Policies may be considered as guides for action. Policy can also be defined as making decisions that reflect values and allocating resources based on such values. Policies may contain guidelines, principles or directions on what is to be done, who is to do it, how it is to be done and who stands to benefit. Thus, policy represents a particular political, ethical, or programmatic viewpoint. A country’s policy reflects theoretical or experiential assumptions about what is required to resolve a particular issue or problem.
In developing countries and in the sub-Saharan countries in particular, the issues of poverty, hunger, food and nutritional security are all central to the present and future prospects of human and economic development. Policy formulation on these issues requires a clear understanding of the realities on the ground.
Unfortunately, government policy formulation procedures have become exercises which are increasingly ‘top-down’ with the involvement of ‘expert consultants’ and undertaken (perhaps) with tight time schedules. These policies are then, passed down to the departments, organizations or groups responsible for implementing the policy. Finally, the impacts reach the people who are affected by the policy. Often, policies cannot be integrated with reality and so they remain solely on paper.
Ensuring greater integration in policies
From our analysis of policy documents, the inadequacy of integration of fisheries and aquaculture in policies that pertain to food and nutritional security is clearly evident. Unquestionably, there are deficiencies in the process of policy formulation.
There are at least three important measures that could be taken to rectify these deficiencies.
Firstly, integration presupposes greater participation of at least two interest groups, those responsible for implementing the policy and those affected by the policy. To start with, policy formulation must incorporate some structured or mandatory requirement for greater participation of national-level officers who represent the fisheries sectors. Our analysis of the awareness and knowledge of the fishery officers (see Chapter 2 above) points to a reasonably high level of understanding of the role of fish in food and nutritional security. This would not have been possible if they did not have adequate academic attainments, and field level involvement. An important strategy to achieve such participation would be for national governments to have mandated requirements for well informed and motivated officers involved in the policy making process with external consultants.
A second measure for greater integration would be to strengthen institutional memory. There is an important corpus of studies that have been completed at the national and regional levels on various aspects of fish and fisheries. These form an important body of knowledge and evidence relating to the various patterns of fish production and consumption in the ESA-IO countries.
Every time a new policy formulation is commissioned, it should be made mandatory to review the existing fund of knowledge. There is no rationale or justification for re-inventing the wheel.
A third measure for greater integration lies in more focused capacity development of officers dealing with fish and fishery issues at the national level. Specific training programs are needed for middle- and top-level officers on data requirements for policy formulation and how this data should be converted to information elements for policy. For example, capable officers should be encouraged to formulate policy briefs by themselves, substantiated with data and credible information; highlighting the significance of fish and fisheries; and direct and indirect paths for achieving food security in the country.
If in the short and medium term, the above-mentioned measures can be implemented, there is likely to be more integration of the importance of fish and fisheries into the food security policies of countries of the ESA-IO region.
If there is structured involvement of the various interest groups in the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the policy development process, a far greater level of integration can be achieved (bottom-up approach). These may include: arranging for public hearings; consultation with local level organisations of fishers and fish harvesters the processing industry, the fish distributors and traders; inputs from NGOs working in the sector; sourcing ideas from food and nutrition extension workers and mothers who gather at health and nutrition clinics and so forth.
Greater integration can also come from a top-down approach involving senior political leaders. This can be achieved by well-planned and short (one-day) awareness and policy workshops organized with support from international organisations such as the FAO/UN, World Food Program (WFP), UNICEF and others. Such events2 need to be high profile at
national or regional levels. They should be followed through systematically with publicity, awareness programs, demonstration vents and so forth. These events must link with the political and electoral interests of top policy makers.
2
5. Conclusions
A preliminary assessment of the integration of fisheries and aquaculture into the food and nutrition policy frameworks of the East and South Africa and Indian Ocean countries was attempted as part of this study. This initiated the understanding of factors that aid and hinder integration as viewed by fishery officers of the 20 countries involved. There is always a desire to raise the levels of integration of fisheries into policy and fish into diets. This practice may not be possible or viable in every country.
Countries with the potential for integration and countries with a real need were then examined. The latter was the focus of our attention because greater integration of fisheries and fish is the challenge of the SmartFish program. It is necessary to raise awareness of this point: this is only possible in countries where the right conditions exist to create awareness. Our foregoing analysis led to the creation of a list of six countries: Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Together they account for a third of the population in our study of 20 countries. Currently fish consumption is not high in these countries but they have the resources and ecosystem potential for expansion of their fisheries. This can raise food security both directly (increasing the consumption of fish) and indirectly (creating jobs, raising income, etc. leading to a greater purchase and consumption of fish).
From the REC analysis it is apparent that there are also consolidation measures that can be undertaken regionally and these should also be attempted simultaneously. There is synergy in linking national and regional initiatives. Most measures call for greater levels of cooperation between the various departments of countries. Integration is possible only with genuine and committed cooperation. Emphasis must be placed on capacity building and greater participation, directly and indirectly, in the policy making process.
Whilst the debates on ‘right to food’ rage on in policy arenas of international development discourse, millions of people go hungry. Equal numbers eat but do not necessarily the same or adequate nourishment from their meals to prepare their bodies for a hard day’s work. It is in such contexts where sourcing foods, which are readily available and affordable, attains significance.
Chapter 4 assesses the degree of integration in ‘word and deed’, in seven countries in this study namely: Comoros, Djibouti, Malawi, Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia. These countries were identified fish as being important but presently overlooked in policy discussions. By integrating these countries with those identified above as having potential for increased fish consumption, a final list of five countries where SmartFish could start advocacy work can be drawn up: Comoros, Djibouti, Malawi, Rwanda, and Zambia.
Some countries are of particular interest, such as Mauritius: Mauritius ranks as one of the countries with a very high potential for fisheries and aquaculture to play a role in food and nutritional security.
However, in terms of the integration of fisheries and aquaculture, Mauritius ranks in the medium range, whilst in the analysis of the mismatch between the importance of fisheries and its inclusion in policies, it is listed in the upper ranks. This puts Mauritius in a strange position, since fisheries already seem to play a very relevant role in terms of food security however, not enough importance is given to the sector in national policies. Therefore, it seems relevant to include Mauritius among those countries where SmartFish should implement activities, given the focus of interventions could be on policies and means of enhancing fisheries integration in the food security scheme, and the redesign of policies to improve the consideration of fisheries when it comes to food security. This could be considered as a higher intervention in terms of enhancing the inclusion of fisheries in food security policies, since consumption is already high in a non-food insecure country. It could also provide lessons for application in the first five countries selected, where consolidation of the fisheries and aquaculture sector in national food security is at an earlier stage. It would also help to assess the particular requirements in terms of policy interventions for island nations, in order to widen the spectrum of actions to adopt towards strengthening the contribution of fisheries to national food and nutritional security.
Consequently, it is recommended interventions by the SmartFish program in Comoros, Djibouti, Malawi, Rwanda, Zambia and Mauritius, be designed to include advocacy work towards the promotion of consumption, capacity building, and deepening awareness of the need to include fisheries in national food security policies, and at the same time, take into consideration the particular needs and characteristics of these nations.
References
ADB, OECD, UNDP, UNECA 2012: African Economic Outlook, 2012
FAO, 1993: Marketing and consumption of fish in eastern and southern Africa: Selected country studies. FTP 332, Rome
FAO, 2010: Post-harvest losses in small-scale fisheries: case studies in five sub-Saharan African countries. FTP 550, Rome
FAO, 2012: The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012, Rome FAO, 2012: The State of Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2012, Rome
Haug, A. et al, 2010: Use of dried Kapenta (Limnothrissa miodon and Stolothrissa tanganicae) and other products based on whole fish for complementing maize-based diets, AJFAND Online Vol. 10 No. 5
ICLARM/GTZ, 1991: The Context of Small-Scale Integrated Agriculture-Aquaculture Systems in Africa: A Case Study of Malawi, Manila
MRAG, 2005: Review of Impacts of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing on Developing Countries: Synthesis Report, London
NEPAD, 2005: HIDDEN HARVESTS: Unlocking the Potential of Aquaculture in Africa, Technical Review Paper, Aquaculture, NEPAD, Fish for All Summit, Abuja
UNDP, 2012: Africa Human Development Report 2012: Towards a Food Secure Future, New York
WorldFish, 1995: Fish Supply and Food Security for Africa, Penang
WorldFish, 2009: Aquaculture, Fisheries, Poverty and Food Security, Working paper 2011- 65, Penang
World Bank, 2011: African Development Indicators 2011, Washington World Bank, 2011: The Little Data Book on Africa, Washington
COMESA EAC IGAD IOC SADC