MANERAS DE CALIBRAR (IDENTIFICAR) UN CAMBIO DE ESTADO Observe las variaciones en:

This section outlines two key approaches (Sustainable Livelihoods and Wellbeing) through which deeper analysis of socio-cultural values and dynamics associated with SSF have been advocated. The need for a more in-depth analysis of small-scale natural resource based activities (including fishing) has emerged from a heightened global awareness of change and increasing resource scarcity. This has highlighted the challenges which proliferate in the arena of resource management and have prompted the question of how management might respond to global change. Complementing

20

this awareness has been a parallel shift in focus from ‘resources’ to ‘humans and nature’. This transition is largely attributed to recognition that the fate of natural resources will lie ultimately with the relations towards, behaviours surrounding and demands exerted by humans upon them10 (Andersson et al 1995: 13; Agrawal and Yadama 1997; Berkes et al. 1998; Wackernagel and Silverstein, 2000; Cote and Nightingale 2012). Furthermore, this new-understanding appreciates that humanity will always depend upon the life-support functions offered by ecosystems, irrespective of technological change (Berkes et al. 1998).

1.4.1. Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA)

The conventional definition of sustainability is that used by the World Commission on Environment and Development, which is “an approach to progress which meets

the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987). Since the 1992 Earth Summit, sustainable

development has emerged as comprising three dimensions commonly referred to as the ‘triple bottom line’ or metaphorical three pillars. These comprise ecology, economics and society (Lehtonen 2004; Hall et al. 2013). Development of the SLA has been powered by livelihoods research investigating the societal-pillar which supports sustainability. Principles behind ‘livelihoods’ evolved during a search for a more “effective and meaningful methodology to support people and communities” (Appendini 2001:24) as development studies ultimately sought to further our understanding of poverty and the life-limitations imposed by such circumstances

10

21

(Chambers and Conway 1992; Ashley and Carney 1999). Ideas behind livelihoods therefore arose from a desire to understand how different people in different places live (Ellis 1998). The approach was promoted as ‘non-sectoral and grounded in the multi-dimensional reality of daily life’ (Kalbe et al. 2004: 49). As the agenda gained momentum, attention shifted towards the way in which a living is obtained; through assessment of the capabilities, assets (material and social resources) and activities involved (Ellis 2000; Scherr 2000). The inclusion of individual capabilities was informed by earlier publications on entitlements from the development literature (Sen; 1981; Sen 1991).

The livelihoods approach positioned assets or capital (in natural, human, social, physical and financial forms) as central, mediated by contextual policies, institutions and processes. Early applications of ‘livelihoods’ quickly captured the importance of either individual or household diversification; deliberately, as an involuntary response, or through choice and opportunity; but ultimately as a means of reducing the risk of income variability or failure (Ellis 1998; Ellis 2000; Barrett et al. 2001: 35; Thorpe 2004: 21). The ability to undertake diversification was observed to have complex affects on rural inequality; by increasing survival chances of the poorest (in income terms) but also favouring the wealthiest, ultimately able to access more lucrative opportunities (Ellis 1998; Ellis 2000). In fisheries, the SLA has informed social research by exposing the vulnerabilities of those associated with fishing through external threats (Allison and Ellis 2001). This has been crucial given that social research in SSF is lagging. Furthermore, the SLA has revealed that the ability

22

of fishing individuals and their livelihoods to cope with risks and recover from shocks, essentially define their sustainability (Allison and Horemans 2006).

Shortfalls in strict applications of the livelihoods approach have been recognised (de Haans and Zoomers 2005). For example, the framework is criticised as over- emphasising the materiality of life; focussing upon asset holdings and economic gain while paying less attention to social and cultural norms which regulate how assets and income may be used. It is also argued that the livelihoods agenda fails to capture longer-term shifts and changes, for example in power or politics; climate effects or rural economies (Scoones 2009). In terms of fisheries research, it has been cautioned that the livelihoods framework only lends itself to partial investigation of deeper beliefs, needs and aspirations and only narrowly engages with the social and cultural values associated with SSF (Macfadyen and Corcoran 2002; Coulthard et al. 2011). The SLA is still considered a holistic approach to understanding socio-economics of fishing, but one that places greatest emphasis on materiality and assets (Weeratunge et al. 2013).

1.4.2. Wellbeing Approaches

More recently, the concept of wellbeing has emerged as the boundaries of poverty research have extended, prompted not only by shortfalls in the SLA but recognition within the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s) that education, gender-equality, health and environmental sustainability as well as poverty, are core components of development (Agarwala et al. in press). Wellbeing, unlike many approaches has embraced the positive being-well, considered an inherently ‘good thing’ (White and

23

Pettit 2004; White 2010). The Wellbeing in Developing Countries (WeD) research group based at the University of Bath pioneered development of participatory research into wellbeing which they defined as “a state of being with others and the natural environment that arises where human needs are met, where individuals and groups can act meaningfully to pursue their goals, and where they are satisfied with their way of life” (McGregor 2008). A universal definition of wellbeing remains contested however and rather research focus is upon ‘what is or could be meant by wellbeing’ given its very grounding in social and cultural contexts (White 2010; Agarwala et al. in press).

Measurement of wellbeing was initially pursued through two separate channels; by economists, psychologists and sociologists and otherwise by collaborations between clinicians and psychologists (White and Pettit 2004). More recently wellbeing has been integrated into development and anthropological analysis. Avocation of wellbeing in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) brought the ecosystem closer to social-science and development studies, by asking how changes in natural systems influence human wellbeing (MA 2005; Milner-Gulland 2012). In attempting this, the MA broadly defined five categories including security, basic material needs, health, good social relations and freedom of choice (MA 2005). However, this definition has been criticised for encouraging aggregate ‘social analysis’ which overlooks any existence of subgroups and is therefore limited in any ability to inform of intricacies which influence circumstances of poverty (Daw et al. 2011). Furthermore, Bevan (2005) emphasised that for many rural-poor in low-income developing countries, ill-being might still prevail as a more relevant focus.

24

Despite necessary cautions outlined in its application, wellbeing harbours potential for furthering our understanding the impact that current and future environmental changes may have on the worlds’ poorest and most vulnerable populations. Wellbeing therefore both builds upon and furthers social analysis beyond the materiality of the SLA and the concept of individual needs, capabilities and freedoms. It does so by emphasising the collective interplay between individual and group-level requirements (White 2010; Coulthard et al. 2011; Armitage et al. 2012). Wellbeing approaches also focus beyond the materiality of SLA by considering (i) the ‘relational’ interactions involved in generating and maintaining social, political and cultural identities and (ii) the ‘subjective’ components which encompass cultural values, norms and beliefs; notions of self, individual and shared hopes and aspirations; levels of trust, satisfaction, dissatisfaction and confidence (White 2010; Coulthard et al. 2011; Armitage et al. 2012). From a personal perspective, wellbeing therefore engages with the social and cultural foundations upon which institutions are enacted (White 2010; Coulthard et al. 2011). Wellbeing research has also identified a need for improved knowledge of the perceptions and motivations behind resource- use in order to identify factors that influence extractive decision-making and behaviours (Coulthard et al., 2011).