Fisher-Level Decision Making to Participate in Fisheries Improvement Projects (FIPs) for Yellowfin Tuna in the Philippines

Abstract

This study identifies the capabilities needed by small-scale fishers to participate in Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs) for yellowfin tuna in the Philippines. The current literature provides little empirical evidence on how different models, or types of FIPs, influence the participation of fishers in their programs and the degree which FIPs are able to foster improvements in fishing practices. To address this literature gap, two different FIPs are empirically analysed, each with different approaches for fostering improvement. The first is the non-governmental organisation-led Partnership Programme Towards Sustainable Tuna, which adopts a bottom-up or development oriented FIP model. The second is the private-led Artesmar FIP, which adopts a top-down or market-oriented FIP approach. The data were obtained from 350 fishers surveyed and were analysed using two separate models run in succession, taking into consideration full, partial, and non-participation in the two FIPs. The results demonstrate that different types of capabilities are required in order to participate in different FIP models. Individual firm capabilities are more important for fishers participation in market-oriented FIPs, which use direct economic incentives to encourage improvements in fisher practices. Collective capabilities are more important for fishers to participate in development-oriented FIPs, which drive improvement by supporting fishers, fisher associations, and governments to move towards market requirements.

Fishery Improvement Projects as a governance tool for fisheries sustainability: A global comparative analysis

“…Only 25% of FIPs examined report engaging both fishers and retailers or 1st tier suppliers in their reported activities, and when they do, it is primarily related to various training programs involving fishers, ranging from appropriate gear use, to log books, monitoring, and handling practices. This is positive, and in line with conclusions made by e.g., Tolentino-Zondervan and colleagues [12] who note that FIPs must foster fishers’ capabilities in addition to higher ex-vessel fish prices. However, only 7% of FIPs in our study included fishers as one of the FIP lead actors, and there is a notable lack of articulated strategies for how to achieve fisher capacity building in most FIPs reporting, nor is socio-economic data that could improve understanding of social impact of changed practices generally collected (as noted above).…”

“…What is notable though, is that data collection is primarily focused on only biological data. Furthermore, most FIPs collect data only on the species in focus in the FIP even though it is clear that in many fisheries, particularly in developing countries, fishermen engage in the extraction of multiple species [12,50,51]. Also notable is that no FIP reported data collection on fishers’ behavior.…”

“…Despite their remarkable growth–from a handful in 2007 to 107 in 2015 –FIPs have received limited attention in the governance literature. Studies about FIPs are largely limited to individual case studies [8–12] and a few consultancy reports [6,13,14]. Three notable exceptions include Sampson et al [15], Cannon et al [7], Thomas Travaille et al [16] but these authors focus primarily on measurable outcomes, often in the water.…”

Key attributes related to fishery improvement project (FIP) effectiveness in promoting improvements towards sustainability

“…The majority of information about FIP use has come from specific case studies (e.g. Bush et al, 2017;Deighan & Jenkins, 2015;Doddema, 2012;Duggan & Kochen, 2016;Tolentino-Zondervan, Berensten, Bush, Digal, & Oude Lansink, 2016). There have also been multiple broad reviews of FIP performance globally (e.g.…”

Certify sustainable retailers?

“…Either coordinated directly by retailers or with the support of NGOs or consultants, AIPs support producers to move towards certification by, for example, directly financing improved farm practices, providing support for training on stocking, and pharmaceutical use, or paying for consultants to assist with the paperwork required to demonstrate improvement (SFP, 2016). In coordination terms, there are two general categories of these improvement projects (Tolentino-Zondervan et al, 2016). First, top-down projects promote improvement by linking market access and higher prices with standard compliance.…”