This research aims to investigate the root causes as to why fishing and coastal communities continue to be poor even after 1994. While macro-economic policy changes have had a huge bearing on reform of the industry and access rights continue to be a key issue, some of the key issues this research aims to interrogate are; what have been the implications of macro-policy change on sectoral policy on poverty alleviation in fishing communities? Why is it that the SMMEs have not created the jobs that they were supposed to? Why are permanent jobs being lost in the established sector? What are the implications of long-term rights poverty alleviation? What key governance structures are needed to improve the poverty alleviation function of fishing and coastal resources?

Three frameworks are proposed for research and analysis, namely, Béné’s (2003) typology for ‘Understanding Poverty in Small-scale Fisheries’, ‘Vulnerability’ and ‘Mobility’. Béné (2003) argues that institutional dynamics are paramount in understanding poverty in small-scale fisheries. Socio-institutional mechanisms” refer to the set of rules, norms, conventions, institutional arrangements, forms of co-ordination or social (class) organization and decision-making processes through which the social actors (individuals and collectives) interact to gain and maintain their command (access, use and control) over the resources and benefits extracted from them (ibid.:950).

Béné’s (2003) analytical framework provides a useful entry point and analytical tool for understanding and contexualising poverty in South African fishing communities. The author proposes a typology of four factors and processes for analysing poverty in small-scale fishing communities: a) economic exclusion, b) social marginalisation, c) class exploitation and d) political disempowerment. Such a categorisation may prove useful in structuring further research efforts, and it indicates clearly that poverty research within fisheries could pursue the same paths as poverty research related to any other type of economic activity. In South Africa’s case, the historical context regarding these different processes will also be useful for understanding these phenomena.

The overall aim is therefore to substantiate further some of the findings particularly relevant for poverty analysis and to contribute to refine the understanding of fisheries role in poverty processes in African fisheries. For practical reasons the main empirical focus will lie in the Southern African region (Malawi, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe) but due to some very challenging differences between fisheries development in this region and in West Africa, the latter will also be included in order to open for some broader comparative analyses.

One of the most important finding in that project was that the natural out of the six-team members in this project participated in the project: Management, co-management, or no-management? Major dilemmas in sustainable resource seldom constitute the most important concern for the management of fisheries in SADC freshwaters.

The Norwegian Research Council funds this research and the lead institute is the Chr Michelsen Institute. Other partner institutions include: CSR, Chancellors College, University of Malawi; PLAAS, University of Western Cape and CASS, University of Zimbabwe.