Skipjack Tuna Purchase and Export Regulation
2001, designed to protect the livelihoods of fishing
©IPNLF
communities. As a result, the tuna processing

Female processor preparing Skipjack tuna for
sector plays an important role throughout the
canned product.
country in terms of supporting the livelihoods
of Maldivians, particularly in the remote islands and atolls where employment
opportunities are limited. The income of those working in fish processing is between
USD 238 and USD 1 736 per month depending on catch volumes and season (Hohne-
Sparborth, Adam and Ziyad, 2015). One key processing activity is dry processing to
produce “Maldives Fish”, a speciality made by boiling tuna in salt water after which
it is dried. This sector accounts for 10 000 tonnes of fish annually, with a large bulk
of dried processing activities being predominantly carried out by women (Macfadyen
et al., 2016; Wessels, 2017).
There are very few women employed in the primary fishing industry in the Maldives.
Women do, however, have a much stronger presence in the secondary industry – in
processing factories (Table 8.1), local markets and the cottage industry. Although
census data indicates that only 3 percent of the population are employed by the
secondary industry, this figure is not representative of the real level of participation of
women in terms of processing activities. For example, of the 3 356 women documented
as being unemployed by 2014 census data, up to 22 percent of this number likely
engage in entrepreneurial and/or cottage industry activities such as dry processing of
Maldives Fish (Hohne-Sparborth, Adam and Ziyad, 2015).
TABLE 8.1
Formal sector post-harvest employment
Formal post-harvest sector employment Male Female Total
Total 1 757 593 2 350

Note: Employment data principally for industrial processing plants.
The government has begun creating cooperatives for island communities to improve
the quality of these dry processed products and to increase market access through
improved quality. Two cooperatives in particular, Gemanafushi Cooperative Society
and Naifaru Cooperative Society were set up with government and International
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) funding and technical expertise. Both
have excelled and notably the majority of their members are women. For example, the
Naifaru Cooperative Society (formerly the Fisherman’s Association of Naifaru) has
a membership composition of 91 percent women and 9 percent men (Wessels, 2017).
This indicates positive steps taken on the part of the government to support value chain
activities where women in particular are involved. Ensuring gathering and analysis of
sex-disaggregated value chain data would provide further opportunities to understand
and amplify their role and involvement.
8.3.5 State-led mitigation of adverse impacts from international trade

As highlighted in previous sections, in the case of the Pole-and-Line Skipjack Tuna
Fishery in the Maldives, many adverse impacts of international trade stem from
losing traction through not keeping pace with the changing sustainability demands
tuna fishery 151
of international markets for tuna. The Maldives have kept pace with these changing
demands not only through their national fisheries management measures, but also
through their leadership within the regional fisheries management organization
(RFMO) – the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) – during efforts to obtain and
retain MSC certification for their skipjack tuna fishery.
Due to the highly migratory nature of tuna stocks, five distinct RFMOs across
the globe are tasked with their management: the IOTC; the Commission for the
Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT); the International Commission
for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT); the Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission (IATTC); and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
(WCPFC) (Ásmundsson, 2016).
Unlike other RFMOs, the IOTC coastal state agreement did not explicitly outline
the precautionary approach for managing its stocks. As a result, up until 2011, the
IOTC targeted optimal utilization for its tuna fish stocks. However, in 2012 the
Maldives initiated a proposal calling for a precautionary approach, in part resulting
from the country’s pursuit of MSC certification for its Pole-and-Line Skipjack Tuna
Fishery.
The MSC certification process for the Pole-and-Line Skipjack Tuna Fishery began
in 2007, whereby the Maldives government supported the Maldives Seafood Processors
and Exporters Association (MSPEA) in initial efforts to enter the fishery into pre-
assessment. This MSPEA led initiative was a direct response to market demands,
but was dependent on government support to ensure the Maldives became a fully
cooperating and contracting party of the IOTC, as per the terms of certification.
The certification process was initially suspended upon recognition that there was no
model-based stock assessment of the Indian Ocean skipjack tuna stock. In response, the
Maldives government worked closely with the IOTC Secretariat to produce a skipjack
catch per unit effort (CPUE) time series required for the stock assessment4. The Maldives
subsequently hosted the Thirteenth Session of the Working Party on Tropical Tuna
(WPTT), where the first ever model-based skipjack stock assessment concluded the stock
was in a healthy state.
FIGURE 8.4
Pathway to MSC Certification for Skipjack tuna in the Maldives and Key Milestones
in IOTC following Certification

Source: Authors.
4 https://iotc.org/documents/catch-rate-standardization-maldivian-skipjack-pole-and-line-fishery-1970-2007
The fishery was eventually certified in 2012 with eight conditions. The two most
important conditions in the context of the IOTC were adoption of stock reference
points and requirements for harvest control rules (HCRs) and tools. In response, as
part of the MSPEA Client Action Plan, the government worked closely with NGOs,
in particular IPNLF, and IOTC member states to address the adoption of stock
reference points and HCRs. The Maldives also garnered support from like-minded
Coastal States within IOTC for rights-based management proposals that followed the
establishment of stock reference points and HCRs.
Adoption of skipjack HCRs was preceded by resolute efforts of the Maldives
government during the prior four years to improve the management of tuna stocks in
the Indian Ocean. This started with a push for implementation of the precautionary
approach under IOTC Resolution 12/01, which for the first time saw the commission
implement a Conservation and Management Measure underpinned by a precautionary
approach. In 2015, Maldives also led the resolution on Target and Limit Reference
Points and an aligned decision framework for IOTC stocks in the Indian Ocean.
The proposal on skipjack HCRs, culminating in adoption of Resolution 16/02
On harvest control rules for skipjack tuna in the IOTC area of competence, received
an unprecedented level of support from other coastal states in the region, with 14
countries joining as co-sponsors. The newly established HCRs in 2016 aimed to keep
the skipjack population at healthy levels, while ensuring the fishery itself was profitable
and accessible to all. Given the healthy state of regional skipjack tuna stocks, this
measure, unlike most fishery management measures taken at the international level, did
not restrict or reduce existing fishing levels. Instead, it established pre-agreed steps to
be taken if the fishery breached the agreed management (target) reference point.
8.4 CONCLUSION
As a Small Island Developing State, the Maldives has overcome geographical and
environmental challenges to develop one of the most sustainable fisheries in the
world. Its Pole-and-Line Skipjack Tuna Fishery is unique in the sense that fishers are
actively involved in safeguarding the resource and the majority of the earnings from
the sector are passed on to them, while they continue to play a vital role in the island
communities.
Maldivian tuna products are competing with similar products originating from
developed countries, or caught by industrial fisheries often connected to vertically
integrated companies, that are able to produce them at a reasonably lower cost and in
larger quantities. This, coupled with the increasing demands of sustainability initiatives
that allow for market access, creates a number of challenges that, if left unmanaged,
could undermine the competitiveness of Maldivian tuna in the global marketplace. A
key lesson from the case of the Maldives is that government-led development across
the value chain – i.e. harvesting, large- and small-scale processing, export, ancillary
activities and quality control – can be an essential factor in enabling the fishery sector
to maintain market access.
The Maldives Pole-and-Line Skipjack Tuna Fishery therefore provides an excellent
example of how the practices of the state can embrace the principles of SSF Guidelines
7.6–7.9. Figure 8.5 illustrates where the good practices of the Maldivian Government
align specifically with the Guidelines, and how these practices can be replicated by
other coastal states looking to develop and support their domestic small-scale fisheries
value chains, post-harvest and trade in the context of food security and poverty
eradication.
This paper has illustrates how the Government of the Maldives has acted as a
catalyst for innovation and development, and likewise the extent to which state-led
strategies can be employed to promote export-based fisheries, while also ensuring
national citizens have opportunities to benefit equitably along the value chain. The
tuna fishery 153
FIGURE 8.5
Replicable state-led practices of the Maldives for meeting SSF Guidelines
Replicable State Led Actions SSF Guidelines

Proactive in supporting the private industry in meeting
international sustainability demands 7.6 State led
Proactive in mediating equitable access of fisheries enablement of
resources through legislation equitable market
Allowing space for participation of smaII-scale fishers in access
decision making processes
Actuating measures safeguarding the domestic fishing 7.7 State led

industry to ensure sufficient domestic production for local safeguarding of
consumption local food security
Ensuring access rights for citizens for subsistence and/or from impact of
income substitution related fishing activities international trade
Supporting the harvesting sector in terms of improving

the efficiency, sustainability and economic viability of
fishing operations 7.8 Equitable
distribution of
Implementing protective measures to mitigate the price benefits from
volatility of products for intemational export international trade
Supporting the creation of fisher
cooperatives/associations
Leading in international management efforts. Proactively

driving the introduction of conservation measures where 7.9 State led
appropriate to protect commercially important stocks. mitigation of
adverse impacts from
Proactive in working with private industry to pursue
international trade
market based sustainability mechanisms to ensure market
entry and protect domestic industry.
government’s approach can be summarized as providing access for its fishers and
fishworkers to marine resources and markets.
The Maldivian Government has taken many steps to facilitate preferential access
to and benefits from skipjack tuna resources for its own citizens. In the first instance,
partitioning the Maldives EEZ so that only domestic, one-by-one tuna fishing vessels
can access tuna within 75 nautical miles of the coast ensures the country’s fishing
industry can continue to be the sole beneficiaries of its tuna resources. Further to
this, through imposing a fixed price premium on top of the Bangkok base price for
tuna exports and a minimum base price for domestic tuna sales, the government
has enabled the fishing sector to maintain a high and stable income derived from
the skipjack fishery. In implementing measures that focus on ensuring that both the
primary and secondary sectors of the fishing industry are in a position to derive the
maximum economic benefits from the domestic fishing sector, the government is also
creating enabling conditions for safeguarding the livelihoods and the food security of
its citizens.
The government has also helped to ensure the tuna sector can adapt to global
market conditions. By spearheading market-oriented sustainability innovations like
achieving MSC certification and implementing national digital transparency systems,
the government has created an enabling environment where the Maldives and its
citizens are well placed to thrive in global seafood markets. Furthermore, its leadership
in regional fisheries management at the IOTC has also served to influence issues that
affect the country’s tuna fishing industry and its capacity to thrive domestically and
internationally.
REFERENCES
Ahusan, M., Adam, M.S., Ziyad, A., Shifaz, M., Shimal, M. & Jauharee, R. 2018.
Maldives national report submitted to the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission scientific
committee 2018. IOTC-2018-SC21-NR1.
Anderson, R.C. & Hafiz, A. 1996. Status of tuna research and data collection in the
Maldives. Rasain, 2: 117–132.
Ásmundsson, S. 2016. Regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs): Who are
they, what is their geographical coverage on the high seas and which ones should be
considered as general RFMOs, tuna RFMOs and specialized RFMOs? Convention on
Biodiversity. (available at https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/soiom-2016-01/other/
soiom-2016-01-fao-19-en.pdf).
FAO. 2003. Food Balance Sheets. Rome.
Gillett, R. 2016. Pole-and-line tuna fishing in the world: Status and trends. IPNLF
Technical Report No. 6. London, IPNLF (International Pole & Line Foundation).
Gillett, R., Jauharee, A.R. & Adam, M.S. 2013. Maldives livebait fishery management
plan. Male’, Republic of the Maldives, Marine Research Centre, Ministry of Fisheries
and Agriculture.
Gordon, D.V. & Hussain, S. 2015. Price determination and demand flexibilities in the
ex-vessel market for tuna in the Republic of Maldives. Aquaculture Economics &
Management, 19(1): 8–28.
Gray, A. 1889. The Voyage of François Pyrard of Laval to the East Indies, the Maldives, the
Moluccas, and Brazil. Translated into English from the Third French edition of 1619. A.
Gray & H.C. Purvis Bell, eds. London, Hakluyt Society.
Hemmings, M., Harper, S. & Zeller, D. 2011. Reconstruction of total marine catches for
the Maldives, 1950–2008. In S. Harper & D. Zeller, eds. Fisheries catch reconstructions:
Islands, Part II, pp. 21–37. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19(4). University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Hohne-Sparborth, T., Adam, M.S. & Ziyad, A. 2015. A socio-economic assessment of the
tuna fisheries in the Maldives. IPNLF Technical Report No. 5. London, IPNLF. 44 pp.
Howgate, E. & Leadbitter, D. 2016. International markets for pole-and-line tuna:
Opportunities and challenges. London, IPNLF. (available at http://ipnlf.org/perch/
resources/ipnlfinfofish0116-1.pdf).
IOTC. 2019. IOTC Datasets. Retrieved December 02, 2019 from http://iotc.org/data/
datasets
IPNLF (2019). Maldives Concept Vessel. Per comms
Jacinto, E.R. and Pomeroy, R.S. 2011. Developing markets for small-scale fisheries:
utilizing the value chain approach. Small-scale fisheries management: frameworks and
approaches for the developing world, pp.160-177.
Japan International Cooperation Agency, INTEM Consulting, Inc. Fisheries &
Aquaculture International Co., Ltd. (2018) Republic of Maldives project for the
formulation of master plan for sustainable fisheries (MASPLAN) Final Report. Available
at: http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12301677.pdf Lecomte, M. 2017. Indian Ocean
tuna fisheries: between development opportunities and sustainability issues. IDDRI
(Développement Durable & Relations Internationales).
Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., Caillart, B. & Defaux, V. 2016. Estimate of global sales
values from tuna fisheries – Phase 1 Report. Lymington, UK, Poseidon Aquatic Resource
Management Ltd.
tuna fishery 155
Miller, K.I., Adam, M.S. & Baske, A. 2017. Rates of Fuel Consumption in the Maldivian
Pole-and-Line Tuna Fishery. London, IPNLF and Male’, Marine Research Centre.
Miller, K.I., Nadheeh, I., Jauharee, A.R., Anderson, R.C. & Adam, M.S. 2017. Bycatch in
the Maldivian pole-and-line tuna fishery. PLOS ONE, 12(5): e0177391.
Naeem A., Latheefa A. 1995, Biosocioeconomic assessment of the effects of fish
aggregating devices in the tuna fishery in the Maldives. Bay of Bengal Programme,
Madras WP/ RAS/91/006.
National Bureau of Statistics. 2014. Census – 2014. Male’, Republic of the Maldives,
Ministry of Finance and Treasury.
National Bureau of Statistics. 2016. Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES),
Male’, Republic of the Maldives, Ministry of Finance and Treasury.
National Bureau of Statistics. 2018. Statistical Yearbook of the Maldives 2018. Male’,
Republic of the Maldives, Ministry of Finance and Treasury.
Parker, R.W. & Tyedmers, P.H. 2015. Fuel consumption of global fishing fleets: current
understanding and knowledge gaps. Fish and Fisheries, 16: 684–696.
Parker, R.W., Vázquez-Rowe, I. & Tyedmers, P.H. 2015. Fuel performance and carbon
footprint of the global purse seine tuna fleet. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103: 517–52.
Sathiendrakumar, R. & Tisdell, C. 1986. Fishery resources and policies in the Maldives:
trends and issues for an island developing country. Marine Policy, 10(4): 279–293.
Sinan, H. 2011. Background report of fishery products: the Maldives. Male’, Republic of the
Maldives, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture.
Wessels, P. (2017). The roles of women in Maldivian one-by-one tuna supply chains: A
scoping study, Dalhousie University, International Pole & Line Foundation.
157
9. Fishery Improvement Projects:

In the context of small-scale
fisheries value chains, post-harvest
operations and trade
Alexander Ford
Joseph Zelasney
Policy, Economics and Institutions Branch
Rome, Italy
ABSTRACT
Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs) are multistakeholder partnerships designed to
encourage value chain actors to improve fisheries sustainabiliy using market incentives.
Initially applied to large-scale fisheries, for the past ten years the FIP model has
also been applied in other contexts, including small-scale fisheries. FIPs facilitate
coordination between relevant value chain actors and promote multistakeholder
dialogue. However, FIPs have been criticized for not engaging governments and small-
scale fishery actors or ensuring the fair distribution of benefits for fishing communities.
This case study provides a historical overview of FIPs and considers their strenghts
and weaknesses as a mechanism to operationalize the recommendations laid out in
in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication, particularly paragraphs 7.1
and 7.8, which aim to ensure that post-harvest actors are included in decision-making
processes and to ensure that effective fisheries management systems are implemented
to prevent market-driven overexploitation of the natural resource and those dependent
on it, respectively. FIPs have the potential to drive collaborative management in small-
scale fisheries, but to do so effectively greater inclusion of fishing communities and
government authorities is needed.
Keywords: Fishery Improvement Project, multistakeholder engagement, private

governance, certification and ecolabeling schemes.
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Improving the environmental sustainability of seafood production using market-based
approaches has been a focus of the sustainable seafood movement since the 1990s. The
effect has been an increase in the application of certification and ecolabeling schemes.
One model in the market-based approach tool kit is the Fishery Improvement Project
(FIP), defined by the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions (CASS)1 as “a
1
The Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions (CASS) connects leading conservation groups from North America,
South America, Europe and Japan that work with businesses throughout the supply chain, from fishers and fish farmers
to retailers and restaurants. The definition of FIPs has been agreed upon by CASS’s members and collaborators, which
include: Conservation International, the David Suzuki Foundation, Ecology Action Centre, EDF, FishChoice, Fish Wise,
Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Living Oceans, Monterey Bay Aquarium, New England Aquarium, Ocean Outcomes,
Sea Web, Shedd Aquarium, Smart Fish AC, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP), Ocean Wise, World Wildlife Fund
(WWF), Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), CeDePesca, Client
Earth, Comunidad y Biodiversidad A. C. (COBI), Ecotrust, Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF), Fair Trade USA,
Future of Fish, Global Aquaculture Alliance, Global GAP, Good Fish Foundation, World Benchmarking Alliance,
International Pole and Line Foundation (IPNLF), Marine Conservation Society United Kingdom (MCS UK), Marine
Stewardship Council (MSC), National Aquarium, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Ocean Conservancy,
Sea Delight Ocean Fund, Sea Pact, Seafood Legacy, the Nature Conservancy and Virginia Aquarium.
multistakeholder effort to address environmental challenges in a fishery .... utiliz[ing]

the power of the private sector to incentivize positive changes toward sustainability
in the fishery and seek[ing] to make these changes endure through policy change”
(CASS, 2012), and also by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as
“a collaboration between relevant stakeholders to influence policies and management
practices and to improve the sustainability of fishing operations” (GEF, 2019).
The first FIPs were established in the early 2000s to engage industrial supply
chain actors as partners in the management of the fisheries from which they sourced
(Cannon et al., 2018). The FIPs were launched in fisheries of high commercial value
globally, such as Baltic Sea cod and Russian pollack, with large volumes being traded
through international value chains, to ensure long-term supply by improving fisheries
management and environmental performance (Table 9.1).
TABLE 9.1
Amount of seafood in FIPs 2015/2019, by tonnage and by percentage of total recorded marine catch
2015 2019
Landings Landings
Commodity category % of Global Landings % of Global Landings
(in thousand tonnes) (in thousand tonnes)
Crab, lobster, crustaceans 157 6.2 201 7.9
Mollusks 0 0 26 1.1
Major tuna species* 1115 22.9 1550 33.5
Miscellaneous fish 29 0.1 127 0.3
Salmon and diadromous fish 10 1 14 1.6
Shrimp 207 5.9 378 10.6
Small pelagics 3397 17.3 4235 21.3
Snapper/Grouper 0 0 4 0
Squid/octopus 227 4.9 371 8
Other tuna, bonitos, billfish 101 3.8 258 8.8
Whitefish 846 8.6 332 3.4
Total 6089 7.7 7496 10.4
* Major species include albacore, bigeye, bluefin, little tunny, skipjack and yellowfin.
Note: Landings exclude those associated with Stage 0, Stage 1 and Stage 6 FIPs (see Appendix 1 for FIP stages). In instances where
there was overlap between reported FIP landings and Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certified landings (in the case of Stage 6 FIPs),
landed tonnage was counted towards MSC landings (CEA, 2020).
Demand for sustainable seafood has grown markedly in the past 20 years. This demand
has been driven in large part by major global seafood value chain actors, who have integrated
procurement of certified sustainable seafood into their sourcing policies. Although seafood
from FIPs is not certified, most FIPs use the MSC’s standard (Box 9.1) as their framework
for improvement. Subsequently, FIPs have come to be seen as a viable sourcing option for
sustainable seafood among major buyers.
Over the past decade, the FIP approach has been also applied to small-scale
fisheries. Globally, out of the 155 active and completed FIPs (Figure 9.1), 31
are small-scale;2 of these, 4 are in Very Highly Developed countries, 15 are in
Highly Developed countries, 11 are in Medium Developed countries, and 1 is in
a Low Developed country, according to the UNDP Human Development Index
(Sustainable Fisheries UW, 2019; UNDP, 2018; Fishery Progress, 2019). Asia and
Latin America have the largest concentration of FIPs, followed by North America.
2
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/192tPood_Gv8bAv1s2YYgQmAsQhyD3Zcjhqq7lsIBfuM/edit for a
definition of “small-scale”.
9. Fishery Improvement Projects: In the context of small-scale fisheries value chains, post-harvest operations and trade 159
BOX 9.1
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and FIPs
Since the MSC’s foundation in 1996, the organization has managed to create and maintain
a market for “sustainable fish” sourced from major fisheries around the world. However,
it has struggled to find commercial success with small-scale fisheries (Ponte, 2012).
Nevertheless, the MSC has been instrumental in the construction of the FIP concept
working in conjunction with other CASS members to use FIPs as a vehicle towards
acheiving MSC certification, including in small-scale fisheries.
The aim of the MSC is to secure the sustainability of fishery resources worldwide. The
MSC “Theory of Change” involves the certification of fisheries and supply chains for the
benefit of consumers looking to purchase environmentally sustainable seafood. In order
to be certified, fisheries must adhere to the MSC’s standards (MSC, 2019):
1. Sustainable Fish Stocks: Fishing must be carried out at a level that ensures it
can continue indefinitely while also ensuring the fish population can remain
productive and healthy.
2. Minimizing Environmental Impacts: Fishing activity must be managed carefully
so that other species and habitats within the ecosystem remain healthy.
3. Effective Fisheries Management: MSC-certified fisheries must comply with
relevant laws and be able to adapt to changing environmental circumstances.
FIPs have been criticized for not providing long-term strategic fisheries governance,
exacerbated by incidents of “greenwashing” 3, and not providing for greater government,
fisher and fishworker engagement in their planning and management, therefore
undermining any positive impacts they may have on value chain development
(Sampson et al., 2015; Crona, Käll and Van Holt, 2019). Nevertheless, FIPs generally
have proved effective in providing a platform for dialogue and strategic direction
involving various stakeholders (Cannon et al., 2018; Crona, Käll and Van Holt, 2019;
Travaille et al., 2019).
After a close examination of the FIP model, the case study considers how FIPs are
managed and explores their alignment with paragraphs 7.1 and 7.8 of the SSF Guidelines.
9.2 METHODS
This case study provides a picture of the FIP concept, exploring how and where the FIP
model has been applied thus far. The first stage of the research involved a systematic
review of literature publicly available, including academic, governmental and non-
governmental publications. This served a dual function permitting an understanding
of the FIP concept, while at the same time identifying key stakeholders to interview
in the second stage of the study. This process also helped bring out areas of focus for
the study, again informing the interviews in the second stage. A search for the term
“Fishery Improvement Projects” using University College London’s library database
turns up 33 academic research papers, the oldest dating back to 2014, and five academic
articles published in 2019. There are many publications originating from NGOs,
with organizations party to CASS offering substantial grey literature covering their
experiences in FIP implementation and management.
The second stage of the research involved conducting 11 semi-structured interviews
on the FIP concept with experts who have been involved in FIPs directly. Interviews
3
The practice of overstating the environmentally or socially conscious attributes of a firm’s offering
while understating the negative attributes, to the firm’s benefit. Greenwashing can be explicit or implicit
and can be expressed in many forms, including pictures, direct claims in text, symbols, labels, or even
partnerships or relationships. These claims can be made in press releases, advertisements, on websites and
even on the products themselves.
were conducted using an interview guide, which was frequently adapted depending on
the identity of the interviewees and where their professional expertise lay (Appendix 2
for a copy of the guide). The range of people selected included representatives from
industry, governmental and intergovernmental agencies, research/academia, and NGO
representatives. Potential interviewees were sourced from the literature review and
organisations identified on the CASS website. In addition, a snowballing approach
was applied by tapping into professional networks, with many of the respondents
recommending other individuals for interview. Again, this served a dual function in
that it reinforced or corrected our understanding gained from the literature review,
while also providing insights into the future direction of FIPs.
Last, the primary author attended a FIP Community of Practice workshop in
Indonesia, which provided critical insights into the discussions being held among
FIP proponents in Southeast Asia. Attendees included fishers; processors; NGOs;
representatives from UNDP and FAO; representatives from four Southeast Asian
governments; consultancy firms; and a number of other FIP proponents. The event
proved important for clarifying details and acquiring additional knowledge pertaining
to the unequal distribution of costs and benefits, the need for greater involvement of
government and community representatives, and the need to configure the FIP model
to achieve long-term, sustainability.

This section provides an overview of the FIP concept, including the differing
types, management styles and reporting method used, followed by a discussion on
FIP stakeholder inclusion and sustainability; FIPs and the global market place for
sustainable seafood; and lastly, FIPs and the role of government.
9.3.1 FIP type, management and reporting

FIP types
FIPs vary in their type, dictated by design and objectives, but there are conditional
criteria set out by CASS that underpin the FIP model. First, value chain actors,
which might include suppliers, retailers, food services and fishworkers, must actively
participate in the FIP. Participation can take the form of financial or in kind
contributions to the project. Second, the FIP’s stakeholders must commit to improving
the fishery (through a signed memorandum of understanding, published participant
list, etc.). Third, the FIP must define the short-term scope of the project with a set of
time-bound objectives. Fourth, a workplan must be made publicly available. And last,
the FIP management must regularly track and report progress, including: 1) publicly
reporting progress on actions and their results, with supporting documentation every
six months; and 2) updating indicator scores and providing supporting evidence for
score changes every 12 months (CASS, 2019).
These qualities outline the core elements of a FIP. However, due to the MSC’s
prevailing role in the strategic direction of FIPs, an extra layer of complexity
distinguishes MSC-guided FIPs from non-MSC-guided FIPs, which are termed by
CASS as Comprehensive and Basic FIPs, respectively.
• A Comprehensive FIP must undergo an independent audit every three years
against the MSC standards, and must receive an unconditional pass in order to
be awarded MSC certification.4 The rationale here is that by demonstrating the
market value of transitioning to MSC certification, other local stakeholders will
engage in sustainability reforms in order to pursue certification and its associated
benefits (Roheim and Zhang, 2018).
4
If a fishery receives a score between 80 and 100, it is awarded an unconditional pass, meaning it is under
no obligation to improve aspects of its operation in order to retain its certificate.
• A Basic FIP is narrower in scope, focusing on improving specific environmental

challenges within the fishery as opposed to the entire array of MSC performance
indicators, and hence it doesn’t seek MSC certification. Basic FIPs also tend to
address socio-economic issues more broadly, although scoring against the MSC
standards remains the de facto form of assessment. While the promise of future
market benefits may not be the only or central incentive, Basic FIPs still require
strong commitment from stakeholders in order to realize long-term change.
FIP management structure

According to the California Environmental Associates (CEA),5 ascertaining the
management structure of a FIP – i.e. whether it is “top-down” or “bottom-up” – is
fundamental to its analysis. In top-down FIPs, seafood value chain actors identify
unsustainable fisheries, usually from which they are already sourcing, to which a FIP
will be applied. This creates downward pressure through the value chain, incentivizing
stakeholders to engage in sustainable management. One of the limitations of this
approach is that it effectively “pushes down” the responsibility, with more powerful
stakeholders in the value chain passing sustainability responsibilities down to those
who are less powerful (personal communication with Blue Ventures, 27/03/19). The
advantage of a top-down approach is that by sourcing from a number of fisheries, there
is a competitive incentive for fisheries to follow sustainability protocols. Currently,
seafood companies now manage more FIPs than any other third party implementer
(CEA, 2020).
Bottom-up FIPs are usually intiaited by an NGO and aim to facilitate change where
the capacity for management, enforcement and government reforms are weak. They
tend to give more space than top-down FIPs to fishers, fishworkers and community
representatives in their management. Such FIPs are premised on the participating
stakeholders’ ability to drive change through fishing practices, often in the absence of
effective fisheries management regimes. The risk is that whatever gains are made by
participants are undercut by non-participants, and consequently can stall and fail to
deliver significant improvements (CEA, 2015).
Reporting progress
The web based Fishery Progress, managed by the American-based NGO FishChoice,
is the platform designed for retailers to make sourcing decisions based on FIP
reporting.6 With the support of corresponding technical and advisory committees,7 this
platform provides a rating of all reviewed and subsequently endorsed FIPs, describing
how far each FIP has come in achieving its objectives as well as its alignment with the
MSC standards. Based on this, the FIPs are awarded a grade from A to D, A being the
best (and only available to Comprehensive FIPs). A significant issue – and perhaps one
of contention for Basic FIPs – is that despite not pursuing MSC certification, Fishery
Progress still measures the progress of Basic FIPs against the MSC standards, therefore
missing or misinterpreting many of the nuances captured by these FIPs’ focus on
socio-economic issues. As a remedy, Basic FIPs submit reports that include in-depth
accounts of their objectives and their progress in achieving these, thus helping to “fill
5
CEA is a private consultancy firm based in San Francisco, United States of America. The organization
supports the work of environmental foundations and non-profits as well as sustainability-oriented
businesses, with in-depth research and analysis, programme design and evaluation, and strategic planning.
6
Another entity, FishSource (itself managed by SFP), has a similar database, but the information and data
is collected and managed by the same group of actors who provide the ratings for Fishery Progress.
7
The Fishery Progress website is used to showcase all FIPs that conform to the criteria set forth by the
members of CASS. FIPs are rated by an advisory committee (consisting of FishChoice, WWF, MSC,
New England Seafood, CEA, Fish Wise, SFP, Netuna USA, Seafood Ninja and Anova Seafood) and a
technical committee (consisting of MSC, ASC, MRAG Asia Pacific, Scaling Blue and MRAG Americas).
FIGURE 9.1
Active and completed FIPs by region
Active and completed FIPs by region
60
50
Number of FIPs
40
30
20
10
0
Africa Asia Central & South North America Oceania Europe
America
World Region
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: CEA, 2020.
in the blanks” that the Fishery Progress rating misses. This is examined more closely
in the following section.
9.3.2 FIPs and social sustainability

Inclusion of post-harvest stakeholders in decision-making processes is the central tenet of
paragraph 7.1 of the SSF Guidelines8 “Post-harvest” refers to all stakeholders and nodes
of the supply chain the product passes through from the moment it is taken from its
Active or Completed FIPs by World Region
natural environment. Paragraph 7.1 also states that all parties should caution against social
60
exclusion, recognizing “that there are sometimes unequal power relationships between
value chain50 actors” which pertains to a broader call for socially sustainable practices to
Number of FIPs
be enacted40throughout small-scale fisheries (FAO, 2015). Social sustainability is defined

as “the ability
30 of a food value chain to endure by facilitating equitable distribution of the
value created
20 (profits, wages, consumer benefits, fiscal impact) and broader social impacts.
This requires
10 attention to the distribution of marketing margins, gender concerns, youth,
poverty, vulnerable
0
groups, community development, health and nutrition, sociocultural
elements, labourAfrica
welfare” Asia
(FAO, 2015).
Central ThisEurope
section reviews
North the extent toSouth
Oceania which “social
America America
sustainability” is being integrated into the FIP model.America
World Region
The discussion on whether, how and to what extent FIPs should incorporate social
objectives is one that has been gaining traction
2015 2016 2017 among 2018FIP proponents.
2019 The discussion
includes the scope of social issues a FIP can consider, the appropriate scope of the
value chain to be assessed, and whether the definition and goal of FIPs should change.
Currently, the active participation of all post-harvest stakeholders is clearly spelled
out in CASS’s FIP guidelines and according to CEA (2020) 19 per cent of FIPs self-
identify as addressing the social dimension of fisheries. However, Crona, Käll and Van
Holt (2019) note that “only 7 percent of FIPs in [their] study included fishers as one
of the FIP lead actors”. They also suggest that fishworkers are excluded from data
collection and analysis, indicating a lack of inclusion in decision-making processes. It
has been found that, in line with trends and current political motivations (Barr, Bruner
and Edwards, 2019; Teh et al., 2019), FIPs should provide assurances that the fishery
is not associated with the most egregious human rights abuses like child and forced
labour (Kittinger et al., 2017). Beyond this, however, it should be acknowledged that
major global value chain players traditionally sourcing from FIPs have been reticent to
8
Paragraph 7.1 All parties should recognize the central role that the small-scale fisheries post-harvest
subsector and its actors play in the value chain. All parties should ensure that postharvest actors are part
of relevant decisionmaking processes, recognizing that there are sometimes unequal power relationships
between value chain actors and that vulnerable and marginalized groups may require special support.
implemented social improvements beyond social audits for the most egregious issues
(personal communication with CEA, 13/03/19). Equally, creating more requirements
against which fisheries must be assessed may unduly burden fisheries by increasing
the cost and complexity of FIPs. This could be particularly onerous for fishers and
fishworkers, who often bear the majority of the cost due to the aforementioned
“pushing down” of responsibility. Similar questions are raised in the context of the
value chain, with deliberation on whether social responsibility criteria should focus on
the vessel level or extend to stakeholders at each node of the value chain. However, if
the burden of responsibility becomes too onerous, this could threaten the efficiency or
even the existence of the FIP concept (personal communication with Ocean Outcomes,
04/03/19).
There are some efforts of note to expand the scope of FIPs to include socially
sustainable practices. First, the “Framework for Social Responsibility in the Seafood
Sector” developed in 2018, is a rapid assessment scorecard based on the SSF Guidelines
(Opal, 2017) and currently being piloted by various members of CASS. Designed to
yield a narrative and score relating to each of the thematic chapters, and structured in
terms of performance indicators in much the same way as the MSC assessments, the long-
term objective of the scorecard is for the results to be published alongside the ratings
currently published on the Fishery Progress website. However, participants at the FIP
Community of Practice in Indonesia felt that the scorecard would present yet another
technical, time-consuming barrier with no immediate benefits for fishers and fishworkers
or explicit recognition of their involvement in undertaking the assessment. Furthermore,
the same participants felt the scorecard’s interpretation of small-scale fishery issues being
assessed does not correspond with the actual challenges of small scale fishing communities
in many parts of the world, and that the scorecard misinterprets or obscures problems,
therefore misrepresenting the true state of the fisheries.
Second, a potential policy approach is to require retailers to publish information
on social criteria as a condition of joining a FIP. In this regard, there is growing
pressure for the private sector to adopt the United Nations Global Compact,9 with
almost 10 000 companies globally having done so already. Traditionally, most retailers
(usually located in high-value markets) have passed responsibility on to their suppliers;
therefore, participating in a FIP that demands social data would essentially deprive
the retailer of plausible deniability. Indeed, Teh et al. (2019) argue that this is likely to
become an effective means of eliminating the most salient of human rights violations in
supply chains. This argument also aligns with CEA’s recognition of the need for social
audits on the most egregious issues. Nevertheless, the Global Compact only requires
companies to tackle “what [they] can reasonably do to address” human rights abuses,
limiting accountability (UN, 2014). Teh et al. (2019) suggest that relying on human
rights frameworks to protect fishers’ and fishworkers’ socio-economic well-being may
prove to be rather a blunt instrument if national laws do not implement pathways to
secure the full range of social rights.
Finally, an approach to ensure greater social autonomy would be to consider how
information is collected and distributed. Participatory information collection could
support social equity within the small-scale fisheries engaged in FIPs, both in terms
of who is collecting the information and the type of information being collected. As
Crona, Käll and Van Holt (2019) point out, “fishers are rarely reported to be involved
in data collection … which suggests they are not directly involved in conversations
around new regulations”. However, with regards to driving social sustainability in
FIPs, it is important to collect sufficient information on “fishers’ (or other market
9
The United Nations Global Compact is a non-binding pact that encourages businesses worldwide to
adopt socially responsible policies and report on their implementation. The Global Compact presents a
principle-based framework for businesses, based on ten principles concerning human rights, labour, the
environment and anti-corruption.
actors’) behaviour, which [would inform and support] more ecosystem based
management decisions”.
Paragraph 7.1 of the SSF Guidelines highlights the importance of being aware of
power imbalances in value chains. While it is questionable whether market-based
initatives are the most approporiate mechanism for dealing with broad challenges relating
to social dimensions, the involvement of fishers and fishworkers is about equitability,
and, if done correctly, would be a step forward in enhancing social sustainability within
FIPs and mitigating power imbalances. Indeed, involving and identifying the role of
stakeholders is important for ensuring that FIPs are not unintentionally excluding
stakeholders or creating power imbalances (Deighan and Jenkins, 2015).
9.3.3 FIPs and the global market for sustainable seafood

The fair distribution of benefits
One of the obstacles to increasing the positive impacts of FIPs worldwide is ensuring
that the financial benefits of FIPs are fairly distributed throughout the value chain,
as is pronounced by paragraph 7.8 of the SSF Guidelines.10 This section focuses
on the equitable distribution of FIP costs and benefits and prevailing barriers to
their realisation. To date there is limited literature examing the costs and benefits of
partaking in a FIP from the perspective of fishers and fishworkers, however the study
by Tolentino-Zondervan et al. (2016) comprehensivly compares the factors small-scale
fishers can consider regarding a top-down, industry-led tuna FIP and a bottom-up,
NGO-led tuna FIP, both situated in the Philippines . Through interviews with fishers
working in each FIP, benefits including increased income were reported, but in both
FIP-types the fishers’ reliance on their support networks – a fishers’ or family firm –
played a definitive role in emboldening them to participate in the FIP.
In the industry-led FIP, though the fishers were more likely to obtain satisfactory
prices and be paid in a timely manner, the costs of upgrading equipment and handling
training were left to the fishers. This requirement was justified by the presence of
extended family networks on which individual fishers could rely. Furthermore, the
results showed that fishers participating in the industry-led FIP were part-time or
focused on other species aside from tuna, and the decision to undergo the strict and
costly procedures for the industry-led FIP was motivated by the high probability that
they would consistently be rewarded for the short amount of time spent fishing for tuna.
In contrast with these part-time, multi-species fishers, the fishers in the NGO-led
FIP had spent their careers specializing in tuna fishing and had acquired their skill for
catching and handling tuna over time. This enabled them to comply more easily with
the product requirements of the NGO-led FIP, and therefore increasing their chance
of earning a good income. Unlike the industry-led FIP training, the training sessions
held by the NGO-led FIP were organized and funded completely by the NGO and the
government. Furthermore, fishers in this latter category relied on fishers’ associations
as their support network, which helped fishers to obtain funding and subsidies from
the government, thus improving their fishing activities. Tolentino-Zondervan et al.
(2016) find that both FIP types can and do financially benefit participating fishers,
but there are a number of specific and localized factors that influence this result, a
great deal of which rests on support networks (family firms or fishers’ associations,
and sometimes both). To understand whether this is characteristic of all FIPs, further
studies are necessary elsewhere.
10
Paragraph 7.8 States, small-scale fisheries actors and other value chain actors should recognize that
benefits from international trade should be fairly distributed. States should ensure that effective fisheries
management systems are in place to prevent overexploitation driven by market demand that can threaten
the sustainability of fisheries resources, food security and nutrition. Such fisheries management systems
should include responsible post-harvest practices, policies and actions to enable export income to benefit
small-scale fishers and others in an equitable manner throughout the value chain.
The impacts of international trade

A major factor informing paragraph 7.8 is recognising and accounting for the
impacts international trade can have on fisheries and those directly reliant on them.
Comprehensive FIPs, and their related management, often presume that the pursuit
of MSC certification will guarentee access to high-value markets, whilst keeping the
fishery intact. Yet this route is risky especially for small-scale fisheries as the fishery
is not likely to achieve certification due to the high costs associated or the high degree
of management required. In light of these challenges it is important to appreciate the
results of Cannon et al. (2018) who find that “FIPs showed a significantly higher
probability of improving ‘management’ and reducing ‘overfishing’ than those fisheries
without FIPs”. This result suggests us that the FIP model provides a structure that
can supply international demand for sustainable seafood, without the need for
certification to safeguard the natural resource. If the practices implemented during
the FIP are maintained, and the natural resource is not undermined, it is conceivable
that stakeholders involved in the FIP will have the opportunity to benefit from
international trade.
Creating the impression of sustainability

A significant concern around the proper management of FIPs are allegations of
“greenwashing” as a way of sourcing seafood as cheaply as possible while still claiming
sustainability (Sampson et al., 2015; CEA, 2015, CEA, 2020). FIPs have inadvertently
become a form of currency for seafood companies seeking to source sustainable seafood,
the incorrect assumption being that, so long as the fishery is part of a FIP, the seafood
produced is sustainable. Thus FIPs are being used to meet sustainability requirements
of seafood buyers in certain markets, which has the potential to undermine attempts to
deliver sustainability improvements and the market’s integrity. It would appear that the
notion of sustainability as a pre-competitive issue is losing ground against the need to
capture market share and meet buyer demands. This undermines the entire reason FIPs
were designed in the first place: as a stepwise approach to improving the sustainability
of the fisheries and supply markets with sustainable seafood. Instead, the demand for
certified seafood is actually feeding a highly competitive market, the fallout of which
involves undermining sustainability efforts.
The opportunity for “greenwashing” is perhaps perpetuated by the influence Fishery
Progress exerts over the valuation of FIPs. With no third-party auditing system,
national fisheries institutions or small-scale fishery actors involved in evaluation of
the data presented on the site, vested interests can influence the assessment of a FIP
in an overly optimistic way, thus presenting an unrealistic account of the FIP, and
by extension the fishery. Such misrepresentation risks undermining the basic rights
of fishers and fishworkers, which in turn poses a risk to national and international
strategies for sustainable development.
Another opaque area in the value chain that risks devaluing FIPs are where importers
source from both successful and unsuccessful FIPs as well as non-FIP fisheries and
then distribute an aggregated product to the market without distinction, but under the
pretext that it is all a FIP-sourced product. There are examples of FIPs transitioning
to Comprehensive FIPs to avoid this, however, to iterate the point made above, small-
scale fisheries are rarely in a position to consider such an option.
Ultimately, FIPs have the potential to fulfil many of the nuances of paragraph 7.8
of the SSF Guidelines. Tolentino-Zondervan et al. (2016) indicates that the fair
distribution of benefits is possible (although further research is required), and Cannon
et al. (2018) demonstrates that FIPs are beneficial for the natural resource. However the
issue of creating false impressions of sustainability needs to be addressed.
9.3.4 FIPs and the role of government

Governments have the potential to influence the direction and objectives of a FIP,
encouraging approaches that compliment or reinforce national and regional policies
and legislation (Crona, Käll and Van Holt, 2019; Foley and Havrice, 2016). This aspect
is also addressed through paragraph 7.8 of the SSF Guidelines.
Governments set and implement national fisheries policy. While governments are often
not involved in FIPs, FIPs operate within existing national policy and legal frameworks.
NGOs and development entities may be able to alter fishing practices that benefit a
portion of the natural resource as well as the local communities reliant on it, but external
forces beyond the capacity of such schemes could well undermine efforts (CEA 2015;
CEA 2020). CEA (2020) and Melnychuk et al. (2017) provide evidence that a country’s
fisheries management capacity is closely correlated with the success of FIPs active in
a given country. FIP implementers and stakeholders, particularly in less developed
countries, increasingly recognize the critical role government needs to play to achieve FIP
goals and the importance of multi-stakeholder efforts engaging the government.
A commonly cited obstacle to FIPs is moving past Stage 5 – Improvements on the
Water – of the FIP process (Appendix 1), which would see FIPs contributing to lasting
ecological change. It is generally agreed by FIP proponents that in order to significantly
improve fisheries management and secure changes on the water, sustained policy
dialogue is required between government and FIP stakeholders to either complement
activities or reinforce a particular activity (Crona, Käll and Van Holt, 2019).
Currently, policy dialogue is only prevalent to FIPs applied to crab and lobster
fisheries (Crona, Käll and Van Holt, 2019). For example, in the context of many
Southeast Asian crab and lobster FIPs, industry and government work in close
partnership in order to avert overexploitation as global demand increases. However,
in the context of tuna – an important economic resource and significant contributor to
food security in many countries – policy dialogue within FIPs is minimal, due to the
fact that tuna is managed by regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs)11
and accessibility to such bodies is relatively exclusive (Crona, Käll and Van Holt,
2019). In spite of this, Travaille et al. (2019) have found that FIP effectiveness is actually
higher in fisheries under the jurisdiction of an RFMO compared to those governed
solely at the state or local level. This is due to the established regional-level frameworks
in place supporting management activities and improvements, including data reporting
systems, regular stock assessments and surveillance programs.
CEA (2020) have reported that if FIPs are going to seriously contribute to the
management of commercially exploited fisheries, the model is going to have to be
adopted to suit nation-wide efforts. Indeed, the next challenge for FIP proponents
is to understand how the FIP model can be used as a fisheries management tool in
developing countries. It must be acknowledged that whilst much international seafood
is sought from fisheries in developing countries, the capacity for effective management
is often lacking. The Global Marine Commodities Initiative led by the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) represents an example of what national-level
coordination for FIPs could look like. In partnership with SFP, a Global Environment
Facility (GEF)-funded project was launched in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Indonesia and the
Philippines with the goal of establishing multi-stakeholder platforms at the national
level to drive fisheries improvement.
One potential obstacle to facilitating closer coordination between FIPs and system-
wide fisheries management plans could be the long timelines associated with FIPs,
estimated to take up to a decade to yield minimum levels of sustainability, and the
11
RFMOs are intergovernmental bodies that facilitate the management of fish stocks in a particular region,
and generally act as the management authority for shared and migratory species (such as highly migratory
tuna and billfish) and stocks that extend beyond a single national jurisdiction.
often short timelines associated with election cycles, generally between 2 and 4 years.
If FIPs are not fostered or seen as valuable by alternating political administrations, then
any monetary or time investments made into a FIP could loose value (Travaille et al.,
2019; Cannon et al., 2018). This challenge is particularly acute when considering the
longevity of a FIP; participants at the FIP Community of Practice in Indonesia were
concerned with how a fishery’s management should continue after the relevant FIP
had ended, since many FIPs lose their momentum in the absence of any coordinated or
perpetual effort to continue sustainable practices. This phenomenon could potentially
be reversed, if FIPs were more commonly seen as a tool to implement national fisheries
management plans.
FIPs can help national governments ensure that fishers and fishworkers are
complying with legislation and support them where capacity is otherwise lacking. On
the one hand, they could support legislation by making compliance a prerequisite to
entry. On the other hand, as was learned at the FIP Community of Practice workshop
in Indonesia, many small-scale fishing communities do not have access to information
regarding legislative requirements or changes, and as a result are penalized or excluded
in certain circumstances. NGOs operating in a FIP can provide assistance in this
regard, as they often have the resources and capacity to channel this information to
fishing communities, helping to coordinate administrative procedures between local
authorities and communities to ensure legislative compliance.
Participants at the FIP Community of Practice in Indonesia postulated that the
collaborative element of FIPs could support cooperation and dialogue between
governmental agencies. Lack of effective communication between agencies can result in
a delay to achieve national objectives or address the needs of the most disenfranchised.
By the same token, FIPs allow government agencies – and stakeholders in general
– the opportunity to meet and build trust with fishing communities. The Republic
of Ireland’s Seafood Development Agency affirms this latter point, observing
that its involvement in an Irish Brown Crab FIP has allowed stakeholders who
traditionally do not engage in dialogue to exchange ideas, information and planning
(personal communication with BIM, 24/04/19). A large part of this FIP’s workplan
is geared towards deepening the working relationship between science and industry
to improve the management of the fishery. On the one hand, fishers are expected
to provide catch data (quantities landed, areas fished, gear used, product buyers)
to help improve scientific knowledge of stock status or to verify progress towards
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). Likewise, processors who are members of the
Irish Brown Crab FIP have agreed to supply data on FIP products including vessel
details, quantities landed, processed quantities and where the product was sold. At
the same time, the FIP aims to improve the management structure of the fishery by
increasing input from fishers, processors and other industry players in the decision-
making process.
9.4 CONCLUSIONS
FIPs are premised on a multistakeholder approach for enhancing sustainable fisheries
management, with products derived from FIPs being used to fulfil sustainable seafood
demand in high-value markets. FIPs are being applied to small-scale fisheries. This case
study considered the strengths and weaknesses of FIPs as a mechanism to operationalize
paragrapahs 7.1 and 7.8 in Chapter 7 of the SSF Guidelines. FIPs demonstrate a degree
of alignment with the recommendations in the SSF Guidelines but there is still progress
to be made in certain areas.
In the context of paragraph 7.1, FIPs facilitate a certain amount of coordination
between relevant value chain players, promoting a multistakeholder system. However,
as cited in Crona, Käll and Van Holt (2019), in only 7 percent of the FIPs studied do
fishers and fishworkers play a central role in the management of the FIP.
In terms of promoting equitable international trade that benefits all stakeholders,

as stipulated by paragraph 7.8, Tolentino-Zondervan et al. (2016) found that fishers
benefit from being part of FIPs, although it should be noted that this study reflects
results from only two FIPs in the Philippines. In terms of preserving the natural
resource, Cannon et al. (2018), found that ‘management’ and ‘overfishing’ are more
adequently addressed in fisheries taking part in FIPs. The biggest issue facing FIPs,
in the context of paragraph 7.8, appears to be “greenwashing”, which threatens to
undermine incentivizing positive change and drive improvements, leading instead
to potential overexploitation of the natural resource and an undervaluing of the
sustainable seafood market.
Paragraph 7.8 also speaks to fisheries management systems, and it was found that
FIPs can contribute towards better fisheries management systems. Travaille et al.
(2019) found that FIPs performed better when the fishery is under the jurisdiction of
an RFMO, suggesting that collaborative frameworks for managing a resource can be
key to ensuring sustainability. Using the FIP model to bring about closer coordination
between governments, fishing communities, and FIP stakeholders, has the potential
to enhance system-wide management. Existing FIPs and their associated stakeholders
could incentivize increased government participation by agreeing to reinforce or
complement national fisheries management strategies.
Finally, one challenge not discussed here, but highly relevant to progressing FIPs
is the high cost of running a FIP. Though there is a burgeoning demand in high-
value markets for sustainable seafood, the majority of FIPs are currently sustained by
philanthropic aid and in-kind support from industry and NGOs (CEA, 2015). This
is not a sustainable strategy, and it is generally agreed by proponents of FIPs that to
scale FIPs and ensure their economic value for all, markets (consumers) need to pay for
the improved sustainability. Such a support dynamic could also mean that fishers and
fishworkers are relying on a precarious system that might vanish if current sources of
funding are stopped. Ultimately, when the financing of FIPs shifts from philanthropists
and NGOs to private entities in the seafood value chain, this will signal that the costs
of sustainability have been internalized.
One proposal from the interviewees that might help reduce the costs of small-scale
FIPs would be to broaden their scale and scope. The economic leveraging power of
an individual small-scale fishery is minimal (personal communication with SFP and
Scaling Blue, 08/04/19 and 09/04/19, respectively), but if multiple FIPs were bundled
or aggregated they could achieve greater economic efficiency. Furthermore, in this way
the scope of their activities can be harmonized and more easily monitored. Aggregating
FIPs could also help improve data collection and knowledge generation. All value
chain players require data to evaluate the efficacy of their decisions and investments;
moreover, data collection processes afford fishers and fishworkers the opportunity
to take a more engaged role in FIP management (Crona, Käll and Van Holt, 2019).
Nevertheless, literature on this topic is still minimal, so further work is encouraged to
understand the finer implications of bundling FIPs.
In conclusion, FIPs have the potential to drive collaborative management in small-
scale fisheries. In order for FIPs to promote sustainable fisheries management and
equitable trade in small-scale fisheries, a reconsideration of the current model is required
starting with greater inclusion of fishing communities and government authorities.
REFERENCES
AG Department, FAO. 2015. MP108. Rome.
Acott, T. & Urquhart, J. 2019. Sense of place and socio-cultural values in fishing
communities along the English Channel. In J. Urquhart, T. Acott, D. Symes & M. Zhao,
eds. Social Issues in Sustainable Fisheries Management, 1st edition, pp. 257–278. London,
Springer.
Barr, R., Bruner, A. & Edwards, S. 2019. Fisheries Improvement Projects and small-scale
fisheries: the need for a modified approach. Marine Policy, 105: 109–115.
Borland, M. & Bailey, M. 2019. Benchmarking data of the Fair Trade USA Capture
Fisheries Standard and the Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Standard against the
Food and Agricultural Organization’s Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable
Small-Scale Fisheries. Data in Brief, 24: 103850.
Bresnihan, P. 2016. Stewards of the sea: neoliberalism and the making of the environmental
entrepreneur. In P. Bresnihan, ed. Transforming the Fisheries: Neoliberalism, Nature, and
the Commons [online], pp. 57–90. Lincoln, USA, University of Nebraska Press. [Cited
25 August 2018]. (available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1d4v0w4.6).
Cannon, J., Sousa, P., Katara, I., Veiga, P., Spear, B., Beveridge, D. & Van Holt, T. 2018.
Fishery Improvement Projects: performance over the past decade. Marine Policy, 97:
179–187.
CASS (Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions). 2012. Guidelines for Supporting Fishery
Improvement Projects [online], p. 6. [Cited 6 September 2019]. http://solutionsforseafood.
org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Alliance-FIP-Guidelines-3.7.15.pdf
CEA (California Environmental Associates). 2015. Summary findings from the Global
Landscape Review of Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs). San Francisco, USA.
CEA. 2017. Progress Toward Sustainable Seafood – By the Numbers. Seafood Metrics
Report. San Francisco, USA, Packard Foundation.
CEA. 2020. Global Landscape Review of Fishery Improvement Projects. San Francisco, USA.
Coulthard, S., Johnson, D. & McGregor, J. 2011. Poverty, sustainability and human
wellbeing: a social wellbeing approach to the global fisheries crisis. Global Environmental
Change, 21(2): 453–463.
Crona, B., Käll, S. & Van Holt, T. 2019. Fishery Improvement Projects as a governance tool
for fisheries sustainability: a global comparative analysis. PLOS ONE, 14(10): e0223054.
FAO. 2015. Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the
Fishery Progress. 2019. Fishery Progress [online]. [Cited 6 September 2019]. https://
FisheryProgress/
GEF (Global Environment Facility). 2019. Global Sustainable Supply Chains for Marine
Commodities [online]. [Cited 4 December 2019]. (available at https://www.thegef.org/
project/global-sustainable-supply-chains-marine-commodities).
Guyader, O., Berthou, P., Koutsikopoulos, C., Alban, F., Demanèche, S., Gaspar, M.,
Eschbaum, R. et al. 2013. Small scale fisheries in Europe: a comparative analysis based
on a selection of case studies. Fisheries Research, 140: 1–13.
Irish Brown Crab FIP. 2019. Irish Brown Crab FIP [online]. [Cited 6 September 2019].
http://irishbrowncrabfip.ie/
Kittinger, J., Teh, L., Allison, E., Bennett, N., Crowder, L., Finkbeiner, E., Hicks, C. et al.
2017. Committing to socially responsible seafood. Science, 356(6341): 912–913.
Melnychuk, M., Peterson, E., Elliott, M., Hilborn, R. 2016. Fisheries management impacts
on target species status. PNAS. 114 (1) 178-183.
MSC (Marine Stewardship Council). 2019. The MSC Fisheries Standard. In: Marine
Stewardship Council [online]. [Cited 4 December 2019]. (available at https://www.msc.
org/standards-and-certification/fisheries-standard).
Opal, C. 2017. Framework for Social Responsibility in the Seafood Sector. https://
certificationandratings.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Framework-Final-Print.pdf
Ponte, S. 2012. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the making of a market for
‘sustainable fish’. Journal of Agrarian Change, 12(2-3): 300–315.
Roheim, C. & Zhang, D. 2018. Sustainability certification and product substitutability:
evidence from the seafood market. Food Policy, 79: 92–100.
Sampson, G., Sanchirico, J., Roheim, C., Bush, S., Taylor, J., Allison, E., Anderson, J. et al.
2015. Secure sustainable seafood from developing countries. Science, 348(6234): 504–506.
SFP (Sustainable Fisheries Partnership). 2019. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership [online].

[Cited 6 September 2019]. (available at https://www.sustainablefish.org/).
Smart Fish AC. 2019. Quinquennial Report. La Paz.
Stratoudakis, Y., McConney, P., Duncan, J., Ghofar, A., Gitonga, N., Mohamed, K.,
Samoilys, M., Symington, K. & Bourillon, L. 2016. Fisheries certification in the
developing world: locks and keys or square pegs in round holes? Fisheries Research, 182:
39–49.
Sustainable Fisheries UW. 2019. Fishery Improvement Projects Database. In: Sustainable
Fisheries UW [online]. [Cited 6 September 2019]. http://sustainablefisheries-uw.org/
databases/fishery-improvement-projects-database/
Teh, L., Caddell, R., Allison, E., Finkbeiner, E., Kittinger, J., Nakamura, K. & Ota, Y.
2019. The role of human rights in implementing socially responsible seafood. PLOS
ONE, 14(1): e0210241.
Thomas Travaille, K., Crowder, L., Kendrick, G. & Clifton, J. 2019. Key attributes related
to Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) effectiveness in promoting improvements towards
sustainability. Fish and Fisheries, 20(3): 452–465.
Tolentino-Zondervan, F., Berentsen, P., Bush, S., Digal, L. & Oude Lansink, A. 2016.
Fisher-level decision making to participate in Fisheries Improvement Projects (FIPs) for
yellowfin tuna in the Philippines. PLOS ONE, 11(10): e0163537.
UN (United Nations). 2014. Frequently Asked Questions about the Guiding Principles on
Business and Human Rights. New York, USA, p. 29.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2018. Human Development
Indicators and Indices: 2018 Statistical Update Team. Washington, DC.
Van Holt, T., Weisman, W., Johnson, J., Käll, S., Whalen, J., Spear, B. & Sousa, P. 2016.
A Social Wellbeing in Fisheries Tool (SWIFT) to help improve fisheries performance.
Sustainability, 8(8): 667.
World Bank, FAO, ARD (Agriculture and Rural Development) & WorldFish. 2012.
Hidden Harvest: The Global Contribution of Capture Fisheries. Washington, DC, World
Bank.
Appendix 1
Process for FIPs

Stage Activity
0 – FIP Identification • Identification of a fishery that may benefit from a Fishery
Improvement Project
• Supply chain analysis conducted to understand who else is
involved in the fishery and what market leverage exists
1 – FIP Development • Assessment of the fishery’s environmental performance
• Scoping document completed by a consultant
• Stakeholder mapping and engagement process
2 – FIP Launch • Confirmation of project participants
• Participant meeting
• Development of the workplan
- Objectives
- List of activities
- Delegation of responsibilities
- Timeline and milestones committed
- Metrics and key performance indicators
- Associated budget
• Workplan made public
3 – FIP Implementation • Implementing activities in the workplan
• Tracking and reporting on progress
• Course correcting if needed
4 – Improvements in Fishing Practices or • Improvements in policy or management or modifications in
Management fishing practices
• Increases in scores for MSC performance indicators focused on
management or information
5 – Improvements on the Water • Increases in scores for MSC performance indicators focused on
outcomes
• Verifiable change on the water
6 – MSC Certification (for Comprehensive • Validation of the improvements in the fishery through the full
FIPs only) MSC assessment process; must be carried out by an accredited
certification body
Source: CASS website; for a more detailed version, http://solutionsforseafood.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/
Alliance-FIP-Guidelines-3.7.15.pdf.
Appendix 2
Interview guide for FIP interviews
What is your experience with FIP and/or other multistakeholder fisheries management
schemes?
What aspects of the FIP approach do you think set it apart from other management
approaches?
Would you agree that the FIP approach is inclusive of all post-harvest stakeholders?
Why?
Is the FIP approach helping small-scale fishers and fishworkers improve their position/
standing in fishery value chains?
Do you think it will continue to grow in popularity? Why?
What do you think are the major challenges to the FIP approach?
Has the FIP approach helped create strong social organization? Why?
What recommendations would you make to policymakers to increase the benefits

promised by the FIP approach?
The SSF Guidelines recognize the right of fishers and fishworkers, acting both
individually and collectively, to improve their livelihoods through value chains,
post-harvest operations and trade. To achieve this, the Guidelines recommend
building capacity of individuals, strengthening organizations and empowering
women; reducing post-harvest losses and adding value to small-scale fisheries
production; and facilitating sustainable trade and equitable market access.
This document includes nine studies showcasing applied practices and successful
initiatives in support of enhancing small-scale fisheries value chains, post-harvest
operations and trade, based on the recommendations contained in the SSF
Guidelines. Cases presented have been chosen on the basis that they can be
emulated elsewhere by small-scale fishery proponents including, but not limited
to, national administrations, non-governmental organizations, civil society
organizations, private enterprises, development agencies and intergovernmental
bodies. An analysis of enabling conditions as well as related challenges and
opportunities are discussed in each case.
The document supports the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development –
specifically SDG 14.b: “provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine
resources and markets”; and SDG 2.3: “by 2030 double the agricultural
productivity and the incomes of small-scale food producers, particularly women,
indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through
secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs,
knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and
non-farm employment”.
ISBN 978-92-5-132350-2 ISSN 2070-7010
9 789251 323502
CA8402EN/1/06.20

Ca 8402 en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ca 8402 en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ca 8402 en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAO

Showcasing applied practices in value chains, 652

Omar Riego Peñarubia

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Preparation of this document

This FAO technical paper on Securing sustainable small-scale fisheries: showcasing

Preparation of this document iii

SHOWCASING APPLIED PRACTICES IN VALUE CHAINS, POST-HARVEST

This technical paper on Securing sustainable small-scale fisheries: showcasing applied

Abbreviations and acronyms

Showcasing applied practices

THE SSF GUIDELINES

CHAPTER 7 OF THE SSF GUIDELINES: VALUE CHAINS, POST-HARVEST

Build capacity of individuals, strengthen organizations and empower women

Reduce post-harvest losses and add value to small-scale fisheries production

assessments of post-harvest losses in small-scale fisheries are difficult to obtain, as much

Facilitate sustainable trade and equitable market access

OVERVIEW OF CASE STUDIES

SSF Guidelines paragraphs on value chains, post-harvest and trade

1. The Central Fish Processors

2. The Kodiak Jig Initiative: Ensuring

3. The FAO-Thiaroye processing

4. Fish traders and processors

5. Seafood direct marketing:

6. Fair Trade: Certification of a

7. Madagascar’s mud crab fishery:

8. State-led fisheries development:

9. Fishery Improvement Projects: In

Case study 3: Ford et al. provide an overview of The FAO-Thiaroye processing

Case study 5: Pomeroy et al. examine Seafood direct marketing: Supporting

Guiding Principle 6 of the SSF Guidelines recognizes the importance of consultation

Case study 1: The CFPA is a fisherfolk organization composed entirely of women,

Case study 9: FIPs are premised on a multistakeholder approach for enhancing

7.3 States should foster, provide and enable investments in appropriate

Economic, social and environmental sustainability is Guiding Principle 10 of the SSF

Case study 3: The FTT facilitates access to international markets by producing

7.7 States should give due consideration to the impact of international

Enhancing the contribution of small-scale fisheries to food security is a key objective of

by market demand. Case studies 6, 8 and 9 present examples of initiatives designed to

Case study 9: Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs) aim to address unsustainable

Social responsibility is Guiding Principle 12 of the SSF Guidelines. Paragraph 7.9

Transparency is Guiding Principle 8 of the SSF Guidelines. Paragraph 7.10 reinforces

processing, packaging and trading techniques. FLEs bring together representatives

1. The Central Fish Processors

Keywords: Collective action, fisherfolk organization, value chain, post-harvest,

1.1.1 Barbados flyingfish fishery

Map conforms to: Map No. 4170

Source: BIOPAMA Programme.

1.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1.3.1 Central fish processors association profile

1.3.2 Support associations of fishers and fishworkers and promote their

Following failed attempts at fisherfolk organizing, the government implemented

Following the completion of the FODP, the Fisheries Division continued to

1.3.3 Provision of appropriate infrastructure, organizational structures and

1.3.4 Enabling and enhancing women’s participation in the post-harvest

themselves to approach management collectively or invite management to meetings

1.3.5 Post-harvest actors are part of the decision-making process

1.3.6 CFPA good practices built on SSF Guidelines principles

2. The Kodiak Jig Initiative: