71
5 Livelihoods in the Context of Fisheries – A Governability Challenge
primary point of reference, there are numerous variations of the livelihoods approach
with different categorizations and weightings of incorporated variables. Following
Sen and Chambers, livelihoods approaches share the basic assumption that, like
poverty, livelihoods are diverse, multidimensional and comprised of varying sets of
assets or capitals that people employ to cope with threats to their wellbeing. In keeping with Chambers’ actor-centered approach, livelihoods approaches treat the poor
as creative agents who seek to use their resources, regardless of how limited they
might be, to meet their needs as effectively as possible. Livelihoods approaches may
be applied at multiple scales (Scoones 1999 ) , but are most commonly applied at the
household level (White and Ellison 2007 , 160). This is sensible, because most people organize production, distribution and reproduction at that level. Scoones ( 1999 )
notes that while livelihoods approaches are intended for use in developing country
contexts, they are universally applicable. Livelihoods approaches also have origins
in the sustainability discourse, with sustainable livelihoods a common pairing of
concepts. This connection points to the idea that resilient livelihood strategies are
those that can cope with threats and resist shocks. Resilient livelihoods are evidenced in fi sheries by features such as the multiple gears and diverse knowledge
that fi shers possess, and the common integration of non- fi sheries activities into their
livelihood strategies (Allison and Ellis 2001 ; Allison and Horemans 2006 ) . The
connection also indicates awareness of the fact that many rural livelihoods have
signi fi cant and direct reliance on ecosystem services, and that there is a relationship
between sustainable livelihoods and the sustainability of resource use. These are,
of course, obvious features of fi sheries.
Livelihoods approaches are typically organized around frameworks that establish a logical relationship among the key elements deemed to constitute a livelihood
(Bebbington 1999 , 2029–2030; Scoones 1999 , 4; Allison and Ellis 2001 , 379;
Allison and Horemans 2006 , 759; Bebbington et al. 2007 , 181). These are schemas
that attempt to capture the dynamic relationship between the creative attempts of
actors to construct their livelihoods in the context of a variety of structuring forces.
The exercise of agency is interpreted through the use people make of their livelihood assets. The range of these assets and how they are identi fi ed, alternatively as
capitals or resources, varies from framework to framework. Among the examples
considered here, the commonly shared assets are natural, human, and social capital.
In addition to these, some schemas lump together physical and fi nancial capital,
while others separate them. Political and cultural capital are additional variables
that are occasionally used. The con fi guration of assets that different authors use
represents different ways of splitting up the important variables that in fl uence livelihood sustainability. Each type of asset refers to the resources that individuals and
households may draw upon. They include, among others, access to social networks,
natural resources, and money and material goods; personal health, skills and knowledge; and the degree to which one can lay claim to or mobilize socially signi fi cant
meanings and symbols. Assets are not mutually exclusive and, instead, are deeply
interconnected (cf. White and Ellison 2007 ) . In small-scale fi sheries, for example,
the social capital of kinship networks may facilitate access to fi nancial capital in the
form of loans or to natural capital in the form of access to prime fi shing sites.
5 Livelihoods in the Context of Fisheries – A Governability Challenge
primary point of reference, there are numerous variations of the livelihoods approach
with different categorizations and weightings of incorporated variables. Following
Sen and Chambers, livelihoods approaches share the basic assumption that, like
poverty, livelihoods are diverse, multidimensional and comprised of varying sets of
assets or capitals that people employ to cope with threats to their wellbeing. In keeping with Chambers’ actor-centered approach, livelihoods approaches treat the poor
as creative agents who seek to use their resources, regardless of how limited they
might be, to meet their needs as effectively as possible. Livelihoods approaches may
be applied at multiple scales (Scoones 1999 ) , but are most commonly applied at the
household level (White and Ellison 2007 , 160). This is sensible, because most people organize production, distribution and reproduction at that level. Scoones ( 1999 )
notes that while livelihoods approaches are intended for use in developing country
contexts, they are universally applicable. Livelihoods approaches also have origins
in the sustainability discourse, with sustainable livelihoods a common pairing of
concepts. This connection points to the idea that resilient livelihood strategies are
those that can cope with threats and resist shocks. Resilient livelihoods are evidenced in fi sheries by features such as the multiple gears and diverse knowledge
that fi shers possess, and the common integration of non- fi sheries activities into their
livelihood strategies (Allison and Ellis 2001 ; Allison and Horemans 2006 ) . The
connection also indicates awareness of the fact that many rural livelihoods have
signi fi cant and direct reliance on ecosystem services, and that there is a relationship
between sustainable livelihoods and the sustainability of resource use. These are,
of course, obvious features of fi sheries.
Livelihoods approaches are typically organized around frameworks that establish a logical relationship among the key elements deemed to constitute a livelihood
(Bebbington 1999 , 2029–2030; Scoones 1999 , 4; Allison and Ellis 2001 , 379;
Allison and Horemans 2006 , 759; Bebbington et al. 2007 , 181). These are schemas
that attempt to capture the dynamic relationship between the creative attempts of
actors to construct their livelihoods in the context of a variety of structuring forces.
The exercise of agency is interpreted through the use people make of their livelihood assets. The range of these assets and how they are identi fi ed, alternatively as
capitals or resources, varies from framework to framework. Among the examples
considered here, the commonly shared assets are natural, human, and social capital.
In addition to these, some schemas lump together physical and fi nancial capital,
while others separate them. Political and cultural capital are additional variables
that are occasionally used. The con fi guration of assets that different authors use
represents different ways of splitting up the important variables that in fl uence livelihood sustainability. Each type of asset refers to the resources that individuals and
households may draw upon. They include, among others, access to social networks,
natural resources, and money and material goods; personal health, skills and knowledge; and the degree to which one can lay claim to or mobilize socially signi fi cant
meanings and symbols. Assets are not mutually exclusive and, instead, are deeply
interconnected (cf. White and Ellison 2007 ) . In small-scale fi sheries, for example,
the social capital of kinship networks may facilitate access to fi nancial capital in the
form of loans or to natural capital in the form of access to prime fi shing sites.