HANDBOOK Leveraging Social Protection and Jobs Interventions for Sustainable Fisheries HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES I © 2025 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 +1 202.473.1000 www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommer- cial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to: World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: COVER IMAGE: pubrights@worldbank.org "Dance of the Fishing Nets” by Ravindra Ranasinghe. The photo was chosen Report and cover design: for the "Beauty of Sri Lanka 2024" A.DELAROCHE Designs. photographic exhibition in the USA. BLUE SOCIAL PROTECTION Protecting People, Fish and Food HANDBOOK Leveraging Social Protection and Jobs Interventions for Sustainable Fisheries ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Handbook was prepared by a joint team of the World Bank (Social Protection & Jobs and Environment, Natural Resources & Blue Economy Global Practices) and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED; www.iied.org). The lead authors are Annabelle Bladon (IIED), Gunilla Tegelskär Greig, Yuko Okamura, and Gianluigi Nico (World Bank). This Handbook builds upon preceding activities carried out since 2020, and the extended team consists of the following members (in alphabetical order): Tijen Arin, Samantha De Martino, Veronica Yolanda Jarrin, Anita Kendrick, Sachiko Kondo, Kevwe Pela, Federica Ricaldi, Luz Stella Rodriguez, Martha Sánchez Galvis, Mizushi Satoh, Shalika H. Subasinghe, Nga Thi Nguyen, Ruth Tiffer-Sotomayor, Xavier F.P. Vincent, and Vincenzo Vinci from the World Bank as well as Anna Ducros from IIED. The team is grateful to: • The management team who supported this initiative—Loli Arribas-Banos, Valerie Hickey, Christian Peter, Michal Rutkowski, and Iffath Sharif; • Reviewers who provided insightful comments—Marcelo Hector Acerbi, Hugo Brousset Chaman, Diji Chandrasekharan Behr, Harrison Charo Karisa, Sandor Karacsony, and Paul Steele; • The communication and knowledge management team—Aaron Buchsbaum, Dijana Ferizovic, Alexandra Humme, Nandita Roy, and Shaheera Syed; • Colleagues who initiated this activity—Ugo Gentilini, Yashodhan Ghorpade, and Miguel Angel Jorge; and • Other colleagues who have provided diverse support, including Jacqueline Alder, Andres de la Roche, Jeneen Hadj-Hammou, Samanmalee Kumari De Alwis, Helena Makarenko, Anna McCord, Aldo Morri, Ravindra Ranasinghe, and Ruth Pinto. We also extend our gratitude to PROBLUE—a multi-donor trust fund administered by the World Bank that supports the sustainable and integrated development of marine and coastal resources in a healthy ocean—which financed the activity. The Handbook also benefited from the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the World Bank and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland on Fisheries and the Blue Economy, within the framework of which fisheries expert Stefán Thorarinsson provided valuable advice. IIED’s contributions were in part financed by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency and Irish Aid. Furthermore, we would like to acknowledge collaboration with external partners, including the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), WorldFish, and the International Collective in Support of Fish Workers (ICSF). In particular, the Handbook benefitted from valuable feedback and suggestions from Edward Allison, Nicola Ferri, Nicole Franz, Daniela Kalikoski, Sebastian Mathew, Daniella Salazar, Mele Tauati, and Lena Westlund. As this Handbook aims to support many countries in leveraging social protection and jobs interventions for more sustainable and productive fisheries, the team wishes to connect with the communities of practitioners exploring such an approach to exchange knowledge. For feedback and further information, please contact at socialprotection@worldbank.org. Authors can be reached at annabelle.bladon@iied.org, ggreig@worldbank.org, yokamura@worldbank. org, and gnico@worldbank.org. 1 OVERVIEW GLOSSARY: KEY 5 CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY SECTION 1 18 INTRODUCTION SECTION 2 26 PROBLEM STATEMENT SECTION 3 35 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SECTION 4 49 METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES SECTION 5 75 PRIORITIES MOVING FORWARD 100 ANNEXES CONTENTS OVERVIEW 1 GLOSSARY: KEY CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY 5 23 1. INTRODUCTION 18 24 2. PROBLEM STATEMENT 26 2.1 Social-ecological risks in the fisheries sector 27 2.1.1 Ecological drivers of risk 27 2.1.2 Socioeconomic drivers of risk 28 2.2 Institutional and policy challenges 31 35 3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO LEVERAGE SPJ FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 35 3.1 Enabling and incentivizing registration 40 3.2 Creating enabling conditions for sustainable fisheries through SPJ 43 3.2.1 Using SPJ to reduce vulnerability and support climate-resilient livelihoods 43 3.2.2 Using SPJ to respond to shocks and increase disaster preparedness 44 3.3 Directly incentivizing behavior change for fisheries management 45 3.3.1 Using SPJ to cover short-to medium-term costs of behavior change 47 3.3.2 Using SPJ to incentivize livelihood diversification and labor 48 market transformation 43 4. METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES 49 4.1 Characterizing social-ecological risks 50 4.1.1 Profiling fisheries actors 51 4.1.2 Assessing social-ecological risks 55 4.2 Assessing institutional arrangements and policies 58 4.2.1 Mapping stakeholders and governance structures 58 4.2.2 Analyzing policies and legislation 61 4.2.3 Analyzing the political-economy context 62 4.3 Mapping and assessing programs and implementation systems 64 4.3.1 Mapping and assessing fisheries management regimes 65 4.3.2 Mapping SPJ programs 66 4.3.3 Assessing implementation systems and mechanisms 69 4.4 Assessing the financial context 71 4.4.1 Evaluating current funding arrangements 71 4.4.2 Analyzing and identifying additional funding opportunities 72 5. PRIORITIES MOVING FORWARD 75 5.1 Shift visions to enhance intra- and inter-ministerial coordination 76 5.2 Enhance cooperation with, and between, non-governmental actors 77 5.3 Improve fisheries sector data and information 79 5.4 Align SPJ programming with fisheries policy objectives and associated 80 management measures 5.5 Strengthen monitoring, enforcement, and evaluation 82 5.6 Ensure adequate fiscal space and explore innovative financing strategies 83 BIBLIOGRAPHY 85 ANNEXES 100 Annex A: Summary of Country Case Studies 101 Annex A.1: Costa Rica 101 Annex A.2: Kenya 103 Annex A.3: Solomon Islands 106 Annex A.4: Sri Lanka 108 Annex A.5: Viet Nam 111 Annex B: Phases of fishery development with potential corresponding fisheries 113 management measures and SPJ interventions Annex C: Tables to support Section 4: Methodology and data sources 115 Annex D: Checklist guidance on validating existing fisheries data 118 Annex E: Guidance on questionnaire design and statistical indicators for 119 profiling fisheries actors FIGURES Figure O.1: Three opportunities to leverage SPJ for sustainable and productive fisheries 3 Figure G.1: Informal employment in fisheries 11 Figure G.2: Taxonomy of formal social protection instruments 16 Figure G.3: The social protection delivery chain 17 Figure 3.1: Conceptual framework for leveraging SPJ to support productive 37 and sustainable fisheries Figure 3.2: Overview of main factors that can influence eligibility for direct incentives 46 Figure B.1: Phases of fishery development with potential corresponding fishery 114 management measures and SPJ interventions TABLES Table 3.1. Examples of SPJ being leveraged for more productive and 42 sustainable fisheries Table C.1a: Potential resources for desk-based review and analysis of existing data 115 Table C.1b: Tools and approaches to collect primary data 117 Table E.1: Critical statistical indicators for profiling fisheries workers 125 BOXES Box 1.1: Overview of country case studies 23 Box 2.1: Poverty and small-scale fisheries 29 Box 2.2: Gender in the small-scale fisheries sector 31 Box 2.3: Current global expenditure on SPJ and fisheries 33 Box 3.1. Main assumptions and risks underpinning the conceptual framework 39 to leverage SPJ for sustainable fisheries Box 3.2. Fisheries data collection 40 Box 4.1: Fisheries Stock Assessment Capability Guidance Tool 56 Box 4.2: Voluntary Guidelines on Small-Scale Fisheries 60 Box 4.3: FAO framework and tool for coherence between social protection 61 and fisheries policies Box 4.4: General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean repository of national 62 legislation relating to fisheries and aquaculture (GFCM-Lex) Box 4.5: Fisheries Performance Assessment Toolkit (FPAT) 66 Box 4.6: Statistical-Capacity Assessment Tool 66 Box 4.7: Social protection global databases 67 Box 4.8: Social protection-sector adaptive capacity assessment 68 Box 4.9: Identifying implementation systems and mechanisms to deliver SPJ programs 70 Box 4.10: Fisheries Public Expenditure Reviews (PER) 72 Box 4.11: Self-Assessment Tool for implementation of the World 73 Trade Organization (WTO) Fisheries Subsidies Agreement PHOTO CREDITS: Cover: Ravindra Ranasinghe; Inside Cover: Shutterstock; Page V: Shutterstock; Page IX: Joseph Catanzano; Page 12: Martha Sánchez Galvis; Page 34: Martha Sánchez Galvis; Page 36: Shalika H. Subasinghe; Page 52: Shutterstock; Page 63: Shutterstock; Page 69: Joseph Catanzano; Page 74: Joseph Catanzano; Page 78: Shutterstock; Page 99-100: Shutterstock; Page 124: Shutterstock ABBREVIATIONS ASP FSAT ODA Adaptive Social Protection Fisheries Sector Official Development Aid Assessment Toolkit ALMP PER Active Labor Market GFCM Public Expenditure Review Program General Fisheries Commission for the PES CBFM Mediterranean Payments for Ecosystem Community-Based Services Fisheries Management HIES Household Income and PPP CBNRM Expenditure Surveys Public-Private Partnership Community-Based Natural Resource Management KII RFMO Key Informant Interview Regional Fisheries CFW Management Organization Contributing Family LSMS Workers Living Standard SP Measurement Survey Social Protection CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort MSY SPJ Maximum Sustainable Yield Social Protection and Jobs FAO Food and Agriculture NGO SSF Organization of the United Non-Governmental Small-Scale Fisheries Nations Organization FGD OAW Focus Group Discussions Own-Account Workers FPAT Fisheries Performance Assessment Toolkit OVERVIEW This Handbook provides practical knowledge on leveraging Social Protection and Jobs (SPJ) interventions to support productive and sustainable fisheries, with a focus on small-scale fisheries (SSF). It is aimed at practitioners working in, and with, ministries responsible for fisheries or SPJ who are looking for innovative ways to facilitate and enable sustainable fisheries and associated benefits for people, climate, and nature. A glossary of concepts and terminology prefaces the main text, and readers should understand these terms to work across both sectors. Providing knowledge on both the “why” and the “how”, the Handbook consists of five main sections. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION What is the context and rationale for this intersectoral approach, and what is the ? purpose and scope of the Handbook? Fish stocks are in decline globally, affecting fisheries workers, their communities, and society at large. Fishing has been the main driver of change in marine ecosystems over the last half century, compounded by climate change and human transformation of land and seascapes. Intense fishing pressure has led to harvest rates that exceed fish stocks’ productivity, putting fisheries and the benefits they provide at risk. Given the contributions of aquatic foods to food security and nutrition, this decline threatens not only those engaged in the fisheries sector, but also societies as a whole. SPJ interventions could play an instrumental role in facilitating fisheries policy reform and supporting associated SSF management measures. Given their mandate to protect people and promote better opportunities—with a focus on equity, resilience, and opportunity—SPJ interventions have untapped potential to facilitate often difficult reforms and implementation of management measures in the fisheries sector for a more sustainable future. Although successful examples are limited, some countries have deliberately adapted SPJ interventions for fisheries contexts. These include compensatory cash transfers during closed seasons, tailored social insurance schemes, and early retirement and re-skilling support. SECTION 2 PROBLEM STATEMENT Why is an intersectoral approach to fisheries and SPJ needed, and why is this ? approach challenging? Efforts to manage fisheries are limited by short-term visions, leading to inadequate institutional coordination and insufficient investment. Current approaches to fisheries management tend to focus solely on the fisheries sector, without considering the broader benefits fisheries provide and the societal risks arising from fish stock decline. They also tend to focus on short-term production and profit at the expense of environmental sustainability and long-term benefits. Given the typically small size of the fisheries sector in terms of GDP, this short-term, single-sector approach limits justification and motivation for strengthening investments in fisheries management. Furthermore, ministries responsible for fisheries and SPJ have very different institutional mandates and few incentives for coordination. As a result, fisheries workers are typically expected to shoulder the short- to medium-term costs—such as lost income—that fisheries management measures impose, which often undermines their effectiveness. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 2 SECTION 3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ? What are the main ways SPJ can be leveraged to support more productive and sustainable fisheries, and how? There are three main opportunities for SPJ to facilitate and enable more productive and sustainable fisheries (Figure O.1). The primary focus of this handbook is the first two, while noting the importance of the third as a foundational step. • SPJ interventions can be deliberately designed or adapted to directly incentivize specific behavior changes that support fisheries policy objectives (Figure O.1c). There are two main options: First, SPJ programs such as conditional transfers, public works, and temporary unemployment benefits can compensate for short- (but potentially recurring) to medium-term socioeconomic costs of management measures designed to reduce fishing effort, such as seasonal closures. Second, where longer-term interventions are required to reduce the total numbers of fisheries workers in a specific fishery, area, or subsector, SPJ programs can facilitate livelihood diversification and labor market transformation through, for example, active labor market programs (ALMPs) and economic inclusion approaches that combine re-skilling with grants and complementary financial services. • Even when an SPJ intervention is not directly linked to any specific fisheries policy objective or associated behavior change, it can still help create enabling conditions for sustainable fisheries (Figure O.1b). Countries can leverage existing mainstream SPJ programs to reduce overall vulnerability and enhance responsiveness to climate shocks and natural disasters—by adjusting eligibility criteria to extend coverage to fisheries households, for example—which should influence motivations for environmental stewardship. However, these approaches can also increase fishing effort if interventions are not aligned or coordinated with fisheries policy and complemented by proper monitoring and enforcement of management measures. • Furthermore, SPJ benefits and services can help enable and incentivize fisheries actors to register themselves, their assets, and their activities (Figure O.1a). When supported by targeted outreach, this can provide data that are fundamental to fisheries management and inform SPJ design and support implementation. FIGURE O.1 Three opportunities to leverage SPJ for sustainable and productive fisheries a ENABLE AND INCENTIVIZE REGISTRATION Provide better data on fisheries actors b SPJ TO CREATE ENABLING CONDITIONS c SPJ TO PROVIDE DIRECT INCENTIVES Enable sustainability by reducing overall Incentivize specific behavior vulnerability and enhancing resilience of changes that support fisheries policy fisheries actors objectives PRODUCTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 3 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION 4 METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES ? What information is needed to leverage SPJ for sustainable fisheries, and how can it be obtained? Although information on SSF is often limited, various existing sources of data, as well as practical methods for filling information gaps, can support an intersectoral approach to SPJ and fisheries. To design and adapt SPJ interventions that promote sustainable and productive fisheries, countries need to collect and analyze data and information relevant to the fishery(ies) or area(s) of interest. This section provides practical guidance on: (i) Socioeconomic profiling and assessing social-ecological risks in fisheries (4.1); and (ii) Conducting rapid assessments across the SPJ and fisheries sectors on institutional arrangements and policy (4.2), programs and implementation systems (4.3), and financial context (4.4). While continued investment is needed to fill knowledge gaps in the long term, this Handbook provides a menu of relevant data sources and methods already available. SECTION 5 PRIORITIES MOVING FORWARD What are the concrete and practical actions governments and development ? partners can take to advance this agenda? Leveraging SPJ to support productive and sustainable fisheries requires long-term visioning, deliberate policy decisions, and initial investments. A crucial first step is to enhance collaboration and joint programming between, and within, ministries responsible for fisheries and SPJ. This requires recognition of the wider and longer-term societal benefits that fisheries provide. Enhancing cooperation with, and between, non-governmental actors will also be beneficial, as they play a critical intermediary role with fisheries actors. Investment is needed to improve the data, information, and implementation systems and mechanisms that are needed to either adapt existing SPJ interventions, or design new ones, that are integrated or aligned and coordinated with fisheries policy objectives as well as SPJ policy objectives. Finally, there is untapped potential for countries to carve out fiscal space for this approach by repurposing harmful subsidies, and to adopt more innovative financing strategies for sustainable fisheries. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 4 GLOSSARY: KEY CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY This Glossary introduces terms and concepts that need to be understood before taking an intersectoral approach to Social Protection and Jobs (SPJ) and fisheries. KEY CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY The Glossary focuses first on fisheries concepts before introducing SPJ concepts, but also clarifies throughout any differences in usage between the sectors. People working in the SPJ and fisheries sectors tend to have different backgrounds and often use and perceive concepts and terminology differently. For example, SPJ practitioners are likely to associate the terms “risk” and “vulnerability” with the risk and vulnerability of households falling into poverty, whereas fisheries practitioners may focus more on the vulnerability of fish stocks to environmental shocks and the risks arising from those.1 Many of these terms and concepts are also defined in different and sometimes contradictory ways in different countries and by different organizations and may need to be adapted to country contexts for policy making and program design. Fish is often an umbrella term for all aquatic animals produced for food, not only finfish but also shellfish (crustaceans and bivalve mollusks), including in this Handbook. Aquatic foods and seafood describe animals, plants, and microorganisms grown in, or harvested from, aquatic environments for human consumption, with aquatic foods typically describing a greater diversity of foods than seafood. Fishing refers to the harvesting of wild aquatic species, often also described as wild capture , and generally includes fishing activities conducted from shore, such as collecting, gathering, or gleaning. 2 Fishing differs from aquaculture , which refers to farming of aquatic species. Mariculture is sometimes used to refer specifically to aquaculture activities that take place in marine waters. Fishery is used in several ways. Typically, it refers to the activity of harvesting wild fish, 3 including the institutions, individuals, and aquatic resources involved. These activities can be defined as units in terms of factors like location, species, gear type, or scale, for example “coastal fishery”, “shrimp fishery”, or “small-scale fishery”. An area where fish are harvested can be referred to as a fishing ground. The term fisheries not only represents the plural of fishery but also describes the activities related to harvesting that make up a fishery value chain and the fisheries sector. These include pre-harvest activities, such as vessel maintenance and net mending, as well as post-harvest activities, such as processing, transport, trading, and wholesale and retail marketing. Fisheries are therefore social-ecological systems, meaning they are complex, interlinked human (socioeconomic) and natural (ecological) systems. 1 While SSF specialists in recent decades have taken an increasingly cross-sectoral approach to understanding the pov- erty, vulnerabilities, and risks of people dependent on SSF for their livelihoods, and to fisheries management (Allison and Ellis 2001; Allison and Horemans 2006; Andrew et al 2007; FAO 2008), limited attention has been paid to fisheries in the SPJ sector until recently. 2 These terms describe the collection of aquatic organisms from shallow coastal, estuarine and freshwaters waters or in habitats exposed during low tide, often by women and children, and often for subsistence. Not all definitions of fishing include them. 3 It should be noted that some definitions and some countries include the raising of fish through aquaculture within “fishery” and the “fisheries sector” (FAO 2024a). Since this toolkit does not focus on aquaculture we do not include it. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 6 Marine fisheries involve fishing in coastal (inshore) or oceanic (offshore) waters, and potentially related value-chain activities. Inland fisheries relate to fishing in rivers, lakes, and floodplains. Fisheries are often divided into two broad subsectors: (i) small-scale fisheries (SSF), including commercial (for sale in the market) and subsistence (for household consumption), or a combination of the two, and (ii) large-scale fisheries (LSF), including industrial and semi-indus- trial fisheries.4 The SSF sector is usually understood to be comprised of relatively small production units—individuals, households, owner-operators with one or two hired crew, or microenterprises—with low input and output, and low levels of technology or capital investment (FAO 2015; FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023). However, there is no clear distinction between SSF and LSF; the SSF sector is extremely diverse, and what is considered small-scale in one country may be considered large-scale in another. The term artisanal is often used interchangeably with small-scale, although it tends to refer to non-mechanized or lower-capital fisheries (FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023). In reality, precise definitions of artisanal and small-scale vary widely from country to country and should always be checked. Subsistence fishing or fisheries—also known as “working for own consumption”—involve fishing and/or processing primarily for household consumption, as opposed to commercial purposes (FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023). However, the term “subsistence” also describes a standard of living or wage providing for only bare necessities, as in national censuses and survey data, and in the social protection sector. Fisheries actors include all people, groups, and organizations involved in the fisheries sector. Fisheries workers include all men and women employed formally or informally (whether full- or part-time, and including for subsistence) along the fisheries value chain, including in pre-harvest, harvest, and post-harvest activities. 5 These include workers involved in gear fabrication and repair, bait and ice provisioning, boat maintenance, and money lending,6 as well as workers transporting, processing, trading, and selling fish, among others. Fishers7 harvest, whereas fish workers are involved in other parts of the value chain. Fishers include skippers , who may be owner operators or hired by vessel owners who do not fish, and crew members. Income from fishing in SSF is typically paid as a share of catch rather than wages. Women are particularly involved in post-harvest activities, making up nearly half of post-harvest SSF workers (FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023). 4 Semi-industrial fisheries tend to use motorized boats that are larger than those in SSF, but often share fishing grounds with SSF. 5 It should be noted that in countries where aquaculture is viewed as part of fisheries, the definitions of “fisheries workers” and “fisheries households” may differ to include members involved in aquaculture. The term “fisherfolk” is also used to describe fisheries workers. 6 This term refers to the process of fish buyers or boat owners providing small local credits to fishers at the beginning of a fishing season on the basis that they will have priority on the season’s catch. 7 Often the term “fishermen” is also used. 7 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES KEY CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY Fisheries households are those with at least one member engaged in the fisheries sector. 8 Subsistence-fisheries households are those with at least one household member engaged in harvesting and/or processing fish mainly for their own consumption (FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023). Commercial-fisheries households are those with at least one member engaged in any fisheries activities in exchange for pay or profit.9 Fishing households are those with at least one member engaged in fishing. It is common for people to engage in fisheries as part of a broader portfolio of livelihood activities, including agriculture. People who engage in fishing in this way are often referred to as “part-time” as opposed to “full-time” fishers. Fishing communities generally describe communities involved not only in fishing but also related activities along the value chain. They are also referred to as fisheries communities and fisheries-dependent communities. Fisheries governance refers to the legal, social, and political institutions and rules governing the design, adoption, and implementation of fisheries policy and management (OECD 2020; FAO 2024a). Effective and equitable governance is central to effective fisheries management (defined further down in this Glossary) and to facilitate policy making (OECD 2020). This requires effective coordination and collaboration between actors, sectors, and levels to achieve fisheries management objectives and social equity. Equity is often broken down into three basic dimensions: (i) recognition and respect for the rights, values, knowledge systems, and institutions of all actors, including local communities and Indigenous Peoples; (ii) inclusive, transparent, and accountable procedures for decision making; and (iii) equitable distribution of management costs and benefits among relevant actors.10 Tenure refers to individual or group rights of access and rules of use of an area or associated natural resource (FAO 2024a). Tenure systems include those recognized by law and customary norms (informal, indigenous, or traditional tenure rights). 8 Following international standards (ILO 2023), fisheries households are typically identified in survey instruments as those with at least one member who, during a short reference period (the past seven days), has worked at least one hour in fisheries for either commercial or subsistence purposes. The use of the one-hour criterion ensures coverage of all types of fisheries activities household members may engage in, including part-time and temporary activities; it also aims to achieve optimal coverage of seasonal variations in work activity patterns and produce sub-annual and annual estimates for short-term trends and structural analyses. However, to avoid underreporting of households participating in fisheries, it is important to establish the highest periodicity of data collection throughout the year, as a one-time survey conducted during the off-season in fishing may underreport fisheries households. Thus, continuous, monthly, or quarterly data collection would be preferred over a one-time survey. 9 Commercial-fisheries households can keep some of the catch for their own final consumption, but the majority of the total catch (>50%) is destined for the market. 10 Equity and equitable governance are defined in different ways in different contexts, but the basic elements described here draw on a long history of thinking on environmental and social justice, and are widely recognized in fisheries, ocean governance, and nature conservation contexts, including under some international agreements (Osterblom et al 2020; Franks and Booker 2022; Bennett et al 2021; WWF and IUCN WPA 2023). Crosman et al (2022) offer a more detailed framework for, and practical guidance on, integrating equity into ocean governance. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 8 Fisheries policy is a governmental statement of intent for prioritizing objectives and actions in the sector. Policy objectives are typically socioeconomic and vary from country to country, ranging from domestic food security and employment to maximizing export revenues and economic growth. It is important to first define policy objectives to underpin fisheries management, although this is not always the case in practice. Fisheries management (or fishery management) is a regime or collection of tools to ensure the continued or improved productivity of fisheries resources, based on specific policy objectives, legislation, assessment, and regulations or rules implemented through monitoring and enforcement (FAO 2024a). A fisheries management plan includes goals, activities, and milestones for managing a fishery, and consultation processes with stakeholders. Fisheries management is crucial for maintaining fish stocks at levels that ensure their replenishment, minimizing harm to ecosystems and optimizing the socioeconomic benefits of harvesting (with policy objectives defining the optimum benefits). Management tools generally aim to control fishing effort by restricting either the way fish are caught (input controls) or the level and type of catch (output controls) (FAO 2002; OECD 2022). When no measures limit the numbers of fishers or vessels that enter a fishery, the fishery is referred to as an open-access fishery.11 Fishing effort is typically defined as the amount of fishing gear of a specific type used on the fishing grounds over a given unit of time (FAO 2024a). Fishing pressure is a less specific term often used in more relative terms, for example in reference to high or low or increasing or decreasing fishing pressure. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) is the quantity of fish caught (in number or in weight) with one standard unit of fishing effort (for example, number of fish taken per 1000 hooks per day, or weight of fish taken per hour of trawling). CPUE is often considered an index of fish biomass (or abundance). Input controls limit total fishing effort through restrictions on fishing time (seasonal closures, for example, or days spent at sea) or fishing area (such as “no-take” zones), fishing gear, and fishing access (numbers of fishers or number/capacity of vessels, typically through licensing). Output controls limit the total allowable quantity and characteristics of fish that can be caught in any given fishing season.12 Most countries manage their fisheries with select input and/or output controls for different subsectors, although input controls have a longer tradition in fisheries 11 In many open-access fisheries, some negotiation is still required to obtain permission to fish–whether with existing fishers and/or authorities–which is often granted upon some condition, although this may not be sufficient to ensure sustainability (Arthur 2020). This is sometimes referred to as “regulated open access”. 12 The most common output controls involve setting Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and individual or community quota allocations based on the best scientific advice available, modified by socioeconomic factors (OECD 2022). 9 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES KEY CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY management and are more common than output controls. Input controls that restrict fishing time, area or gear are typically more suitable for controlling open-access, primarily small-scale fisheries (for example through periodic total fishing bans and restrictions on the type and use of fishing gear to control fishing effort), whereas output controls tend to be more effective in closed-access (whether small- or large-scale13) fisheries with a limited number of actors. Fisheries co-management is a governance arrangement where government shares responsibility and authority for fisheries management with resource users, and potentially other stakeholders, usually for a given area (FAO 2022d). A co-management system can bring local knowledge and perspectives into fisheries management, although the degree of local empowerment varies. Vehicles for local management can include fisheries management organizations, producer organizations, cooperatives, formal local authorities, and committees. Collaborative management is when other stakeholders are involved, particularly through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) (World Bank 2021c). Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) and Community-Based Fisheries Management (CBFM) are more bottom-up approaches to governance where government policy and authorities recognize the traditional rights of indigenous or local communities to manage fisheries and other marine resources (CBNRM Net 2024). Co-management is typically viewed as the most appropriate form of governance for SSF and can deliver social as well as ecological benefits (Evans et al 2011; d’Armengol et al 2018; FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023). Some SPJ and human development programs also use co-management and community-based approaches, for example those delivering school meals, some care-related programs14, and climate-sensitive public works.15 Fish-stock productivity relates to the birth, growth and death rates of a fish stock (FAO 2024a). A highly productive stock is characterized by high birth, growth and death rates and, if depleted, can usually recover more rapidly than less productive stocks.16 Overfishing and overexploitation describe unsustainable levels of harvesting reducing stock abundance to below a level that can produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (FAO 2024b).17 13 Large-scale fisheries often have an entry/exit regime for vessels accessing the fishery (whereby vessel capacity has to be removed from a fishery in order for new capacity to be allowed to enter), with those already fishing being licensed rights holders. 14 An example is Early Childhood Cuna Mas in Peru (Araujo et al 2018). 15 An example is Fiji Jobs 2.0 (Government of Fiji 2023). 16 Productivity varies whether fished or not; the mortality related to fishing activities is referred to as fishing mortality and often expressed as a percentage of the overall size (biomass) of the stock. 17 To explain the difference between overfishing and an overfished stock, the so-called Kobe Plot (named after the first joint meeting of the tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations) is often used to evaluate the status of a stock based on the fishing mortality (F) and biomass (B) associated with MSY (that is, FMSY and BMSY). If the current fishing mortality (F) is above FMSY, overfishing is judged to be occurring; if the current biomass (B, or some measure of spawning output) is below BMSY, the stock is judged to be overfished. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 10 This “cut-off point” largely determines whether fisheries are sustainable or unsustainable, as fishing above MSY not only harms biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, but also reduces fisheries production, which has negative social and economic consequences. Informal employment in fisheries is a job-based concept that encompasses all self-employ- ment jobs within the informal fisheries sector, as well as informal paid-employment jobs in fisheries (employees in fisheries lacking basic social and legal protections and employment benefits).18 For statistical purposes, informal employment in fisheries is measured as the sum of the following types of jobs: (i) Own-Account Workers (OAW), (ii) Contributing Family Workers (CFW), (iii) employers employed in their own informal sector unit of production in fisheries, and (iv) employees holding informal jobs (ILO 2013, as summarized in Figure G.1). FIGURE G.1 Informal employment in fisheries TYPE OF JOB Self-employed jobs Paid-employment jobs (wage workers) Own-Account Contributing Workers Family Workers Employers Employees (OAW) (CFW) Own an informal production unit Hold an informal job (CFW assist OAW in informal production unit) Informal Informal production unit production unit INFORMAL FISHERIES SECTOR INFORMAL EMPLOYEES IN FISHERIES INFORMAL EMPLOYMENT IN FISHERIES 18 See ILO (2013) for a general definition of informal employment. 11 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES Amid a global decline in fishery stocks, countries face challenges in reforming fisheries policies and implementing fisheries- management measures, which tend to impose socioeconomic costs on fisheries workers in the short to medium term. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 12 The informal fisheries sector includes unregistered—typically small-scale—production units operating along the fisheries value chain.19 A production unit is considered unregistered when it is not registered under specific forms of national legislation (and so does not constitute a legal entity), nor keeps a formal set of accounts (ILO 2013). These unregistered production units are owned and managed by individuals who, by definition, hold informal, self-employed jobs. They include own-account workers—who typically operate these informal production units with support from contributing family members—and employers, who hire employees for their informal production units (Figure G.1). Consequently, own-account workers and employers hold jobs in the informal fisheries sector to the extent that they own informal production units operating along the fisheries value chain. For instance, own-account workers may own small fishing boats and other fixed assets, like traps or nets. These assets collectively form a production unit, yet they are not registered as legal entities by their owners. Within this production unit, there is often minimal division between labor and capital as factors of production. Furthermore, labor relationships tend to be casual and seasonal, with family members primarily recruited to assist asset owners. Informal employees in fisheries are all individuals holding employment (referred to as employees) across the fisheries value chain. Informal, paid employment is defined by its employment relationship, which, either in law or in practice, is not subject to national labor legislation, income taxation, formal social protection, or entitlement to certain employment benefits (such as advance notice of dismissal, severance pay, and paid annual or sick leave). Informal employees exist within both formal and informal production units in fisheries (Figure G.1). Fisheries subsidies are most commonly defined as any direct or indirect financial transfer by a public body that creates a benefit for the fisheries sector. 20 They are often categorized as “harmful”, “beneficial” or “ambiguous” based on potential impact on stock sustainability (Sumaila et al 2019). Harmful fisheries subsidies incentivize overcapacity and overfishing by artificially increasing revenue or reducing the costs of fishing. 21 Examples include support for vessel construction, tax exemptions, and fuel subsidies. Beneficial subsidies —such as fisheries management programs and services, fisheries research and development, and marine conservation—support sustainability. Ambiguous subsidies —including fisher assistance, 22 19 This includes production units operating post-harvest activities such as processing and trading, and pre-harvest activities, such as the construction of fishing boats and gear. 20 This is based on the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies and its Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Note that this definition differs slightly from how the term “subsidy” is typically used in SPJ, where it refers to an indirect means of increasing the value of household income by releasing income that would have been spent on basic goods or services. 21 The World Trade Organization reached an Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies in 2022, but at the time of writing, nego- tiations to reform harmful subsidies are still ongoing. 22 Fisher assistance includes direct income support, insurance, and other assistance programs or support for fishers and fish workers, as well as support to displaced fishers and fish workers to find alternative employment, and other retraining programs. 13 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES KEY CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY rural fisheries community development, 23 and vessel buybacks 24 —can support sustainabil- ity or lead to overexploitation, depending on their design and delivery. Under this fisheries subsidy framework, SPJ specifically targeted to fishers, fish workers, and their communities is therefore classified as “ambiguous”. However, this Handbook guides users towards integrated and coordinated approaches that should be beneficial in terms of stock sustainability and minimize unintended consequences. The blue economy describes the integrated and sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods, and job creation, while preserving the health of ocean ecosystems (World Bank 2021a). While the term is often used to describe a range of ocean-based sectors, including fisheries, aquaculture, shipping, tourism, and renewable energy, it more accurately describes a framework or an approach to developing these sectors in an integrated manner. In the context of fisheries, social-ecological risk can be interpreted as the potential socioeconomic impact of a climate-related or other ecological hazard25 on the fisheries sector, determined by its exposure and vulnerability (World Bank 2019; Bladon et al 2022). This is based on the concept of climate risk, which describes the potential for adverse consequences of climate change on social-ecological systems, and is typically viewed following the approach of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the interaction of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability (IPCC 2014). These risks can arise from either the potential impacts of, or human responses to, climate change. Social-ecological risk in fisheries therefore has three core components, underpinned by interlinked drivers of change: 1. Hazard: The impact of a climate-related or ecological change on aquatic ecosystems. 26 These can be slow-onset changes , such as ocean acidification, or rapid-onset shocks , such as extreme weather events. 2. Exposure: The presence of people and exploited fishery resources that could be harmed. 23 Rural fisheries community development covers services and activities that aim to improve the welfare and livelihoods of fishers and fish workers living in rural areas, including grants and loans, credit through cooperatives, and infrastruc- ture or capacity-building programs specifically targeted at fishing communities. 24 Vessel buybacks include payments for the permanent or temporary withdrawal of fishing vessels or vessel-capacity units from a fleet to decrease capacity, payments for the permanent or temporary withdrawal of fishing permits and licenses, and any other decommissioning or capacity-removing programs. 25 Such as overfishing, pollution, and changes in land and sea use. 26 Ecological hazards arise from ecological risks, which measure the potential impact of a change on ecosystems and species, determined by their vulnerability and exposure to that hazard. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 14 3. Vulnerability: A function of sensitivity minus adaptive capacity. 27 Sensitivity is the intrinsic degree to which people and human systems depend on fisheries. Adaptive capacity is the ability of people and human systems to anticipate, respond, and adjust to change (hazard), and to minimize, cope with, and recover from the consequences. In the SPJ sector, risk is traditionally considered in relation to household welfare levels (income or consumption) and therefore associated with poverty and vulnerability to poverty (World Bank 2021). SPJ primarily aims to reduce this risk by supporting low(er)-income households, while improving their resilience and adaptive capacity. On the contrary, ecological hazards and exposure are less commonly considered for mainstream SPJ programs, but increasingly recognized in the contexts of climate change and Adaptive Social Protection (ASP) (see later in this Glossary). Social protection refers to the set of policies, systems, programs, and mechanisms aiming to prevent or protect people from poverty and vulnerability. Such programs usually: (i) reduce people’s exposure to risks, (ii) enhance their capacity or resilience to protect themselves against shocks, and (iii) promote labor market opportunities. Social protection can be provided through: (i) social assistance (non-contributory schemes typically designed for low-income households); (ii) social insurance (contributory schemes typically designed for formal workers); (iii) labor market policies and programs (to protect and support individuals/workers); and (iv) social services (see Figure G.2). 28 The Jobs agenda includes not only supply-side labor market interventions for workers, but also complementary demand-side policies and programs to help firms create more jobs, along with matching mechanisms to connect workers with jobs. To collectively describe all these components, this Handbook uses Social Protection and Jobs (SPJ). While the Handbook focuses more on formal SPJ provided by governments, it is also important to consider informal and semi-formal mechanisms, which formal programs can build on and strengthen. 29 Programs from other sectors, such as rural or community development and disaster risk management, can also involve SPJ. 27 Understanding of vulnerability has shifted over the years; initially the IPCC defined the concept as a consequence of the interaction of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007), and later the concept of exposure was separated from vulnerability (IPCC 2012; IPCC 2014). Nevertheless, a number of vulnerability studies – including in fish- eries – continue to follow the “old” paradigm by directly accounting for exposure in their assessments of vulnerability (Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli 2022; Sharma and Ravindranath 2019). 28 General price subsidies are also sometimes considered a form of social protection. This Handbook does not include them since they are indirect transfers that do not target specific groups according to policy objectives, and so tend to be treated quite differently in policy and programming. 29 Informal social protection involves arrangements and actions an individual or group takes to minimize risks or cope during difficult times, and is not guided by formal legal regulations (Mumtaz 2021). Semi-formal social protection involves insurance mechanisms with a more structured organization and concrete participation rules and procedures (Stavropoulou, Holmes, and Jones 2017). Systems of informal and semi-formal SPJ, such as risk pooling between house- holds and community-based networks, already provide a source of resilience in fisheries globally (FAO 2017; Love et al 2021). 15 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES KEY CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY FIGURE G.2 Taxonomy of formal social protection instruments SOCIAL PROTECTION Social assistance Social insurance Labor market Social services (non-contributory) (contributory) policies & programs • Cash and in-kind • Insurance (health, • Active: training & • Social services transfers, vouchers, unemployment, skills, job search • Care services parental, disability, services, counseling, • Social pensions, workplace accident, entrepreneurship • Special services • Public works, livelihood) support, wage subsidies (e.g., childcare, long- • School meals, • Pensions for old age term care for older • Fee waivers (basic and survivors • Passive: persons and persons health, education), Unemployment with disabilities, benefit, severance • Targeted subsidies counseling) pay, early retirement Source: adapted from ASPIRE (World Bank 2024). Economic inclusion —often called productive inclusion—programs refer to a bundle of multidimensional interventions that support extreme poor and vulnerable households and communities to sustainably increase their incomes and assets and lift them out of poverty. Economic inclusion programs often build on social assistance and active labor market programs (ALMPs), bundling measures such as cash transfers, productive grants, business and life skills training, coaching, and financial services (Arévalo-Sánchez et al 2024). 30 Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are natural-resource management mechanisms that offer conditional positive incentives for behavior change. Like SPJ programs, they use conditional transfers, which can be provided by public or private actors (Porras et al 2016; Bladon et al 2014). Parametric insurance is a non-traditional insurance product (a type of index-based insurance) that offers pre-specified payouts based upon a trigger event, such as high wind speeds, to cover damage from natural disasters (FAO 2020). Adaptive Social Protection (ASP) focuses on enhancing SP systems ahead of large covariate 31 shocks, particularly those related to natural disasters and climate shocks, to build the resilience of poor and vulnerable households before, during, and after such shocks (Bowen et al 2020). 32 30 While economic inclusion programs often support the poorest who are already cash transfer beneficiaries as their graduation strategy, there is also growing recognition that they should target different segments of the population (for example, vulnerable youth with basic education). 31 Covariate shocks are those that affect groups of household, communities, regions, or even entire countries, as op- posed to idiosyncratic shocks, which are unique to an individual or household. 32 In the ASP agenda, it is becoming important to increase the capacity to anticipate shocks, informing actions in sup- port of preparedness, coping, and adaptation, as well as triggering the scale-up of relevant SPJ benefits and support in a timely manner. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 16 Building the resilience of larger (and/or different) segments of the population, ASP can also be relevant to other contexts, including the fisheries sector, green transitions, and for other covariate shocks such as global pandemics, inflation, and subsidy reforms, as well as idiosyncratic shocks such as disability and unemployment. SPJ delivery systems 33 implement SPJ benefits and services. Most SPJ programs pass through a similar set of implementation phases of the delivery chain (Figure G.3): (i) Assessment: Reaching the intended population and collecting information to assess their needs and conditions against program eligibility criteria. (ii) Enrollment: Informing selected people to enroll in the program and determining benefit and service packages. (iii) Provision: Providing benefits/services to beneficiaries. (iv) Management: Monitoring and updating information necessary for the program and eligibility. Targeting is the process of differentiating eligibility and prioritizing certain groups for SPJ benefits and services when resources are limited, although it is often used to describe the entire assessment phase of the delivery chain. FIGURE G.3 The social protection delivery chain ASSESS ENROLL PROVIDE MANAGE RECURRING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CYCLE 8 9 Outreach Enrollment Provision of Beneficiaries Intended Population (IP), including Eligible applicants are onboarded benefits and Compliance, Updating Vulnerable Groups (VG) understands efficiently, witl minimal leakage to services and Grievances program & willing to apply ineligible population Enrolled Information is kept up to beneficiaries date, free of error, fraud, Intake & Registration Decision on package receive and corruption, responsive IP and VG are applying efficiently and their Benefits and service packages are appropriate to clients' evolving needs, information is recorded accurately accurately determined services and and promote desired benefits behaviors Assessment of needs and conditions according to Applicants are accurately profiled and service standards categorized Source: Lindert et al (2020). 33 This includes the implementation phases of the delivery chain, the key actors that interact along that delivery chain (institutions and people), and the enabling factors that facilitate those interactions: communications, information sys- tems, and technology. 17 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 18 Global fisheries—particularly small-scale fisheries (SSF)—contribute to a range of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including those related to poverty, food, nutrition, income, gender equity, climate, and biodiversity. An estimated 492 million people depend at least partially on engagement in SSF. More than 90% of people engaged in fisheries and related activities are employed in the small-scale subsector and nearly half of them are women (FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023). Fisheries also provide crucial food and nutrition, not only for those involved in the sector. In 2022, aquatic foods (from fisheries and aquaculture) contributed about 15 percent of animal-protein supply, reaching over 50 percent in several countries in Asia and Africa (FAO 2024b). Certain types of aquatic foods, such as small pelagic fish, 34 also provide essential and affordable micronutrients and omega-3s, particularly to vulnerable populations (Robinson et al 2022; FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023; Viana et al 2023). Furthermore, fisheries value chains support national economies; total global revenues from small-scale fisheries averaged an estimated US$77 billion annually between 2013 and 2017, 35 exceeding those from some of the largest ocean industries such as cruise tourism and port activities (FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023). Intense fishing pressure has led to harvest rates that exceed what fish stocks can sustain, putting fisheries and the benefits they provide at risk. Fishing has been the main driver of change in marine ecosystems over the last 50 years, followed by changes in the use of land and sea, such as coastal development for aquaculture and infrastructure, as well as pollution and climate change (IPBES 2019). Of the marine fish stocks that are assessed, almost 38 percent are “overfished”36 (FAO 2024b). Beyond target species, fishing also affects the wider ecosystems in which it takes place. While much of this fishing pressure is driven by heavily subsidized large-scale fisheries, small-scale fisheries also contribute to overexploitation and ecosystem change. Around 40 percent of global catch is estimated to come from small-scale fisheries, which are mostly in low- and lower middle-income countries (LICs/LMICs) with typically limited capacity and resources to effectively manage fisheries (Hilborn et al 2020; FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023). As a result, access to small-scale fishery resources is mostly unregulated, and where it is regulated, enforcement tends to be insufficient. Climate change is also increasing risks in the fisheries sector, both those that arise from extreme weather events and from more gradual changes in fish-stock productivity. Rising ocean temperatures are causing ocean currents to shift, aquatic habitats to be lost, and ecosystems to change, with the majority of marine fish stocks moving toward the earth’s poles. Fisheries therefore face high levels of climate risk—particularly in Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and areas experiencing interacting drivers of risk 34 Examples include herring, sardine, and anchovy, which have high nutrient densities, fast turnover rates, and high productivity that can sustain large catches. 35 These estimates refer to the global landed value of small-scale catch (that is, landed weight of fish multiplied by the price fishers receive). 36 This term describes stocks with abundance lower than the level that can produce MSY. 19 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES INTRODUCTION such as overfishing and pollution—and negative socioeconomic effects are already evident (Tigchelaar et al 2021; IPCC 2019, 2022a; Blanchard and Novaglio 2024). Because fisheries workers and their communities are located near coastlines, lakes, rivers, and floodplains, and depend on these waters for food and livelihoods, they are some of the most exposed and vulnerable populations to climate hazards (Barange et al 2018). Without effective fisheries management that builds climate resilience, increasing risks and impacts are likely to lead many fisheries workers into vicious cycles of poverty and overexploitation, reducing the benefits the sector can provide (Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli 2022). Efforts to manage these risks are currently limited by a focus on short-term benefits and profit at the expense of long-term benefits, including environmental sustainability and social equity. Several studies have demonstrated the economic losses associated with overfishing and the potential long-term benefits of reducing global fishing pressure and allowing stocks to reach higher, more productive and sustainable levels (World Bank and FAO 2009; Sumaila et al 2012; Costello et al 2016; World Bank 2017). Yet, research indicates that most government investment in the sector supports activities that promote overexploitation rather than those that rebuild and maintain sustainable fisheries (Sumaila et al 2019). Furthermore, when fisheries policy reforms and associated management measures are implemented, fisheries workers and their communities often have to shoulder the costs of transition with little to no public support, even though many of these workers and communities—particularly Indigenous Peoples and those who have been engaged in small-scale fisheries for generations—are already highly vulnerable to shocks (Barange et al 2018; FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023). This distribution of burden and benefits can make it difficult politically to agree on reforms and challenging to implement them, reducing compliance and undermining management effectiveness (Lubchenco et al 2016; Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli 2022). As global commitments to address global biodiversity loss and restore ecosystems gather momentum, mechanisms to ensure equity for SSF are critical. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), adopted in 2022, is intrinsically linked to fisheries and their management. 37 While this Framework presents a historic opportunity to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, effectively engaging SSF workers and their communities in the design and implementation of such interventions is crucial for respecting their rights (WWF and IUCN WPA 2023). To this end, mechanisms are needed to enable their participation in conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and to equitably share benefits. 38 37 The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) supports achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and builds on the Convention´s previous Strategic Plans. Among the Framework’s key elements are four goals for 2050 and 23 targets for 2030 of which several relate specifically to fisheries, including: Target 10, which seeks to ensure that areas managed under food production systems, such as fisheries, are managed sustainably, and Target 3, which aims for at least 30 percent of inland-water, marine, and coastal areas managed through “equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures”. 38 Target 18 of the GBF focuses on scaling-up positive incentives for biodiversity, while Target 9 aims to ensure that wild species are managed and used sustainably to benefit people, “especially those in vulnerable situations and those most dependent on biodiversity”. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 20 Social protection and jobs (SPJ) could play an instrumental role in facilitating fisheries policy reforms and supporting associated management measures. Integrating SPJ with fisheries, as well as with farming and forestry, can strengthen the outcomes from management interventions and promote the sustainability and productivity of these sectors (FAO 2016, 2017a, 2017b). This appears to hold most promise in fisheries when SPJ benefits and services are directly linked to, and conditional on, specific behavior changes expected to improve fisheries management outcomes (FAO 2017b; Bladon et al 2022; Booth et al 2023). Furthermore, evidence from other areas of natural resource management, conservation, and climate action shows that SPJ— and similar interventions combining social and environmental objectives, such as payments for ecosystem services (PES)—can help address environmental challenges while reducing vulnerability and building climate resilience (Costella et al 2024; Rigolini 2021). 39 However, evidence of the impacts of leveraging SPJ for the fisheries sector are still limited, and interventions can lead to undesirable consequences in the context of weak fisheries management and limited sectoral integration. While there are examples of implementation (Booth et al 2021; May, Velia and Benammour 2023; FAO and IPC-IG 2023), as well as ongoing dialogues and efforts, fisheries management measures typically do not deliberately incorporate SPJ or any other risk management mechanisms. When they do, rigorous evaluations linking SPJ to fisheries management actions or outcomes are rare, so the potential benefits of combining SPJ with fisheries management remain poorly understood (Stacey et al 2021).40 Moreover, making SPJ more available to fishing communities could inadvertently increase fishing pressure, unless fisheries policy objectives inform interventions and proper monitoring and enforcement complement these measures.41 Despite the needs and opportunities, political and practical challenges stand in the way of linking fisheries with SPJ. With limited incentives to do so, institutions mandated to manage fisheries and those responsible for social affairs and labor rarely coordinate or collaborate (FAO 2022a). People working in the SPJ and fisheries sectors have different backgrounds, and they tend to lack a shared understanding of benefits that small-scale fisheries can provide to the wider society. SPJ helps poor and vulnerable people cope with crises and shocks, find jobs, access basic services, and protect aging populations. Fisheries management involves assessing the state of fish stocks and their ecosystems, regulating who can fish, how much, where, and 39 Examples include Indonesia’s national cash transfer program (Ferraro et al 2020), Bolivia’s Watershared (Wiik et al 2020), India’s Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme (Porras, Steele & Mohammed 2016), Philippines’ Environmental Cash for Work, and Mexico’s Temporary Employment Program. 40 This challenge is seen across wider efforts to link SPJ with natural resource management (Porras, Steele & Mohammed 2016; Wiik et al 2020), but it is particularly pronounced in marine ecosystems and fisheries (Bladon et al 2014). 41 As SPJ improves productivity and welfare in fisheries and fishing communities, it can also encourage more fishing pressure, including by attracting new entrants. In fisheries without restrictions on access or effective monitoring and enforcement of fisheries management measures, this could lead to levels of exploitation that cannot be sustained. For this reason, SPJ interventions in fisheries are often viewed as “ambiguous” fisheries subsidies (see definition in Glossary), that is they have the potential to lead to either sustainability or overexploitation, depending on how they are designed and delivered. 21 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES INTRODUCTION when, along with monitoring fishing activities and enforcing regulations. Fisheries practitioners therefore tend to focus primarily on the economics and biology of fish production, whereas SPJ practitioners primarily work to protect people. Furthermore, justifying investment in SPJ for a specific sector can be challenging when benefits are viewed from a short-term and sectoral perspective. Current SP coverage is limited to less than half of the global population, and most—particularly small-scale—fisheries workers operate outside of the formal economy, where SPJ coverage is especially low. Mainstream SPJ objectives focus on broad populations, thus limiting the justification for allocating scarce resources to address the needs of a specific sector such as fisheries. Making the case for investment in fisheries management and associated SPJ can be challenging when benefits are viewed narrowly in terms of the fisheries sector alone and from a short-term perspective. However, the rationale for investing becomes clearer when accounting for the broader and longer-term contributions of fisheries. Returns on these investments go far beyond the fisheries sector, supporting other broader agendas such as climate adaptation, food security and nutrition, natural resource management, and blue-economy development (Costello et al 2016; EDF and Duke University 2018). This Handbook builds on various World Bank activities starting in 2020 to connect SPJ and fisheries, reflecting growing interest from client countries. These include a stocktaking exercise, development of a conceptual framework (Bladon et al 2022), and five country case studies (published along with a synthesizing overview note [Okamura et al 2024]) referred to throughout this Handbook (see Box 1.1 and Annex A for additional information on case studies). It also builds on, refers to, and complements other relevant initiatives, including the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) work to strengthen coherence between social protection and fisheries policies (FAO 2022a, 2022b)42 and the Voluntary Guidelines for Small-Scale Fisheries (FAO 2015) 43 (see also Section 4). 42 Together, this Handbook and the FAO publications offer broad guidance on conceptualizing and operationalizing coherence between social protection and fisheries policies and programs, noting that the Handbook differs in a few main ways: (i) it focuses in particular on leveraging social protection and jobs interventions to support fisheries management and reduce fishing effort, (ii) it offers additional detailed guidance on practical steps and actions on how countries can adapt SPJ interventions based on the country context and specific fisheries management situations, and (iii) it offers a list of resources on how countries can collect and analyze relevant information and data (Section 4). 43 Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 22 BOX 1.1 OVERVIEW OF COUNTRY CASE STUDIES We selected five countries for case studies where dialogue has been initiated to strengthen synergies and coordination between SPJ and fisheries sectors. These case studies provide a range of country contexts in terms of geographic location, income status, data availability, capacity of social protection systems, and motivations or demand for sectoral integration (Okamura et al 2024): • The Costa Rica case study focused on low-income, small-scale fishing communities in two regions, identifying avenues to improve their social and economic inclusion in activities linked to, or outside of, fishing (Sanchez Galvis and Rodriguez 2024). • The Kenya case study used official and nationally representative statistics to profile the country’s fishing and aquaculture households to identify opportuni- ties for creating new and better jobs (Pela et al 2024). • The Sri Lanka case study used literature review and non-representative survey data to explore how SPJ policies and programs could help rebuild and maintain sustainable coastal fisheries, with a focus on spiny lobster, a high-value export commodity (Arin et al 2024). • The Solomon Islands case study used a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the potential to integrate SPJ interventions and community-based resource management (CBRM) for improved coastal resource use (Kendrick et al 2024). • The Viet Nam case study used official and nationally representative statistics to profile the country’s fisheries households and explore how to leverage and adapt SPJ interventions to support government efforts to address fish-stock decline, including planned decommissioning of fishing vessels (Nguyen et al 2024). 23 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES INTRODUCTION The primary aim of this Handbook is to share practical knowledge with countries looking for innovative ways to facilitate and enable sustainable—particularly small-scale—fisheries and associated benefits for people, climate, and nature. The primary target users are practitioners working in the SPJ or fisheries sectors seeking practical guidance on how to achieve long-term fisheries sustainability while reducing human vulnerability. These practitioners encompass those working in, or with, government ministries responsible for fisheries or SPJ, as well as stakeholders and development partners working with them, including World Bank teams who closely support policy makers. Mindful of the different interests and perspectives of target users, the Handbook aims to promote coordination between, and better understanding of, the SPJ and fisheries sectors, offering a set of opportunities to leverage SPJ for sustainable fisheries, as well as guidance on how to put them into practice and better evaluate associated outcomes.44 The Handbook is comprehensive and flexible enough to accommodate a range of contexts, interests and intentions—whether practitioners are broadly trying to integrate the two sectors on a national level (as per the Solomon Islands case study, for example) or looking to address a specific problem in a specific fishery or area (as per the Sri Lanka and Costa Rica studies). The Handbook also aims to support countries in enhancing SPJ systems to be more inclusive and adaptive to climate-related and other shocks by responding to the needs of specific sectors or groups. As countries make progress in assessing their SPJ sectors and enhancing SPJ capacity to prepare for, and respond to, shocks arising from climate change and disasters— using Inter-Agency SP Assessment (ISPA) Tools and the World Bank’s Stress Testing and SPL-DRM Toolkit, for example—this Handbook fills a gap in knowledge on adapting SPJ to the fisheries sector.45 While the focus of the Handbook is on fisheries management, it also contains information and lessons of wider relevance for addressing climate risks, disasters, and biodiversity loss as well as leveraging SPJ to support sustainability in other sectors. Practitioners could adapt the guidance to enable and incentivize participation of coastal or other communities in biodiversity conservation, and to support efforts to enhance SPJ responsiveness to risks in other specific sectors such as agriculture and forestry. 44 As such, it aims to guide users towards using SPJ interventions as “beneficial” fisheries subsidies that support sustainability, and re- ducing their potential to act as “harmful“ subsidies. 45 Jointly developed by more than 20 international organization and launched in 2016, IPSA Tools have been implemented by many coun- tries to assess the strengths and the weakness of SPJ systems, programs, and delivery (ISPA 2014). The Stress Testing Tool is a more con- cise and practical resource to rapidly appraise the capacity of SPJ systems to deliver SPJ benefits/support to more people, implemented in more than 50 countries since 2021 (Bodewig et al 2021). The SPL-DRM Toolkit aims to help countries to strengthen the natural-disaster responsiveness of SPJ systems, or more broadly, to mainstream disaster risk management in SPJ policy, programming, and service delivery (World Bank 2020). HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 24 While SPJ can play a role across the fisheries sector and the wider blue economy, the Handbook focuses specifically on SSF. Different interventions are needed for different actors and segments of the population within fisheries, depending on their socioeconomic profiles, the nature of their activities in the value chain, and their specific vulnerabilities and risks. While SPJ could also support large-scale fisheries,46 incentivizing sustainability in this sector would typically involve influencing the behavior of generally more wealthy and powerful actors, which may require different approaches to influencing that of SSF workers. The role of SPJ in sustainable aquaculture is also beyond the scope of the Handbook, given the differences between fisheries and aquaculture; while their value chains may converge downstream, fish farming in many respects has more in common with agriculture than with fisheries. Finally, although this Handbook is relevant for blue-economy practitioners,47 compensating local communities for potential costs imposed by this approach to ocean resources more broadly is also beyond its scope. The rest of the Handbook is structured as follows: Section 2 summarizes the rationale for, and challenges in, taking more intersectoral approaches to fisheries and SPJ. Section 3 presents a conceptual framework for how SPJ interventions can support more productive and sustainable fisheries. Section 4 presents data sources and methods that can provide the information required to operationalize a more integrated or coordinated approach. Section 5 concludes with a priority set of practical actions to advance this intersectoral approach at country level. 46 Contributory schemes can be established to support formal workers in the large-scale fisheries sector. While large-scale enterprises are typically formal, there is widespread informal employment on board large-scale fishing vessels and in processing factories, particu- larly among international migrants, and these workers may lack all forms of SPJ (Jones, Visser and Simic 2019; Vandergeest and Marschke 2019). However, workers within large businesses are likely to have less power and influence than SSF workers, and so the links between SPJ and fisheries management may be less direct. That said, many larger-scale fleets target species regulated by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), which have the mandate to manage fisheries and could also play a role in promoting SP measures (FAO 2019). 47 An increasing number of countries are embracing the blue-economy approach to develop different “blue” sectors in an integrated manner for sustainability. Efforts to meaningfully engage small-scale fisheries workers must ensure that their voice is heard among often structurally, financially, and/or logistically better-equipped actors from sectors such as shipping and tourism, and they must consider the different roles and needs of men, women, and youth in coastal communities (Schutter et al 2024). Integrating SPJ into blue-economy development is one means of doing so. 25 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES SECTION 2 PROBLEM STATEMENT This section elaborates on the challenges that intersectoral approaches to fisheries and SPJ could address. It first outlines the social-ecological risks the fisheries sector faces (2.1), before highlight- ing weaknesses in current policy responses and institutional barriers to leveraging SPJ for more sustainable fisheries (2.2). HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 26 2.1 SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RISKS IN THE FISHERIES SECTOR Fisheries face a range of risks arising from interlinked socioeconomic and ecological processes. Human activities increasingly drive changes in ecological systems that, in turn, are reshaping and increasing socioeconomic risks in the fisheries sector and, thus, producing social-ecological risks and impacts. This section outlines the major, interlinked drivers of risk that directly increase hazards and/or human vulnerability and exposure to hazards.48 2.1.1 Ecological drivers of risk Anthropogenic climate change is altering and exacerbating natural climate variability and reshaping risks faced in fisheries. In turn, these changes are increasing the frequency, intensity, and duration of ecological hazards to aquatic ecosystems (IPCC 2019). These include acute shocks, such as extreme weather events, as well as more gradual changes, such as ocean acidification, coral bleaching, saline intrusion, biodiversity loss, and destabilization of fish populations (Barange et al 2018). Fisheries workers and their communities—being located near coastlines, lakes, rivers, and floodplains—are disproportionately exposed to climate hazards (Barange et al 2018; IPCC 2019). People who are very dependent on fisheries for food and nutrition security or income are also particularly sensitive to these hazards, while often having limited capacity to adapt (see Section 2.1.2). In addition, the risks extend far beyond the fisheries sector; for example, projected reductions in marine and inland fish harvests could leave hundreds of millions of Africans vulnerable to deficiencies in essential micronutrients by 2050 (IPCC 2022b). A range of human activities and their impacts—including fishing, pollution, changes in land and sea-use, and invasive species—interact with climate change to exacerbate ecological hazards. These threats reduce the quantity and quality of aquatic habitats, decreasing biodiversity within them, with substantial socioeconomic costs (IPBES 2019). In marine ecosystems, fishing has been the biggest driver of change globally over the last 50 years (IPBES 2019); the percentage of stocks fished at unsustainable levels has been increasing since the mid-1970s, from 10 percent in 1974 to 38 percent in 2021 (FAO 2024b).49 Enabled by often short-sighted investment, weak governance, and ineffective management (Section 2.2), current global fishing pressure is beyond what fish stocks can sustain—that is, reducing the productivity of fish stocks and, therefore, the sustainability of fisheries. In turn, this level of fishing effort and the harm caused 48 Ecological drivers of risk are processes taking place in the natural system that directly increase hazards and, therefore, socioeconomic risk. Socioeconomic drivers are socioeconomic processes that influence risk by increasing exposure and vulnerability. These are intricate- ly linked (see Bladon et al 2022 for more details). 49 Inland fisheries in rivers, lakes, and floodplains—while less well documented than marine fisheries—also suffer the effects of overex- ploitation and destructive fishing practices. These in turn interact with the complex set of additional threats arising from human activities on land (IPBES 2019). 27 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES THE PROBLEM STATEMENT to ecosystems further reduce the resilience of fish stocks and marine ecosystems to climate change (Sumaila and Tai 2020). The resulting declines in catch per unit effort (CPUE) represent a primary source of risk in SSF (Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli 2022). At the same time, while individual SSF operations may be small in scale, the size of the sector means that cumulative negative impacts can be nationally and globally significant (FAO, Duke and WorldFish 2023). 2.1.2 Socioeconomic drivers of risk SSF activities are typically informal—that is, conducted without registration or formal accounts—and dispersed across remote areas. Fishers and fish workers therefore tend to be poorly accounted for in national statistics and poorly understood (Porras et al 2019). In much of the world, this “invisibility” has led to their political and social exclusion, along with limited policy attention and investment in the sector (FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023). These problems are further exacerbated by the diversity of the SSF sector in terms of activities and socioeconomic characteristics, both within and between different fisheries, which policy makers typically fail to acknowledge (Short et al 2021). As a result, fishers, fish workers, and their communities often face a range of structural constraints and inequities that represent major sources of vulnerability. These include limited access to public services such as health and education, exclusion from formal SPJ, low financial inclusion, unsafe working conditions and forced labor, 50 and inequitable governance (FAO 2015; Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli 2022). While fisheries workers are not necessarily poor in economic terms (see Box 2.1), fishing and related activities are typically seasonal, inherently uncertain, and often dangerous. Even when they and their communities can access SPJ, banking, and insurance benefits and services, these are rarely designed to support the seasonality and income volatility of fisheries, leaving most fisheries households without a means to buffer production and market risks (Pomeroy et al 2020). SSF workers also tend to face more difficulties than other fisheries workers in accessing fishery resources and markets, due to their relatively low financial and technical capacities, unrecognized or insecure access rights, and their often living in remote locations with poor infrastructure. 51 These constraints not only cause high levels of food loss and waste, but they also limit catch volume and consistency, making it difficult to enter certification schemes or otherwise demonstrate sustainability (FAO 2015; Pita and Ford 2023). When their catch does enter global or other lucrative markets, SSF workers rarely have the power, information, or capital to reap rewards (Purcell et al 2017), and 50 According to the ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), forced or compulsory labor is: ”all work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily”. 51 SDG Target 14.b promotes “access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets”. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 28 they can become particularly vulnerable to market shocks. 52 Increases in market access can also drive further overexploitation, especially when credit arrangements trap fishers in debt cycles (Crona et al 2015) and when fisheries management is limited. 5354 BOX 2.1 POVERTY AND SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES (SSF) Global estimates of poverty in fisheries—such as the incidence of poor households reliant on fisheries—are lacking, which limits understanding of the contributions of fisheries to society (Béné et al 2016). Nevertheless, data indicate that SSF can play two key roles in fighting poverty (Béné et al 2010; Virdin et al 2023):⁵⁴ (i) Poverty reduction occurs when resources are allocated to increase labor productivity (for instance through improved fishing gear), raising income for individuals engaged in fishing. This creates positive spillovers within communities through consumption and production linkages with other segments of the fisheries value chain, which can increase incomes of other actors along the fisheries value-chain and beyond. (ii) Poverty prevention occurs when marginalized people enter (more or less temporarily) SSF at relatively low cost, using fisheries as part of a multi-activity livelihood strategy to reduce economic vulnerability or cope with shocks. This role—often referred to as the “safety-net function”—is dependent on the state of aquatic resources, highlighting the need to balance the level and type of fisheries regulations against access to a fishery. Without effective fisheries management, overfishing will eventually undermine the roles of SSF in fighting poverty. 52 Due to limited volumes of production, SSF that enter global markets often rely on one specific market, making them particularly vul- nerable to market shocks resulting from recessions, political instability, conflict, or natural disasters occurring in other geographic areas. For example, despite the resilience demonstrated by many small-scale fishing communities at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the closure of China’s seafood markets was devastating for some SSF reliant on foreign markets, such as Sri Lanka’s spiny lobster fishery – the focus of the Sri Lanka case study (Arin et al 2024; Knight et al 2020). 53 See, for example, the impact of increasing market access on SSF on Nicaragua’s remote Atlantic Coast (Stevens et al 2014). 54 An estimated 67.5 million people are employed in commercial fisheries (that is, engaged in fishing for pay or profit), of which 90% in small-scale fisheries, and 52.8 million participating in subsistence fishing, illustrating the important role fisheries play in both reducing and alleviating poverty. 29 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES THE PROBLEM STATEMENT Indigenous Peoples and local communities dependent on SSF are more vulnerable to climate hazards and other shocks than other groups, but they also tend to be more invested in resource sustainability (IPCC 2019; Barange et al 2018). The fisheries sector comprises diverse types of workers, including communities of fishers and fish workers who have been partially or wholly reliant on fisheries for generations, migrant fishers, and people who have opportunistically entered an open-access fishery because profits are good or as a safety net in response to shock. These different segments of the workforce tend to have different interests, rights, and values, and some of them are more vulnerable than others. Fishing communities and particularly those who are Indigenous tend to have deep cultural connections to fisheries, and therefore a cultural dependence on specific species, places, and practices, making them especially sensitive to shocks and stresses on their livelihoods (Barange et al 2018). Furthermore, fisheries governance—and wider governance of the areas that fisheries workers and their communities depend on—has often failed to recognize and respect customary tenure and other rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. 55 It has also typically failed to fairly distribute socioeconomic costs, benefits, and risks of policy reforms and blue-economy development (Cohen et al 2019; Osterblom et al 2020; Evans et al 2023; Schutter et al 2024). These potential structural constraints and inequities undermine the effectiveness of efforts to address ecological drivers of risks (see Section 2.2) and exacerbate vulnerabilities. However, their cultural connections also tend to mean that Indigenous Peoples and fishing communities are more invested in the sustainability of a fishery resource, unlike new or temporary entrants who are more likely to be motivated by short-term profit. Women (see Box 2.2) and youth are also often disadvantaged, which makes them particularly vulnerable to shocks (Barange et al 2018). Youth make up significant portions of the fisheries sector, particularly in specific regions of some fisheries-dependent countries. 56 They also face specific challenges since they typically do not own vessels or gear, lack access to financial services and products, and may struggle to negotiate access to fishery resources (Fry et al 2021). 55 We refer here not only to rights to land/water/fishery resources (tenure), but also to the full range of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights of fishing communities that underpin the Voluntary Guidelines for Small-Scale Fisheries (FAO 2015). 56 Young people are more represented in fisheries relative to their share of total employment in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and aquaculture (World Bank 2023). HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 30 BOX 2.2 GENDER IN THE SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES SECTOR New research indicates that women make up around 40 percent of people involved in SSF (FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023). Although fishing is typically associated with men, women also catch fish, mostly from the shoreline on foot or from small, non-motorized vessels, and particularly for subsistence (they comprise 45 percent of subsistence fishers). Women also make up half of people engaged in post-harvest labor such as processing, trading, and marketing, and 15 percent of people engaged in pre-harvest labor such as net repair. These activities are critical to household economies and small enterprises, but tend to be poorly understood and undervalued, increasing women’s vulnerability. Poor accounting and related invisibility of women’s activities results in gender disparities in pay and access to resources, financing, markets, SPJ, technology, training, and mobility as well as overall bargaining power. In addition, representation of women in fisheries organizations and other decision-making bodies is generally poor. Ultimately, these inequities increase the vulnerability of women to shocks and stresses. 2.2 Institutional and policy challenges Differences in institutional mandates and objectives between the fisheries and SPJ sectors limit incentives for institutional coordination. Government ministries responsible for fisheries tend to focus on production and related environmental issues. While these ministries or their agencies may have a department mandated to support fishers’ and fish workers’ welfare, they usually do not deal with broader poverty and vulnerability issues and may have limited understanding of how these issues relate to fisheries or the potential for SPJ to strengthen and enable fisheries management. Whether or not these institutions have the capacity or resources for collecting, analyzing, and using fisheries-related data and enforcing regulations, they cannot provide the range of interventions required to reduce vulnerability and improve the effectiveness of fisheries management. Ministries responsible for SPJ tend to focus on poor households rather than specific economic sectors such as fisheries. These ministries are rarely informed about the risks fisheries workers face, particularly in countries where fisheries directly support only a small portion of the 31 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES THE PROBLEM STATEMENT poor and vulnerable population. SPJ ministries may see little to gain from engaging with the fisheries sector since governments often undervalue the broader contributions fisheries make to employment, economies, food security and nutrition, and the main social affairs and labor agenda does not usually include environmental issues. Similar institutional silos exist with non-state actors. As a result, SPJ and fisheries policies and associated strategies tend to be disconnected and incoherent, leading to inefficient and often ineffective programs. SPJ policies rarely consider fisheries policy objectives, and rarely deliberately integrate environmental objectives or respond adequately to climate change or natural resource management (Costella et al 2023). Similarly, fisheries policies rarely consider potential conflicts with SPJ objectives (FAO 2022b). This means that SPJ programs are typically not designed with fisheries workers or fisheries policy objectives in mind. It also means that fisheries management regimes typically do not integrate measures to mitigate potential harm to people and their livelihoods. This leads to inefficient allocation of already scarce resources (Box 2.3) and negative outcomes for people and nature (FAO 2022b). Fisheries management and conservation measures can result in substantial costs for those affected. While fisheries management and related habitat conservation measures are essential to conserving and rebuilding fish stocks and preserving the health and resilience of the ocean, the short- to medium-term costs can be a challenge for those whose activities are affected. For example, seasonal closures, Marine Protected Areas (MPA), and gear restrictions can all reduce income and food security, as well as threaten cultural identity and human rights (Ovando et al 2016; Arthur et al 2022; Smallhorn-West et al 2023). These costs not only reduce social equity (Bennett et al 2021), but they can also reduce acceptance of—and, therefore, compliance with— regulations, ultimately undermining management effectiveness and reducing the benefits fisheries can provide to society (Wallace et al 2015; Oyanedel, Gelcich and Milner-Gulland 2020). HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 32 BOX 2.3 CURRENT GLOBAL EXPENDITURE ON SPJ AND FISHERIES The world is far from achieving universal social protection (SDG Target 1.3), with benefits currently reaching only half the global population, while public expenditure on fisheries often promotes overfishing. On average, countries spend only 1.5 percent of GDP on social assistance (World Bank 2018).⁵⁷ The estimated cost of investments needed to mitigate harm to fishers from global fish stock recovery efforts is relatively small.⁵⁸ However, government spending tends to prioritize short-term benefits over sustainability and associated long-term benefits. Globally, public expenditure on marine fisheries is around US$35 billion per year, but nearly two-thirds promote overfishing by artificially reducing costs (Sumaila et al 2019). In contrast, only 30 percent goes to fisheries management and other efforts to support sustainability, while other “ambiguous” subsidies, including SPJ for the fisheries sector,⁵⁹ make up 7 percent (Sumaila et al 2019). Global marine fisheries subsidies also mostly go to large-scale fisheries, despite the much larger numbers of people employed in SSF (Schuhbauer et al 2020). Reforming fisheries subsidies could fund the transition to sustainability. Removing subsidies that contribute to overfishing—an action SDG 14.6 called for but which, at the time of writing, World Trade Organization (WTO) Members have not yet agreed upon—could mobilize substantial domestic resources for fisheries management and complementary SPJ to support the transition to sustainability (Damania et al 2023; Skerritt et al 2023). Lack of coordination within, and between, government agencies and other actors can also translate into fragmented policies and programs. For example, in some countries, SPJ 57 programs are provided by multiple agencies with unclear or overlapping mandates, and these programs may not be coordinated under a coherent vision or strategy. Lack of coordination 58 between national, subnational, and local government can also hamper implementation of SPJ and fisheries management, especially in remote areas. Similarly, lack of cooperation 59 and coordination between non-governmental actors—such as NGOs, insurance companies, fisheries associations and cooperatives, and community-based organizations—keep them 57 Social assistance expenditure and coverage is typically lower in lower-income countries. 58 The cost of rebuilding global fisheries was estimated in 2012 to be in the order of US$ 200 billion, with the benefits far exceeding costs (Sumaila et al 2012). 59 While Sumaila et al (2019) classify SPJ as “ambiguous” subsidies, this Handbook guides users towards ensuring that SPJ interventions act as “beneficial” fisheries subsidies that support sustainability. 33 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES THE PROBLEM STATEMENT from maximizing their potential to help design and implement effective programs (Bladon et al 2022). Coordination is particularly limited at the international level, despite the mobile and transboundary nature of most fishery resources, and often of workers. Current governmental arrangements also limit coordinated and flexible budgeting and financing. With limited motivation for coordination in programming and budgeting mechanisms, it can be politically and practically challenging for finance ministries and agencies controlling public budgets to specifically dedicate resources to the fisheries sector, particularly for SPJ. Lack of flexibility and contingencies in budgeting mechanisms can also make it difficult to account for the uncertainties around crises, including those associated with fisheries and climate-related shocks, preventing timely and effective SPJ responses and adaptive fisheries management (Bharadwaj and Mitchell 2022). While these challenges are most pronounced in countries with limited fiscal space for investment in either SPJ or fisheries (see, for example, the Sri Lanka case study) (Arin et al 2024), these countries also stand to gain most from better inter-ministerial coordination and collaboration. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 34 SECTION 3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO LEVERAGE SPJ FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES This section presents three main opportunities to leverage SPJ for more productive and sustainable fisheries, which can ultimately support a range of SDGs. It first provides an overview before outlining each opportunity in detail. 35 1 HANDBOOK HANDBOOK TOTO LEVERAGE LEVERAGE SOCIAL SOCIAL PROTECTION PROTECTION AND AND JOBS JOBS INTERVENTIONS MEASURES FOR SUSTAINABLE FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES FISHERIES CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The conceptual framework outlined in Figure 3.1 builds and elaborates on a framework previously developed under the same activity 60 to outline roles that SPJ interventions can potentially play in: (a) enabling and incentivizing registration, which can provide data essential for both SPJ and fisheries management; (b) creating enabling conditions for sustainable fisheries ; and (c) directly incentivizing behavior change to specifically support fisheries management. Opportunities a, b, and c are not mutually exclusive; a is a foundational process and pre-requi- site for b and c, and b and c can work in parallel (and may overlap in some cases).61 Figure 3.1 also highlights the importance of monitoring, evaluation, learning, and adaptation, while Box 3.1 outlines some critical assumptions underpinning the framework, as well as risks. It is important to note that SPJ is not a panacea but, rather, a potential enabler and source of incentives for sustainable fisheries. 60 Bladon et al (2022) outlined a conceptual framework for aligning SPJ with fisheries management, which identified three main “actions”: (i) registration of fisheries actors, (ii) change of behavior within the fisheries sector, and (iii) fishery exit. The first described enabling and incentivizing engagement in, or successful implementation of, the administrative process of registration in a social and/or fisheries registry (equivalent to Figure 3.1a), whereas the other two related more directly to incentivizing fisheries management (equivalent to Figure 3.1c). 61 For example, unconditional transfers to compensate for the costs of fisheries policy reform is classified here as a direct incentive (Fig- ure 3.1c[i]), given that they would be very deliberately integrated with fisheries policy and management, but they could also be viewed as an example of creating enabling conditions for sustainable fisheries by reducing the shock imposed (Figure 3.1b[ii]). HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 36 Conceptual framework for leveraging SPJ to support productive and FIGURE 3.1 sustainable fisheries (a) Enable and incentivize registration Improve data by enabling and incentivizing fisheries actors to register in some form of information system through targeted outreach to fishing communities and provision of packages of benefits and services, and by enabling interoperability between information systems. (b) SPJ to create enabling conditions (c) SPJ to provide direct incentives (i) Reduce (ii) Enhance shock (i) Support (ii) Promote vulnerability and responsiveness fisheries livelihood build more and disaster management diversification and sustainable, preparedness. measures by labor transformation climate-resilient mitigating short- to reduce numbers livelihoods. to medium-term of fisheries workers. Examples: costs of behavior Examples: - Unconditional change. - Mainstream transfers Examples: social assistance Examples: - Conditional - Public work s - Conditional transfers - Active labor - Social insurance transfers - ALMPs market programs (ALMPs) - Parametric - Public works - Economic inclusion - Economic insurance - Financial services - Unemployment inclusion - Informal support benefits - Early retirement - Informal such as - Vocational assistance, e.g. community education remittances savings and loans groups Reduced vulnerability and improved Benefits and services directly incentivize climate resilience enable environmental behavior changes that support fisheries stewardship, including participation in management objectives, including fisheries management. permanent exit. Monitoring, evaluation, learning and adaptation Productive, sustainable fisheries support livelihoods, food security and nutrition, and other Sustainable Development Goals. Following registration (a), SPJ can support sustainable and productive fisheries in two main ways (Emerton 2000; McNeely 2006; Mohammed 2014): (b) SPJ can indirectly incentivize behavior change through the collateral effects of establishing enabling conditions—that is, by reducing vulnerability and, therefore, the motivations for overexploitation; and (c) SPJ can provide direct incentives to reward positive behaviors or outcomes, or to compensate for avoiding negative ones. 37 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK To provide direct incentives (c), SPJ interventions must be specifically designed or adapted to target fisheries workers for this purpose, with fisheries policy and management objectives guiding implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Furthermore, benefits or services typically need to be conditional on a specific behavior change expected to lead to positive fisheries management outcomes. To create enabling conditions (b), interventions in each sector must be in some way aligned, coordinated, or combined, but SPJ programs do not need to be specifically designed to target only fisheries workers or use conditions. Instead, governments can leverage existing and mainstream SPJ programs that focus on general poverty reduction and shock response. Each of these opportunities (b and c) presents a set of two options for leveraging SPJ to support sustainable fisheries. Again, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive—one intervention can entail more than one of these options. Figure 3.1 highlights the types of SPJ instruments that appear to have the most potential for each option. To create enabling conditions for sustainability (b), SPJ can be leveraged to: (i) reduce vulnerability and support climate-resilient livelihoods; and (ii) respond to shocks and enhance disaster preparedness. Suitable instruments include mainstream/national social assistance programs, public works, active labor market programs (ALMPs), economic inclusion, and voluntary saving schemes. Social insurance schemes can also be adapted to respond to specific risks fisheries workers face, such as those arising from irregular income, bad weather, and loss of fishing gear. To directly enable and incentivize behavior change (c), SPJ can be leveraged to: (i) reward or compensate for short- (but potentially recurring) to medium-term costs of a specific behavior change of benefit to fisheries management; and (ii) incentivize livelihood diversification and labor market transformation to reduce the number of workers in a fishery, subsector, or area. Instruments such as conditional transfers and unemployment benefits are particularly relevant in the short to medium term, whereas instruments such as ALMPs and economic inclusion can be combined with conditional transfers to diversify or transform the livelihood activities of fisheries workers in the longer term. The most suitable approaches and types of SPJ instruments will ultimately depend on contextual factors, notably: • the socioeconomic and ecological characteristics of the fisheries in question, such as species recovery rates; • fisheries policy objectives and specific weaknesses in, or lack of, management regimes; • existing SPJ programs and systems; and • financing options. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 38 Regardless of the approach, it is important that formal SPJ programs build on, and strengthen, any existing informal SPJ mechanisms, rather than eroding or replacing them (FAO 2017).6263 Strong fisheries management regimes are required to prevent SPJ interventions from creating perverse incentives that contribute to overfishing. SPJ that helps improve fish-stock productiv- ity and welfare in open-access fisheries and fishing communities may attract new fisheries entrants. Given that SPJ interventions to create enabling conditions are not specifically designed for existing fisheries workers, these interventions in particular must be combined with strong fisheries management regimes to keep new fishery entrants below levels that cannot be supported by fishery stocks (see also Box 3.1). Direct-incentive interventions also require rigorous monitoring and enforcement to ensure compliance with desired actions and to avoid perverse incentives. BOX 3.1 MAIN ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS UNDERPINNING THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO LEVERAGE SPJ FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES Assumptions • Access to the fishery is, or will become, restricted/closed (as opposed to open access), or otherwise regulated through traditional systems.⁶² • Management of any other, including large-scale, fleets fishing on the same stocks is effective. • Any intervention to add value in the fishery value chain is linked to restricted/closed access and additional measures to prevent overfishing. Risks • Fisheries management and associated SPJ may reduce fishing pressure in its geographic area but may increase it elsewhere. • The approach can be undermined by activities of other fishers, whether migrant fishers, those fishing illegally within a specific area, or fishers outside this area using shared stocks, including stocks extending into areas beyond national jurisdiction.⁶³ • There is high potential for conflict between different fisheries actors, particularly if SPJ is restricted to specific groups within an area. • Availability of affordable nutrients will likely be temporarily reduced in fishing communities and beyond. • SPJ can act as a harmful or ambiguous subsidy if not sufficiently integrated, aligned, or combined with fisheries management, and this risk is highest when SPJ is used to create enabling conditions. 62 As explained in Section 2, there are long traditions of conditional access in SSF, whereby permission to fish in an area is granted upon some condition (for example, following rules around seasonal closures or gear type). Although many of these have been undermined, reviving them can be an option in contexts where closing access is unfeasible—particularly where there are migratory fishers, or seasonal waterbodies and/or resources (Allison & Ellis 2001; Arthur 2020). 63 Activities in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction can impact coastal SSF through ocean currents and migratory pathways (Popova et al 2019). 39 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 3.1 ENABLING AND INCENTIVIZING REGISTRATION Enabling and incentivizing fisheries workers and households to register in information systems provides essential data for fisheries management and SPJ provision (Figure 3.1a). Given the typically informal nature of their work, SSF workers (like informal workers in other subsectors) are rarely included in social registries or foundational ID systems such as civil registers and national ID and population registers. Similarly, fisheries data-collection systems rarely capture SSF workers (see Box 3.2), and fisheries information systems are rarely linked to social registries or other administrative data. However, deliberate institutional coordination and incentives—including, but not limited to, SPJ benefits—can enable and encourage fisheries actors to register, providing a means to collect information not only on individuals, but also on assets and activities (see, for example, Morocco’s efforts to register SSF workers—Table 3.1). This information can inform fisheries management and help design, adapt, and implement SPJ programs to enable environmental stewardship (Figure 3.1b) and/or directly incentivize specific behaviors that support fisheries management objectives (Figure 3.1c). Through collaboration and coordination between the fisheries and SPJ sectors, interventions can become more cost-effective than those developed through sectoral approaches. BOX 3.2 FISHERIES DATA COLLECTION Patchy and unreliable fisheries data limit fisheries management and SPJ interventions in SSF. This poses challenges not only for assessing the needs and conditions of fisheries actors for SPJ, but also for monitoring their compliance with any conditions on behavior changes and/or fisheries management outcomes and evaluating how SPJ affects these outcomes. Although governments often hold vessel registries and crew lists, as well as fisheries trade and processor registries, these tend not to include SSF and informal workers (FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023), and even in the large-scale sector these data are unreliable in many countries. Moreover, because fisheries registration typically focuses on vessels or individual workers, information is rarely disaggregated to identify important groups. Data are rarely available on the household unit or disaggregated by gender or age group. Data collection also tends to emphasize some value-chain activities, such as fishing, over others, such as trading, therefore implicitly emphasizing men over women. Lastly, while fisheries data collection tends to prioritize catch and fishing effort over many other important socioeconomic aspects, even data on catch, effort, and stock status remain limited in SSF (FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023), making it challenging to assess and monitor productivity and sustainability. Practitioners can link fisheries registries to, or fill data gaps with, broader statistical systems or national surveys, such as environmental databases housed in other agencies, agriculture surveys, and household and labor market surveys. However, these data rarely adequately or accurately represent fisheries workers. They often aggregate fisheries with agriculture or aquaculture (or both) and other rural livelihoods, and rarely adequately reflect the multiple livelihood strategies of many rural households. Furthermore, these data sources rarely include information needed to determine specific SPJ needs and preferences. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 40 Appropriate incentives for registration depend on context. In addition to SPJ benefits and services, options could include offering subsidized insurance and other social services; improving or facilitating access to finance and infrastructure, such as marketing facilities, or to certification programs; or establishing or securing tenure rights (FAO 2019). In some circumstances, the promise of being formally identified as a fisher or fish worker can act as a social incentive to register (Rare 2018). On the other hand, the prospect of formalizing can also act as a barrier to registration. Many workers prefer to stay informal to avoid taxes and regulations—especially when the costs of these exceed, or are perceived to exceed, the benefits—and registration is unlikely to appeal in marginalized communities, in conflict situations, or when relationships with authorities are weak. However, encouraging and facilitat- ing registration can be a first step in a cycle of mutually reinforcing benefits for fisheries and the people who depend on them for income, food security, and nutrition. The benefits not only come from SPJ but also potentially from value addition, access to higher value markets, and more effective management (FAO 2019). Targeted outreach may be necessary to raise awareness of SPJ programs and benefits, particularly in rural areas. Given that fisheries households are often dispersed across remote areas with poor infrastructure, and are often highly mobile, they can have limited awareness of SPJ. Awareness campaigns and coordination with fisheries organizations may be required to reach fishing communities (Arin et al 2024). For optimum success, the registration process requires interoperability between information systems (see Sanchez Galvis and Rodriguez-Novoa 2024, and Nguyen et al 2024 about efforts on interoperability in the Costa Rica and Viet Nam case studies, respectively). Linking complemen- tary information systems, such as fisheries information systems and social registries, requires a good identification system (ideally a foundational identification system such as national ID or civil registry ID with good coverage) to uniquely match individuals across registries and databases. The legal and political basis to do so must also be in place. Once fisheries workers and their household information is included in these information systems, they can be assessed for eligibility and enrolled in appropriate SPJ programs. 41 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TABLE 3.1 Example of SPJ being leveraged for more productive and sustainable fisheries. These examples are illustrative, rather than being presented as models of success; the literature cited provides detail not only on positive impacts of these interventions on fisheries, but also the challenges. The ways in which they leverage SPJ correspond to the different opportunities (a, b, and c) highlighted in Figure 3.1. WAYS IN WHICH SPJ HAS COUNTRY EXAMPLE SOURCES BEEN LEVERAGED Enabling and incentiviz- Government agencies took a coordinated ap- FAO (2019); ing registration (Figure proach in Morocco to facilitate and encourage World Bank 3.1a) small-scale fishers to register for social insur- (2021b) ance. SPJ to reduce vulnerabil- The public works program in Fiji (Jobs for Nature Government of ity and support climate- 2.0) aims to create jobs in rural communities, Fiji (2023) resilient livelihoods including, but not limited to coastal fisheries (Figure 3.1b[i]) communities, while reducing environmental deg- radation and contributing to climate resilience. SPJ to respond to shocks The Caribbean Oceans and Aquaculture Sus- World Bank and increase disaster tainability Facility (COAST) offers a parametric (2019); CCRIF preparedness (Figure insurance scheme in Grenada and Saint Lucia (2019) 3.1b[ii]) that provides rapid payouts to fisheries workers after extreme weather events. SPJ to cover short- to A national social assistance program has been Dewhurst-Rich- medium-term costs of adapted in Bangladesh to compensate vulnera- man et al behavior change (Figure ble fishing households with rice for the cost of (2016); May, Ve- 3.1c[i]) seasonal fishery closures. lia and Benam- mour (2023) Under its national unemployment scheme, Brazil FAO and IPC-IG provides SSF workers with a minimum wage (2023) during annual closed seasons for certain species. SPJ to incentivize di- In Lamak, Indonesia, a coalition of government Booth et al versification and labor and NGOs has taken an integrated approach to (2021) market transformation reduce the fishing of manta rays, a protected (Figure 3.1c[ii]) species, combining community outreach and live- lihood-focused incentives with targeted enforce- ment actions. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 42 3.2 CREATING ENABLING CONDITIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES Through its role in reducing general poverty and vulnerability and addressing climate challenges, SPJ can help create enabling conditions for sustainable fisheries (Figure 3.1b). In addition to reducing general vulnerability and helping people cope with various shocks, SPJ can play an instrumental role in supporting climate-resilient livelihoods, responding to climate shocks and enhancing disaster preparedness (Costella et al 2023; Costella et al 2024). These interventions can also create conditions in fishing communities to help safeguard fishery resources in the long term. This approach should be relatively straightforward, since it can build upon existing SPJ programs that do not necessarily need to be specifically adapted for fisheries actors. Making mainstream SPJ more available to fishing communities64 should create basic conditions that help build the capacity of fishers and fish workers to follow regulations, such as seasonal closures, and reduce the need for overfishing.65 This may require adjustments to outreach strategies, eligibility criteria, and benefit and service packages, as well as expanding program coverage (see Section 4.3). However, increased access to mainstream SPJ can also lead to increased fishing pressure—potentially more than stocks can sustain—unless parallel regimes are in place to manage fishing effort. 3.2.1 Using SPJ to reduce vulnerability and support climate-resilient livelihoods SPJ aims to reduce poverty and increase human capital, helping households to better manage, or adapt to, risks (Figure 3.1b[i]). Social assistance, ALMPs, and economic inclusion approaches can increase income and food consumption of poor households, leading to better health and education, which can help build climate resilience even when they do not have specific climate goals (Costella et al 2024). In addition to regular social assistance programs (cash transfers and public works, for example), ALMPs and economic inclusion programs designed specifically to support transition to more resilient livelihoods can also contribute to longer-term adaptation to climate change, which is critical for the future of fishing communities (Costella et al 2023). Examples include Fiji’s climate-sensitive public works program (Table 3.1), Sri Lanka’s economic inclusion pilots in coastal areas (Arin et al 2024), and Kenya’s National Youth Opportunities Towards Advancement (NYOTA) program (Pela et al 2024).66 64 Given the open-access nature of most SSF and the widespread use of fishing as a coping mechanism during times of shock, ensuring that all poor and vulnerable households have access to mainstream programs—irrespective of whether they are in the fisheries sector or part of a fishing community or not—can also help prevent fishing pressure from increasing in the long term. However, this is beyond the scope of this Handbook. 65 This aligns with the “sequencing” approach to fisheries policy reforms and investments advocated for example by Allison (2011) and Allison et al (2012), whereby securing human rights and reducing vulnerability is a foundational step of fisheries development that should ultimately improve fisheries governance and the effectiveness of subsequent interventions, including fisheries management. 66 The NYOTA project has promoted various interventions to enhance youth employability in the blue economy, such as on-the-job train- ing and youth entrepreneurship in the blue-economy sectors, which is supported through grants and training on sustainable business models. 43 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Livelihood support should encourage fisheries workers to diversify beyond the fisheries sector. Although benefits would not be conditional67 on a specific change in fishery activities or practices, support to transition to more diverse, productive, and resilient livelihoods should encourage diversification outside of the fisheries sector, or at least avoid increased fishing pressure. In practice, outcomes in this area are mixed (Pomeroy 2012; Stacey et al 2021).68 Additional or alternative livelihood options do not always reduce fishing pressure and can actually provide the means to increase fishing pressure if restrictions are lacking (Allison and Horemans 2006; Brugere, Holvoet and Allison 2008; Slater, Napigkit and Stead 2013; Stacey et al 2021). Livelihood interventions to reduce loss and waste in fisheries value chains, or otherwise add value to fish and fish products, are common and can help increase incomes and food security without increasing catches. However, it is imperative that this additional value per kilogram of fish caught does not also lead to additional fishing pressure as profitability increases (Purcell et al 2024). 3.2.2 Using SPJ to respond to shocks and increase disaster preparedness SPJ can also promote fisheries sustainability by helping households prepare for, and respond to, shocks. National SPJ systems that anticipate shocks, climate-related or otherwise (Figure 3.1b[ii]), and that deliver assistance or insurance quickly to affected populations, should reduce negative coping strategies, including those that involve increasing fishing pressure. Such shock-responsive interventions require linking early warning systems (EWS) to robust information systems with comprehensive and regular registration of all workers and their assets (Figure 3.1a) (Bharadwaj and Mitchell 2022). Countries should ensure that national or other mainstream programs are accessible and appropriate for fisheries workers and communities. This may require adjustments to benefits and service provision—insuring against specific risks such as loss of fishing vessels, for example, as well more general risks such as death and disability (see Section 4.3). It is crucial, however, that any support for equipment loss or damage does not increase fishing pressure, an unintended consequence seen, for example, in coastal Sri Lanka following the 2004 tsunami (Arin et al 2024). It may also be necessary to design new programs specifically to suit the needs of fisheries workers and their communities. Parametric insurance, for example, has been used in agriculture as a cost-effective alternative to disaster relief (Bowen et al 2020). As a simple product that does not require high levels of information, monitoring, or risk management, it is also well suited to the fisheries sector (FAO 2020). Such insurance can provide timely and 67 In this context, SPJ that is conditional on a specific change in behavior related to fisheries would not be appropriate. This type of direct incentive would fall under option c (Figure 3.1). 68 This assessment of two decades of sustainable livelihood programs aimed at reducing poverty and improving resilience through en- hancing or diversifying livelihood practices in Indonesian fishing communities found consideration of local social context, understanding the role of markets, and incorporating a gender approach to be key factors for success. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 44 predictable support when a pre-agreed trigger point is reached based on reliable EWS (see, for example, the Caribbean’s parametric insurance scheme in Table 3.1). Building on informal systems and mechanisms for SPJ and fisheries management may be beneficial, as in Solomon Islands where there is potential to leverage mechanisms and systems of community-based resource management to provide SPJ benefits (Kendrick et al 2024). 3.3 DIRECTLY INCENTIVIZING BEHAVIOR CHANGE FOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SPJ can provide direct incentives in two different ways: (i) Incentivize behavior changes to support management measures that have short- to medium-term costs for affected fisheries workers, for example, temporarily ceasing fishing to allow recovery of a depleted stock, or restoring mangroves (Figure 3.1c[i]). (ii) Incentivize livelihood diversification and labor market transformation to support long-term reductions in the number of workers in a fishery, subsector, or area (Figure 3.1c[ii]). Which approach is more appropriate depends on several factors, including: • the fishery/species in question, particularly the species’ speed of replenishment;69 • the current state of the fishery stock, and therefore the timescale over which management measures are needed to rebuild stocks to a level where they can generate sustainable returns—that is, MSY; • whether the rebuilt stock(s) can sustain the original number of fishers without collapsing again, to what extent socioeconomic objectives indicate that it should (Annex B provides more detail); and • the country context and how much political appetite and financing there is for each approach, which may require slightly different types of financing (Holmes et al 2014). For example, a closed season to rebuild a stock may be required for only a short period during the year—for a few weeks or months—but the closed season will probably need to be repeated for several years before a stock recovers, or even for the foreseeable future, in order to prevent the recovered stock from going back to unsustainable levels.70 However, SPJ interventions to incentivize compliance with the closed season (Figure 3.1c[i]) may only be needed for a few years since, once recovered, the fishery should be profitable enough to sustain fishers’ and fish workers’ livelihoods even with the closed season still in place. That said, parallel use of instruments to incentivize livelihood diversification and support labor market transformation may be necessary or beneficial. These interventions could be used to further support the recovery of the stock for a more certain outcome, they could allow for a shortened closure once a stock has recovered (thus allowing for a slight increase in fishing effort for those remaining), 69 For example, small pelagic fish (which live in the water column of the ocean or lakes) tend to recover relatively quickly, whereas reef fish, which are associated with coral reefs, take much longer (McClanahan et al 2017). 70 The number of years depends on whether the species is a slow- or fast-reproducing one. 45 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK and they could allow for an influx of new entrants (young fishers, for example, or people using the fishery in times of shock) (Figure 3.1c[ii]). Targeting SPJ interventions to provide direct incentives is complex; certain groups may need to be prioritized over others, which can entail trade-offs between fisheries and SPJ policy objectives. Fisheries ministries often focus interventions on fishing without considering pre- and post-harvest sub-sectors, but the immediate costs of fisheries regulations can reverberate throughout value chains and fishing communities at large. An integrated approach that incentivizes all fishers as well as other actors in the value chain is therefore generally preferable. However, fiscal constraints often lead governments to prioritize SPJ for certain groups or sub-sectors, a process sometimes referred to as “ring-fencing” (setting parameters of eligibility for a specific intervention). Fisheries actors can be broadly divided into four main groups, based on their vulnerability level and access rights, to help guide the task of prioritiz- ing and designing direct incentives (see Figure 3.2 for a simplistic overview). However, this prioritization can create conflicts and reduce the acceptability of interventions, undermining their legitimacy and effectiveness. For example, compensating only the most vulnerable (group A) when a management measure affects an entire community can be perceived as unfair (Bladon et al 2016, 2018). In terms of access rights, the many small-scale fishers who migrate and/or fish in areas where they do not have legal status or a recognized right to fish (group C) present a specific and complex challenge: first, they need to be identified and potentially registered, and, secondly, in the case of migrant fishers, agreement needs to be reached on who should bear the cost of any support. Compensating workers to cease activities already prohibited or not recognized could be problematic, yet excluding them from SPJ could undermine the effective- ness of incentives provided to others. Nevertheless, all four groups need to be considered when designing SPJ interventions in a specific area or fishery. FIGURE 3.2 Overview of main factors that can influence eligibility for direct incentives VULNERABILITY* LEVEL More vulnerable Less vulnerable (A) Eligible and priority target group (B) Eligible group Licensed/ Primary target group for SPJ interventions to enable For the sake of legitimacy and buy-in, registered participation in fisheries management for positive this group too should generally be fishers and outcomes. included, even if they can bear the ACCESS RIGHTS fish workers costs of a specific management intervention without support. Unlicensed/ (C) Potentially eligible group (D) Potentially ineligible group non-registered fishers and fish This group may have used the fishery resource This group can potentially be denied workers (potentially without a recognized right, but they may continue access without any compensation including migrant to do so if not o ered an alternative—in when introducing fisheries contradiction with fisheries management management measures. fishers) measures— thus undermining intended outcomes. * This refers to general vulnerability, which is also influenced by welfare level (poverty). It encompasses not only vulnerability to poverty but also vulnerability to climate-related risks and other ecological hazards, as well as the costs of transitioning to sustainable fisheries. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 46 Interventions that reduce fishing can also decrease food available in the marketplace. Another risk associated with directly incentivizing behavior change to reduce fishing pressure is a short-term reduction in availability of affordable nutrients. To manage this risk, authorities could introduce interventions gradually, perhaps sequenced geographically or by species, and over time. In addition, consideration should be given to replacing that supply, for example through food programs, investing in and promoting sustainable community aquaculture, and reducing loss and waste throughout aquatic food value chains. 3.3.1 Using SPJ to cover short- to medium-term costs of behavior change SPJ can directly incentivize a specific behavior change to benefit fisheries management by compensating for short- to medium-term costs of complying with regulations, or by rewarding voluntary behaviors (Figure 3.1c[i]). These behaviors could range from compliance with one-off fishery closures, recurrent seasonal closures and gear bans, and permanently closed areas, to voluntary participation in habitat conservation or restoration to support fisheries. Mangrove forests, for example, provide critical nursery grounds for juvenile fish. Even in the case of behavior changes expected to recur annually (for example, during seasonal closures), or which are required over multiple years (for example, area closures), incentives for compliance should only be needed for as long as it takes for fish stocks to replenish or become more productive, and therefore for catches and incomes to increase (Ovando et al 2016). Several SPJ instruments show promise in these contexts. Promising instruments include conditional transfers (which can also be provided through PES),71 unemployment benefits (which can be provided through social insurance schemes or passive labor market programs), and public works (see Table 3.1 for country examples). Making benefits conditional on behavior change or fisheries outcomes (that is, hard conditionality) is usually important, but this can be difficult and costly to monitor in practice. So while payments may be conditional in principle, they are not always linked to compliance in reality (sometimes described as soft conditionality) (Bladon et al 2014). While this can reduce effectiveness in achieving target outcomes, good behavior change communications can help achieve the same or similar outcomes as well as to minimize numbers of “free riders” in these circumstances (Bladon et al 2016; World Bank and IPA 2024). There are also some specific circumstances where unconditional cash transfers may be more appropriate, for example to mitigate negative repercussions of subsidy reforms (de Lange et al 2021; Mukherjee et al 2023).72 71 PES are typically voluntary and often fail to reach the poor and vulnerable, although in practice they are also used to complement regulatory approaches (Bladon et al 2014; Porras, Steele & Mohammed 2016). 72 De Lange et al (2021) proposes the concept of Conservation Basic Income, an unconditional cash transfer to individuals residing in important conservation areas, based on evidence from poverty alleviation cash-transfer programs that are unconditional with respect to conservation outcomes. Mukherjee et al (2023) discusses the use of cash transfers in the context of energy subsidy reforms. It could be argued that SPJ to support fisheries subsidy reform would fall under Figure 3.1b[i], as this is one of the sources of shock that people need to be protected against, but it could also be categorized as a Figure 3.1c[i] approach, given its direct links with fisheries policy. 47 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 3.3.2 Using SPJ to incentivize livelihood diversification and labor market transformation Where fisheries management is expected to impose longer-term challenges on fisheries workers, SPJ can support livelihood diversification and labor transformation (Figure 3.1c[ii]). If management measures cannot help stocks recover to the point that they can sustain all fisheries workers relying on them within a few years, it may be necessary to reduce the total number of people (and vessels) dependent on that stock. SPJ programs can directly incentivize some of these workers to permanently exit a specific fishery or subsector, or even to exit the entire fisheries sector. ALMPs and economic inclusion programs likely represent the most effective and efficient programs in the long term, if correctly implemented. Options include technical, vocational, and educational training (TVET) programs and reskilling/upskilling support for enterprise development and self-employment. These can be combined with financial services and one-off transfers and grants conditional on the desired behavior change (see examples in Table 3.1 and recommendations in the Viet Nam case study [Nguyen et al 2024]). Prioritizing youth—the next generation of potential fisheries workers—may be the best strategy for long-term labor market transformation. Despite facing barriers to entry (Fry et al 2021), the fisheries sector appears to be more attractive for young people than agriculture or aquaculture (World Bank 2023). In populations with high dependence on fisheries and limited alternatives, and where finance for SPJ is limited, targeting ALMPs and economic-inclusion programs to youth may be the most cost-effective way to keep fisheries entrants at levels that can be sustained in the long term (see Sri Lanka case study [Arin et al 2024]). In part, this is because adults are closer to retirement, but youth may also be more open to entering new labor markets, and potentially more educated and motivated to support sustainability (Pollnac 2012; Glover and Sumberg 2020; Espinoza-Tenorio et al 2021). As well as facilitating employment outside the fisheries sector, these instruments can equip youth with skills enabling them to participate in sustainable fisheries management while generating additional income. Another option that may help reduce fishing pressure is to offer early retirement to older fishers (see Peru’s Compensation Fund for Fisheries Management [Bladon et al 2022]). HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 48 SECTION 4 METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES This section provides practical guidance for collecting and analyzing the information and data required to put into practice the conceptual framework presented in this Handbook. 49 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES This section first outlines how to conduct socioeconomic profiling and assess social-ecological risks in fisheries (4.1), before providing guidance on how to conduct rapid assessments for three key elements of SPJ: institutional arrangements and policies (4.2), programs and implementa- tion systems (4.3), and financing (4.4).73 Based on a set of guiding questions for each subsection, this section outlines resources and data to support national or local assessments, along with additional methods and tools for when these are unavailable. The guidance can be adapted according to a specific interest—for example, an entire fisheries sector or a single fishery. Many of the approaches outlined can be implemented relatively easily and quickly; much of the information required can be obtained through desk-based review and analysis of existing documents, databases and statistics. Government officials can also relatively easily enhance their understanding of risks and current programming by conducting key informant interviews (KII), focus group discussions (FGD), and semi-structured consultations with fisheries actors as part of regular field visits. Inter-ministe- rial exchanges may also provide valuable information, for example on sector-specific registries and their administrative data. Other methods—such as adapting national household surveys— would require a greater investment of time and additional resources (Annex C provides two practical tables to guide practitioners through data collection and analysis). 4.1 CHARACTERIZING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RISKS Regardless of how SPJ is leveraged to support sustainable fisheries, it is necessary to establish a socioeconomic and demographic profile of relevant populations and to assess specific social-ecological risks. This subsection presents methods and data sources for profiling relevant populations (4.1.1), followed by those available for assessing social-ecological risks (4.1.2). Building a comprehensive picture of social-ecological risks—that is, the potential socioeconomic impacts of ecological hazards and related socioeconomic processes—requires linking environmental and climate data with the socioeconomic and demographic data collected. This information will reveal specific SPJ needs—for women, men, and youth—to inform policies and enable tailoring of interventions to reduce risks relating specifically to fisheries (as per the opportunities outlined in Figure 3.1) as well as to address wider climate and environmental challenges. 73 These building blocks are based on the World Bank’s framework for Adaptive Social Protection (Bowen et al 2020), which has four main components (institutional arrangements, programs and delivery systems, data and information, and financing), and the Anticipatory So- cial Protection Index for Resilience framework (ASPIRE) (Bharadwaj et al 2023), which is comprised of four slightly different components (policy, systems, program design, and program function). HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 50 Key questions for characterizing social-ecological risks Socioeconomic profiling of fisheries actors (4.1.1): • What are the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics (including livelihood activities)? • What are the types and levels of vulnerabilities? Assessing social-ecological risks (4.1.2): • What is the status of, and trends in, fish-stock abundance and productivity, and what are the observed and potential socioeconomic impacts of any change? • What are the current and projected climate and environmental trends and related socioeconomic impacts on the fishery/fisheries sector? • What are the observed and/or potential socioeconomic impacts of fisheries management measures (see also Section 4.3.1)? 4.1.1 Profiling fisheries actors Reliable, comprehensive data on fisheries workers, households, and communities are critical to ascertain their socioeconomic and demographic characteristics and assess their vulnerabil- ities, which drives social-ecological risks. To profile relevant population groups and determine their specific SPJ needs, it is important to assess the characteristics and vulnerabilities of women, men, girls, and boys, respectively. To this end, data are needed on social, economic, and demographic characteristics of fisheries workers, their households, and communities, disaggregated by gender and age group. Existing quantitative and qualitative data sources, as well as methods for collecting primary data, may be used (see Annex D for checklist guidance on validating existing data sources). The basic level of information required from fisheries workers and their households includes: • type of job(s) they hold or held, for example current and past work experience and types of employment status (most notably, employee, employer, own-account worker, or contributing family worker); • segment of the value chain and type of activities undertaken (such as fishing, trading, processing); • fisheries assets owned (for example vessels, engine, gear); • whether or not activities are officially registered, and whether mainly for pay/profit or for own consumption (if for pay, how much); • seasonality or other patterns in the activities undertaken; • benefits received through employment (most notably, social insurance); and • level of engagement in activities outside the fisheries sector, including unpaid domestic work (see Annex E for details). 51 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 52 Identifying existing data sources Profiling can draw on several key data sources, although some will have limitations. (i) Administrative datasets and statistics • Vessel registries and crew lists: Ministries (or associated agencies) responsible for fisheries collate information on fisheries workers, their assets, and activities. Typically, these data come from vessel registries and crew lists, but also from trade and processor registries. However, due to the informal nature of much of the fisheries sector, many fisheries workers—particularly pre- and post-harvest workers, many of whom are women, and crew members—are not included in fisheries registries. Community-based and fisheries organizations, such as cooperatives and associations, may hold complementary data. • Social registries: These tend to be held by social welfare or planning ministries and can contain socioeconomic data on households. However, scope and coverage vary between countries; some registries have limited population coverage, for instance focusing on poor households or current and potential beneficiaries of social assistance programs. Data may also not be current. • Technical and vocational training authority/council occupational standards: Occupational training standards held by TVET authorities and councils describe the knowledge and skills required to perform a specific occupation in a country. Job-match- ing platforms, often operated by labor ministries, also collect data from job seekers on education, skills, and work experience for job profiling and placement. (ii) National survey data and statistics such as Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (HIES) and Labor Force Surveys (LFS) Countries regularly conduct these data-gathering exercises as part of national statistical systems, which can provide socioeconomic data on fisheries workers and enable comparative analysis with other sectors. However, they may not provide robust statistics on socioeconomic characteristics of fisheries workers, as the sampling design may not adequately capture representative data due to small sample sizes and the spatial distribution of fishing communities. The scope of questions may also fail to capture factors salient to fisheries workers’ lives. As a result, it is not always possible to get data that are representative for the sector from national surveys, especially when the fisheries sector is only a small part of the national economy. In addition, even when the fisheries sector is adequately represented, it is often difficult to disaggregate representative data for those working in the sector, particularly those working in some pre- and post-harvest activities such as fish trading that include many women. Furthermore, underreporting can arise from some people seeing their work in fisheries as a secondary or complementary activity, or when the activity is mainly aimed at household consumption rather than for commercial purposes. This is particularly the case for women in the sector. 53 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES (iii) Targeted surveys and other studies Sometimes governments, development partners, and academic researchers conduct studies in specific areas or fisheries, which may be particularly useful for efforts focused on a specific fishery. Anthropological, sociological, and, particularly, ethnographic studies can provide useful insights into the rationale and worldview of fishing communities (and also have relevance for evaluating the effectiveness of fisheries management regimes, see Section 4.3). Collecting primary data It may be necessary to explore adding fisheries-related questions to national surveys, given likely limitations in existing data. To gather detailed socioeconomic data on fisheries workers, including on seasonal variations in employment, additional questions could be integrated into existing surveys, focusing on workers´ involvement in different segments of the fisheries sector—pre-harvest, harvest, and post-harvest activities—as well as income earned and the duration of their engagement in these fisheries value chains. Adjusting the sample framework of these surveys may be neccessary, including boosting the sample of fisheries workers and communities. Annex E provides detailed guidance on basic questions required for calculating statistical indicators to profile fisheries workers; this is based on a comprehensive quantitative questionnaire developed by the World Bank and the FAO within the framework of the Fisheries Sector Assessment Toolkit (FSAT).74, 75 Regular collection of data from specific value-chain actors can complement household surveys. More specific data can be valuable to support outreach and fisheries management. While SSF workers are rarely registered and often unlicensed—particularly those harvesting from shore without a vessel—management measures would typically apply to the whole group. Specific data on these fishers could enable fisheries managers to design measures that are more direct, localized, and specific than would be the case without such data.76 Specific data would also support design and implementation of SPJ programs to complement a specific management measure. Details on the fishers involved—for example, who they are, how they fish, and their level of engagement—would help to proportionally target those affected. Ministries can collect qualitative information to triangulate and complement quantitative data. Conducting KIIs, FGDs, and semi-structured consultations with fishing community leaders, cooperatives, associations, fish traders and other fisheries workers can provide quantitative data. Information should be collected from, and about, men, women, and youth. 74 FSAT supports the World Bank to successfully expand and implement its fisheries portfolio as it responds to growing client demand. It enables task teams to identify, develop, and monitor the quality of fisheries projects by using a set of practical tools—some developed or furthered by the World Bank, others by external partners, most notably the FAO—to help generate the knowledge required for designing projects, including capture fisheries. The links to the respective FSAT tools included in this document refer to a set of documents relevant for each tool. 75 There is also a complementary survey module for pre- and post-harvest activities under way. 76 Examples include: (i) personal data for registration purposes; (ii) demographic data identifying the group’s characteristics; (iii) em- ployment data to classify them according to fishery subsector/activity; (iv) operational data on fishing-gear use, boat specifications., role onboard, the form of contract and payment and (v) data on their engagement as fishers. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 54 To incentivize long-term transition from certain fisheries or the entire fisheries sector, it may be necessary to conduct additional targeted surveys to better understand labor market supply and demand. Given that fishing and related livelihoods are often closely tied to identity, it is common for people to want to stay in a specific fishery, or at least in the sector, even when there could be better income opportunities elsewhere (Daw et al 2012; Blythe 2014). Special surveys may therefore be needed to collect data from fisheries workers (for example, on education, current and past work experience, soft and hard skills, aspirations) to help identify the individuals most suitable to transition, and the sectors in which they could be able and willing to engage. In addition to ensuring gender representation, these surveys should seek to deliberately include youth, who represent the future generation of potential fisheries workers. Special surveys of local businesses may also be helpful to assess an area’s productive profile and to gauge labor market demand (see Sanchez Galvis and Rodriguez-Novoa 2024). Together with current workforce skills, information on the capacity and interest of other sectors to absorb labor is critical to enable the design of TVET programs that close any skills gap. 4.1.2 Assessing social-ecological risks To adapt and design SPJ interventions in support of sustainable fisheries, it is necessary to understand the main drivers of social-ecological risk and estimate their potential socioeconomic impacts on fisheries actors. Building on the vulnerabilities identified and assessed in Section 4.1.1—which contribute to socioeconomic risk—the main ecological drivers of risk (hazards) should also be identified and assessed. This analysis should include data and information on fish-stock abundance and productivity, as well as current and projected changes in climate and any other major ecological drivers of change in fisheries. Analysis should also consider current and potential socioeconomic impacts of associated policies and fisheries management measures; this is crucial for designing SPJ interventions that are informed by, and linked to, fisheries policy objectives and associated management measures and which can incentivize the desired behaviors. Identifying existing sources of data Information on the status of, and trends in, stock abundance and productivity are fundamental to understanding ecological drivers of risk in the fisheries sector and potential SPJ entry points. The main data sources are: • Stock-assessment reports: Where available, stock-assessment reports contain current and historical information on stock status. Scientific stock assessments account for factors such as life history, age, and abundance trends. They combine structural population models with data to estimate a species’ population size and trajectories 55 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES under various harvest scenarios. These assessments, however, are technical and expensive, and not possible to undertake for many fisheries, particularly SSF and where technical capacity is limited. However, more cost-effective data-limited methods for stock assessment, such as those that rely only on catch data, are increasingly adopted (Free et al 2020). • Catch per unit effort (CPUE) data: These time-series data are useful in that a decline in CPUE usually indicates a decline in stock abundance. Although systematic collection of reliable and comprehensive catch data is rare in SSF (FAO, Duke University and WorldFish 2023), even one-off assessments can serve as a starting point, complemented by local empirical knowledge. The FSAT Fisheries Stock Assessment Capability Guidance Tool provides a structured approach to help evaluate existing and required capabilities of institutions involved in assessments (Box 4.1). It can also guide future investments for areas that need strengthening. BOX 4.1 FISHERIES STOCK ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY GUIDANCE TOOL The World Bank’s Fisheries Stock Assessment Capability Guidance Tool helps evaluate institutional and technical capability for implementing a system whereby science-based management advice informs decisions to achieve management objectives in the utilization of fisheries resources. This refers to the process of generating, compiling and analyzing relevant data to evaluate a resource´s productivity as well as its current situation relative to set targets. The guidance helps identify different methods to describe fish-stock status. It is also critical to consider current and projected changes in climate and, where possible, other major drivers of ecological hazards, such as pollution and changes in the use of land and sea. National and local environmental assessments, projections, and climate response plans (see Section 4.2.2) can provide context on current and projected changes and their potential short- and medium-term socioeconomic impacts on fisheries actors. Satellite-based data and models on sea temperatures, salinity, ocean productivity,77 coastal erosion,78 and mangrove cover79 can provide an overview of habitat type, extent, and health at a large geographic scale. These can be paired with more localized drone or visual survey data assessing key ecological 77 https://aqua.nasa.gov/modis 78 https://coastwatch.noaa.gov/ 79 data.unep-wcmc.org HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 56 indicators such as fish stock abundance (Christensen et al 2014) and benthic80 cover (Shester and Micheli 2011). Satellite data can also spatially track variables such as rainfall, temperature, or sea-level rise to highlight geographic areas with the highest climate risks.81 Integrating these data with those on potential fisheries management or conservation interventions, as well as with climate change projections, can help predict future trajectories of fisheries (Melnychuk et al 2021; Lam et al 2020; Blanchard and Novaglio 2024). Collecting primary data Traditional and local knowledge can complement and fill gaps in scientific data (Gaspare et al 2015). This information can be collected through KIIs, FGDs, and semi-structured consultations. For example, perceptions of change in fish abundance can complement CPUE data, and—when lacking scientific data and catch monitoring—they can indicate changes in productivity (Daw et al 2011; Damasia et al 2015). Where fisheries are “data poor”, it may be worth exploring community- based approaches to long-term data collection (Schroeter et al 2009; Gutierrez 2017). Primary data collection may be required to assess socioeconomic repercussions of changes, including those related to policy reforms. If existing socioeconomic survey data cannot provide relevant information, then KIIs, FGDs, or semi-structured consultations can help collect anecdotal information on current and potential socioeconomic effects from climate, ecological, and related policy changes. These data can help indicate the magnitude of short- to medium-term risks from fisheries or other policy reforms (see Section 4.3) on income or subsistence, and highlight those households most in need of SPJ interventions to support reforms. If resources allow, targeted surveys can include questions on these topics (see Section 4.1.1). Integrating socioeconomic and ecological data Ecological data can be integrated with socioeconomic datasets at national and local scales using geographic referencing to illuminate social-ecological risk. Better integration of existing datasets would enhance the understanding of current or potential socioeconomic impacts of ecological hazards, such as fish-stock decline and extreme weather. For example, national climate and ecological data can be combined with administrative or national socioeconomic survey data to reveal geographic and demographic trends in social-ecological risk, while more localized data on fish-stock abundance and productivity can be paired with fisheries and social registries to assess potential impacts of stock decline for different groups of people. 80 Ecological region at the lowest level of a body of water. 81 https://www.copernicus.eu/en 57 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES 4.2 ASSESSING INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND POLICIES Understanding the policy and legislative context, institutional arrangements, and political economy of the SPJ and fisheries sectors is the starting point for addressing the institutional and policy challenges outlined in Section 2.2, which, in turn, enables implementation of the framework outlined in Section 3. Key questions for assessing institutional arrangements and policy Stakeholders and governance in the SPJ and fisheries sectors (4.2.1): • What is their respective mandate, influence, credibility, and capacity? • What are their inter-relationships and levels of coordination? • How are policies, laws, and regulations around SPJ and fisheries management developed? • How equitable is this governance? Policy and legislative context (4.2.2): • What is the policy context and objectives for the SPJ and fisheries sectors, and is there any coherence? • What are the laws around SPJ and fisheries management? • What are the broader environmental/climate policies and associated strategies, and do they include fisheries? • Similarly, do fisheries policies and strategies account for broader environmen- tal and climate-change aspects? Political economy (4.2.3): • How does the wider political context affect SPJ and fisheries, respectively? • What other sectors significantly affect the fisheries sector, and vice versa? • How might this political context affect the integration of SPJ and fisheries? • Are there any foreseen political or economic events or processes that could be influential? 4.2.1 Mapping stakeholders and governance structures Mapping and appraising relevant actors can reveal opportunities to enhance the institutional environment . A first step is to identify key stakeholders and rightsholders involved in the fisheries and SPJ sectors—including main governmental, parastatal, civil society, and fisheries organizations—and to delineate their specific roles. Rapid appraisal of these actors should HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 58 include a review of their mandates, influence, credibility, and capacity, and the inter-relation- ships between these actors. It is important to understand the role each actor plays in shaping fisheries and SPJ policies, laws, and regulations. Any perceived inequities in governance and management—whether or not substantiated—could undermine the potential for SPJ to effectively incentivize or enable behavior change, so institutional analysis should also include a review of equity-related issues. 82 This should cover how fisheries management and related policies, laws, and regulations are developed, who does and does not have access to the decision-making process, what informs the decisions, any procedures to hold policy makers accountable, and how management costs and benefits are distributed. It is important to identify any specific institutional arrangements or platforms that promote coordination. Understanding the institutional architecture relating to fisheries and SPJ governance and any existing coordination within or between sectors can enable further coordination. Collaborative arrangements may be inter-ministerial, across national and sub-national government levels, or between government, civil society and fisheries organizations (such as co-management institutions). Information can be acquired through KIIs and literature review, and, using an intersectional gender lens, 83 analysis should seek to understand what among these institutions and actors is informed by, shaped by, or biased towards the respective perspectives, experiences, representation, and roles of men, women, youth, and other social groups. The World Bank Fisheries Functional Role Matrix and Guidance (developed within FSAT —see Section 4.1.1) can help map entities responsible for delivering specific functions within a country’s fisheries sector. 84 Functional roles may be assigned to the central government, local government, civil-society organizations, private entities, and others. Establishing the matrix in a participatory way helps capture not only legally mandated roles (de jure) but also less formal roles (de facto) that may exist. The SSF Guidelines (see Box 4.2) can also support stakeholder mapping and governance analysis, as well as policy and legislative analysis (see Section 4.2.2). The FAO Diagnostic Tool (see Box 4.3) provides detailed interview guides. 82 If the interest is in a specific area under co-management, rapid and relatively low-cost, multi-stakeholder site-level tools, such as SAGE and SAPA, are available to assess governance, equity, and social impacts (Franks and Pinto 2020). 83 Recognizing the constraints that prevent women and men, especially the poorest, from participating and benefiting fully. 84 The tool was originally developed within the World Bank Water Global Practice in the context of provision of water sanitation services and has been adapted to the fisheries context. 59 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES BOX 4.2 VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES ON SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES The Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines) is the first internationally agreed instrument dedicated to the SSF sector (FAO 2015). Developed as a complement to the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the Guidelines are intended to support the visibility, recognition, and enhancement of the role of SSF, and contribute to global and national efforts to eradicate hunger and poverty. The Guidelines support responsible fisheries and sustainable social and economic development, with an emphasis on small-scale fishers and fish workers and including vulnerable and marginalized people, promoting a human-rights- based approach. Chapter 6 on social development, employment, and decent work includes a section on promotion of social security protection for workers in the entire value chain in SSF. Developing a National Plan of Action (NPOA) for SSF is an approach to help implement the SSF Guidelines. The first step is to create a national platform comprised of a wide range of stakeholders. While this draws particular attention to the participation of SSF actors, it also encourages engagement and collabora- tion of line ministries, presenting an opportunity to include ministries with social protection mandates. Supporting the SSF Guidelines, the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Framework covers data collection and validation, along with suggested indicators (FAO 2023). Chapter 6 includes several suggested indicators to encourage and monitor linkages between SSF and social protection, including: • proportion of SSF fishers and fish workers along the value chain benefiting from social protection; • number of SSF community organizations providing community-based social protection schemes; • percentage of small-scale fishers and fish workers covered by social insurance; • proportion of SSF households that receive any government assistance or social welfare subsidies; and • proportion of SSF fishers and fish workers with a bank or other financial institutional account, or with a mobile money service provider. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 60 4.2.2 Analyzing policies and legislation Appraising national fisheries, SPJ, climate and environmental policies, and associated strategies helps identify priority issues, objectives, and interventions in each sector. This analysis should consider the extent to which fisheries feature in national and local climate-re- sponse plans 85 and other environmental strategies, such as those related to biodiversity. Similarly, it is important to understand the extent to which climate, disaster, and environmen- tal issues feature in fisheries policies. Policies should be assessed for their degree of current or potential coherence and alignment across sectors. Absence of current or projected policy coherence and alignment is also important to note, as addressing this may become a priority intervention (see Box 4.3). BOX 4.3 FAO FRAMEWORK AND TOOL FOR COHERENCE BETWEEN SOCIAL PROTECTION AND FISHERIES POLICIES The FAO Framework for Analysis and Action (FAO 2022a) and the linked Diagnostic Tool (FAO 2022b) represent key complementary resources to this Handbook. The overall aim of these publications is to “reduce poverty and hunger in fisheries- dependent communities, while enhancing fisheries management and climate-change adaptation and mitigation. The Framework defines entry points for achieving policy coherence. This includes designing or adapting standalone interventions, combining multiple interventions, or coordinating and aligning multiple programs and policies that address both the social welfare of fisheries-dependent communities and environmental sustainability in the fisheries sector. The Diagnostic Tool guides member countries, key stakeholders, and other practitioners in integrating social protection and fisheries policies. It provides guidance on mapping and assessing coherence between fisheries and social protection policies within a country, identifying potential entry points for strengthening coherence and improving knowledge of the benefits of more coherent policies. The Tool provides guidance on conducting desk-based reviews, primary data collection and analysis, including interview guides, and validation workshops. 85 National plans are likely to be produced by ministries with responsibility for climate and environment, and they may take the form of Nationally Determined Contribution reports or be included in donor analyses such as the World Bank’s Country Climate Development Reports (CCDR), a core diagnostic that integrates climate and development. 61 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES Analysis should also identify the main laws related to fisheries management and SPJ. Laws may be at the national, subnational, and local levels, depending on interest and relevance. For example, it may be important to understand if there is a legal basis for co-management, regulating access to fishery resources, social contracts, or social insurance and assistance, including the institutionalization of national flagship social assistance programs and poverty targeting mechanisms. For transboundary fisheries, Box 4.4 provides an example of a regional intergovernmental repository of legislative information that may become a valuable resource. BOX 4.4 GENERAL FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN REPOSITORY OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION RELATING TO FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE (GFCM-LEX) The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) of the FAO has been developing a user-friendly access-to-information repository about its member countries’ legislation related to management of marine living resources, ecosystems, and aquaculture. The GFCM-Lex repository has been progressively compiled, adding under country profiles national laws and decrees relevant to the work of the GFCM enacted as a result of the transposition of binding recommenda- tions from the GFCM. The repository is modular and adaptive in that it enables inclusion of any legal topics the GFCM might wish to pursue, in coordination with partner organizations. In this regard, the GFCM initiated work jointly with the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department to complement the national profiles of select GFCM member countries with legal information on social protection. The work included joint training initiatives for national delegates. It is foreseen that the GFCM-Lex will expand and soon become publicly available. 4.2.3 Analyzing the political-economy context Analysis of the wider political environment can help ensure that interventions are politically appropriate, relevant, and feasible. This includes analysis of how the political environment influences the SPJ and fisheries sectors, and how it might affect their integration. It should also cover which other sectors impact the fisheries sector and, in turn, how fisheries activities affect those sectors. Structural and contextual factors that can shape policy and institutional environments include macroeconomic performance and the structure of the economy, economic or environmental crises, demographic pressures, perceptions of the fisheries sector, subsidy reform, trade liberalization or sanctions, government tenure (and length of time left in office), and government spending priorities (Whaites 2017). The analysis should include appraisal of HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 62 63 1 HANDBOOK HANDBOOK TOTO LEVERAGE LEVERAGE SOCIAL SOCIAL PROTECTION PROTECTION AND AND JOBS JOBS INTERVENTIONS MEASURES FOR SUSTAINABLE FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES FISHERIES METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES future political and economic events and processes relevant for developing SPJ and fisheries interventions. The Sri Lanka case study demonstrates how influential these factors can be (Arin et al 2024). 4.3 MAPPING AND ASSESSING PROGRAMS AND IMPLEMENTATION SYSTEMS Relevant programs and systems need to be mapped and assessed to identify entry points for connecting SPJ and fisheries. This subsection outlines information and methods available for mapping and assessing: fisheries management regimes (4.3.1), SPJ programs (4.3.2), and implementation systems and mechanisms (including institutions as well as technology and information systems) (4.3.3). Key questions for mapping and assessing programs and implementation systems Fisheries management regimes (4.3.1): • What are the key management features? • Are there one or more fisheries management plans, recovery plans, or similar, in place? • How effective are management measures in reaching set objectives? • What are the compliance rates? Who does and does not comply and why? • What are the costs and benefits to fisheries workers and communities? • What weaknesses and challenges could SPJ address? • What aspects of management could be adjusted to accommodate SPJ measures? SPJ programs, and any fisheries or environmental programs that perform SPJ-like functions (4.3.2): • What are their key features? • How risk and shock responsive are they? • To what extent do they reach fisheries actors? How effective are they in meeting their needs? • What could be designed differently for them to contribute effectively to fisheries management objectives? Implementation systems to deliver SPJ benefits (4.3.3): • How effective and efficient are they? • Are any of these interoperable? • What could be adjusted to support a more intersectoral approach to SPJ and fisheries? HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 64 4.3.1 Mapping and assessing fisheries management regimes Existing fisheries management regimes need to be identified and their key characteristics described. Most information needed should be available in government or development partner documentation. Key characteristics include: • type(s) of fisheries—for example, geographic location, target species, unit of harvesting (vessel or gear type); • harvest (output) or effort (input) limiting control rules—how much can be harvested, where (spatial regulations), when (temporal regulations), and by whom (access regulations); • if and how fisheries are assessed (including ecological and socioeconomic aspects— see 4.1); • if and how regulations are monitored and enforced; and • any iterative processes for adaptive management in place.86 Primary data may need to be collected on compliance dynamics, socioeconomic impacts, and their distribution between actors. KIIs, FGDs, or semi-structured consultations with fisheries actors such as fish traders, community leaders, cooperatives, and associations can yield this information (see Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.1). Socioeconomic survey data can also provide information to estimate costs of management measures for fisheries workers and communities (see Section 4.1.1). Identifying weaknesses in existing fisheries management regimes—such as negative socioeconomic impacts and inequitable cost and benefit distribution—can reveal entry points for SPJ programs to support fisheries sustainability. It can also highlight aspects of fisheries management measures to adjust or re-design to accommodate SPJ measures, such as monitoring for conditionality. If information on management effectiveness is not readily available, tools exist to guide assessments. The Fisheries Performance Assessment Toolkit (FPAT) guides rapid assessments of a fishery’s performance under a wide range of data-availability scenarios. The Toolkit also guides quantitative assessments of potentially suitable management actions (see Box 4.5). In addition, tools exist to help governments assess their overall fisheries statistical capacity (see Box 4.6). 86 For example, evaluations of co-management effectiveness should ideally follow cyclical processes for adaptive management based on routine operational monitoring and follow-up, evaluating: (i) implementation design as well as the process of the management sys- tem, and (ii) achievements of the objectives stated in the management plan. Managers could thus use the evaluation results to better understand the extent to which objectives and expected impacts have been achieved, and to adapt management design and processes (FAO 2022c). 65 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES BOX 4.5 FISHERIES PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT TOOLKIT (FPAT) The Fisheries Performance Assessment Toolkit ⁸⁷ (FPAT) (designed by FAO, and part of the Fisheries Sector Assessment Toolkit) can help rapidly assess fisheries management performance in terms of economic, social, and ecological sustainabil- ity. It provides a framework to systematically collect, collate, and curate available multi-dimensional fisheries data and expert knowledge for data- and capacity-lim- ited fisheries. The tool comprises two modules: (i) Fishery Performance Indicators (FPI+), which expand on previous Fisheries Performance Indicators (Anderson et al 2015) to include additional—most notably ecological—indicators to facilitate description and rapid assessment of fisheries across multiple dimensions; and (ii) the FPAT App, a user-friendly interface to evaluate stock status and quantitatively test and inform different management strategies. BOX 4.6 STATISTICAL-CAPACITY ASSESSMENT TOOL The Statistical Capacity Assessment Tool (developed by the World Bank in collabora- tion with the FAO, and part of the Fisheries Sector Assessment Toolkit) supports countries in assessing the capacity of statistical and related agencies to collect, collate, curate, analyze, and disseminate fisheries data. This includes catch and effort data, as well as economic (for example, costs and earnings, subsidies, licensing, imports and exports) and social (labor and gender) information. The tool presents a set of specific questions covering legal, technical, financial, and human resources aspects of fisheries data collection and analysis. 4.3.2 Mapping SPJ programs Formal, informal, and semi-formal SPJ programs need to be mapped. This includes main national or mainstream programs along with any SPJ programs designed or adapted to support fisheries workers and their communities. It is also important to include any fisheries or environmental programs that perform SPJ-like functions, as well as programs from other sectors (for example, rural or community development, disaster risks programs) that integrate SPJ elements.87 87 In addition, this website provides some introductory information about the fisheries performance toolkit: https://fisheriesperforman- cetoolkit.com/ HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 66 Mapping national or mainstream SPJ programs Main national SPJ programs should be mapped and key characteristics identified. Information should include: program name, implementing agency, objective, geographic location, coverage, eligibility criteria, targeting approach, duration, value of transfer (benefit level), and any conditionalities. It is also important to explore the performance of these programs, how risk or shock responsive they are, to what extent they reach fisheries actors, and how effective they are in meeting their needs and reducing social-ecological risks. A range of resources are available to supply this information for many countries. These include: • Periodic program progress reports, sectoral overviews, and impact evaluations: These are produced by government and development partners, including the World Bank, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the World Food Programme, the International Labour Organization, and others. The impact evaluations tend to be for flagship programs. • Core Diagnostic Instrument (CODI): If the information above is not readily available, this inter-agency social protection assessment tool provides a systematic overview of national social-protection provisions (ISPA 2014). • Social protection global databases: If carrying out a full in-country review using an instrument such as CODI is not viable, rapid appraisal of main SPJ programs can be carried out using these databases accessible through online dashboards to get key indicators and basic information such as program names, spending, and coverage (see Box 4.7). 88 BOX 4.7 SOCIAL PROTECTION GLOBAL DATABASES Several databases are available to help map and assess countries´ social protection programs: • The ILO’s World Social Protection Database (WSPDB): This is based on administrative data from 190 countries. • The World Bank’s Atlas of Social Protection Indicators of Resilience and Equity (ASPIRE): This is based on both administrative and household survey data from over 100 countries. • FAO’s global database of social protection for fisheries (forthcoming):⁸⁸ This focuses on social protection programs for the fisheries sector, covering over 40 countries. 88 The database is part of the Social Protection for Fisheries and Aquaculture project (SocPro4Fish: https://www.fao.org/in-action/so- cial-protection-for-fisheries-and-aquaculture/en), and includes some pilots for aquaculture. The database is due for launch in early 2025. 67 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES The Anticipatory Social Protection Index for Resilience may be useful for assessing risk and shock responsiveness (Bharadwaj, Mitchell and Karthikeyan 2023). This diagnostic tool helps assess the readiness of a country’s existing SP programs to support climate resilience through anticipatory risk response. It can also help assess the ability of SP programs to deliver resilience to other shocks, such as economic shocks or pandemics. While these sources facilitate assessment of the scope and nature of SPJ provisions, they do not help provide insight into the capacity of systems to adapt or scale provision. The World Bank’s SP Stress Test Tool can be used for this purpose (see Box 4.8). BOX 4.8 SOCIAL PROTECTION-SECTOR ADAPTIVE CAPACITY ASSESSMENT The World Bank’s Stress Test Tool supports relatively simple, analytical, and rapid assessments. The tool enables collection of information on a country’s ability to adapt or scale its SP system and to identify priority areas for improvement (Bodewig et al 2021). The Tool has two parts: the first simulates potential harm caused (and subsequent needs) by shocks of various intensities, and the second attempts to capture the level of preparedness of the SP system to respond to heightened needs. The Tool has been implemented in more than 50 countries, often as a part of Country Climate and Development Reports (CCDRs). Assessing access to SPJ in the fisheries sector It is also necessary to assess the extent to which fisheries actors have access to SPJ and similar programs. Access to existing mainstream SPJ programs should be considered, as well as any current or previous programs designed or adapted to provide SPJ for fisheries actors or their wider communities, or to support fisheries management. These programs may be formal, semi-formal, or informal. The search should include fisheries and environmental programs designed or adapted to provide SPJ-like support, including fisheries subsidies and PES, as well as SPJ responses to emergencies, including climate-related shock and disaster responses. This assessment may need to rely on KIIs and keyword searches in SPJ documenta- tion and databases, but the forthcoming FAO global social protection database for fisheries and aquaculture will be a valuable future resource (Box 4.7). Socioeconomic survey data can also provide information on access to these programs (Section 4.1.1). It is important to assess how effective identified programs are in meeting the needs of fisheries actors—including the specific needs of women, men and youth—and reducing social-ecological risks. Assessment should include the level and adequacy of benefits provided and their potential or established, positive or negative, impacts on fisheries management outcomes. However, it HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 68 is unlikely that generic SPJ documentation includes this information due to the small-scale and localized nature of most fisheries, as well as the lack of rigorous impact evaluations linking benefits to outcomes. Program effectiveness may need to be explored through semi-structured consultations and KIIs, including directly with fisheries communities. This assessment can illuminate aspects that could be adjusted to contribute more effectively to fisheries management objectives, or ways to introduce monitoring that enables future evaluation. 4.3.3 Assessing implementation systems and mechanisms Implementation systems for both mainstream and fisheries SPJ programs should be identified, along with any relevant systems and mechanisms from fisheries management or environmental programming. These systems and mechanisms include: • SPJ technology and information systems, such as delivery systems/mechanisms (formal and informal) and foundational systems created to provide general population identification for a wide variety of transactions; • institutional systems and mechanisms in the fisheries and environmental sectors that could be leveraged for SPJ, such as fisheries registries, co-management systems, and CBNRM; and • digital technologies and systems to assess climate-related risks (such as remote sensing) and facilitate quick response (such as EWS). Building on the key analytical questions outlined for this section—on effectiveness and efficiency, interoperability, and adjustments needed—Box 4.9 presents a set of questions to identify systems and mechanisms relevant for each stage of SPJ delivery. 69 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES BOX 4.9 IDENTIFYING IMPLEMENTATION SYSTEMS AND MECHANISMS TO DELIVER SPJ PROGRAMS Outreach and registration (of particular relevance to Figure 3.1a): • What information systems hold data on fisheries actors? Examples include: • social registries; • fisheries-information systems such as vessel registries, crew lists, trade and processing registries held by ministries, and similar information held by fisheries associations or community-based organizations; and • foundational systems such as civil registers, national ID, and population registers. • To address information and coverage gaps, what is a sensible outreach approach to encourage registration of SSF workers in these information systems? Are there informal or semi-formal institutions or systems, such as community-based organizations or fisheries organizations, that can support outreach? • Are social registries and fisheries-information systems connected? How can interoperability be facilitated? Assessment of needs and program eligibility: • What institutions or systems can support needs assessment (including informal/semi-formal institutions such as community-based organizations or fisheries organizations)? For example, is there any poverty-tar- geting mechanism to assess household welfare and to identify low-income households? • What are the eligibility criteria for social assistance programs? How many poor fisheries households are not benefiting from any social assistance even if eligible? What are the main reasons for exclusion (of particular relevance to Figure 3.1b)? • To integrate fisheries policy objectives and associated management measures into SPJ programming (Figure 3.1c), how do eligibility criteria need to be revised (for example, based on fisheries activities as well as welfare criteria)? Enrollment and decision on package: • Are target fisheries actors willing to participate in SPJ and comply with the conditions? • Are benefit levels and packages appropriately determined or designed to attract target populations (for instance, do benefits offset the costs of compliance with regulations, and are social insurance schemes flexible enough for fisheries workers to contribute)? Benefit and/or service provision: • What are the payment methods (bank, ATM, point of sale, mobile wallets) available to beneficiaries? • What are the levels of financial inclusion and literacy? Management, including monitoring and adjustment of benefits and eligibility: • What are the current monitoring systems for SPJ programs? Do case management systems exist? Can they be leveraged to monitor conditionalities related to fisheries (crucial for direct incentives—see Figure 3.1c)? • What are the data collection and monitoring systems in fisheries, or those that could be leveraged to support monitoring and evaluation of SPJ programs (for example, fisheries-data collection and community-based monitoring systems, as well as satellite tracking systems)? HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 70 4.4 ASSESSING THE FINANCIAL CONTEXT This subsection outlines sources of information and approaches to identify and assess financial resources for connecting SPJ and fisheries. This includes assessing the current fiscal space to absorb initial cost, as well as the efficiency and efficacy of financial resource allocation, and opportunities to increase fiscal space in the medium term. Key questions to assess financial context Current funding arrangements for fisheries management and SPJ respectively (4.4.1): • What is the budget and sources of funding (including domestic or external, public or private)? • What is the efficiency and efficacy of this resource allocation? • Is spending socially regressive or progressive? • How much is spent on harmful fisheries subsidies? Potential to create additional fiscal space (4.4.2): • Are there opportunities to create fiscal space for investment in an intersectoral approach? • Are there any existing institutional arrangements or financial mechanisms that could support more innovative financing approaches? • What are the estimated costs and benefits of an intersectoral approach to SPJ and fisheries? 4.4.1 Evaluating current funding arrangements It is important to understand current SPJ and fisheries management financing mechanisms and allocation, and the efficiency, efficacy, and equity of resource allocation. Current budgetary allocations should be analyzed, as well as any extrabudgetary resources such as donor funds from debt relief or Official Development Aid (ODA) and private-sector financing. Any cost-recovery schemes 89 should also be accounted for, whereby some of the costs of specific fisheries management measures or services are paid by the users of that service through a fee. Development partners’ analyses may be useful in this exercise, such as IMF macroeconomic overviews and Medium-Term Expenditure Framework projections.90 89 In addition to government funding, some countries have cost-recovery policies where a portion of fisheries management costs are recouped from specific user groups (such as domestic commercial fishers, foreign fishers, recreational anglers). Cost recovery is distinct from other fees that may be paid to government in that there is a direct link between the fisheries management services and the fee paid by users of the service. The rationale for such cost recovery is that those who benefit from fisheries management activities should contribute to their funding (Metzner 2007). 90 The IMF Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) is a tool that links the budgetary process to broader fiscal policy goals beyond the annual budget cycle. MTEFs allow authorities to establish multi-year budget estimates or ceilings, as well as detailed expenditure plans. These frameworks typically span three to five years, providing a longer-term perspective for fiscal planning. Components include: (i) Aggregate Revenue and Expenditure Forecasts (macro-fiscal forecasts that project the overall level of revenue and expenditure, (ii) Capital and Recurrent Expenditure Distinction (differentiating between capital and recurrent expenditures, and (iii) Fiscal Policy Objec- tives and Targets (serving as comprehensive statements of fiscal policy objectives). Projections within MTEFs help guide decision making and resource allocation over the medium term. 71 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES The World Bank’s ASPIRE database (Box 4.7) can provide information on current SPJ spending and performance, while Public Expenditure Reviews (PER) can also help assess the efficiency and efficacy of resource allocation in both the SPJ and fisheries sectors (Box 4.10). BOX 4.10 FISHERIES PUBLIC EXPENDITURE REVIEWS (PER) Fisheries Public Expenditure Review (PER) is another tool in the World Bank’s Fisheries Sector Assessment Toolkit. The tool can: (i) show where and how resources are being spent to address fisheries sector issues, and (ii) indicate whether current efforts fall short according to various metrics. While PERs have rarely been used in the fisheries sector, such reviews have the potential to inform fisheries policies and public-expenditure decisions in fisheries management. A PER can help identify and quantify the use of public expenditures. The tool can identify public expenditure that is insufficient to achieve fisheries development goals, as well as excessive expenditure on activities and externalities that harm the environment and the sector (for example, harmful fisheries subsidies). The tool can also help identify missed opportunities to generate public revenue from beneficia- ries of fisheries activities (for example, fees and taxes). Low and/or non-collection of fees are a form of subsidy in that they reduce government revenue and may incentivize overfishing. Imposing and enforcing higher fees could reduce pressure on fisheries while also generating revenue to fund fisheries management and SPJ integration. 4.4.2 Identifying additional funding opportunities Analysis of current funding arrangements may uncover opportunities to create fiscal space. The feasibility of each opportunity to increase government resources depends on the contextual discourse and political-economy issues around the fiscal and policy reforms in question. Key opportunities for consideration are: • reprioritizing and raising efficiency of expenditures in SPJ and fisheries sectors, in particular through fisheries subsidy reform (Box 4.11);91 91 Care must be taken to ensure that that these reforms are socially equitable and do not create new challenges by imposing shocks on vulnerable fisheries workers. Compensation—which can take the form of SPJ—may be required to support certain groups through these reforms (Merayo et al 2019). HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 72 • mobilizing domestic revenue through improving tax and fee administration, for example by enforcing and incentivizing compliance with regulations to eliminate tax evasion within fisheries value chains (Bladon et al 2020), by improving how taxes and fees are set, or by establishing new taxes and fees such as tourism levies; • ODA, debt relief, debt-for-climate-and-nature swaps92 or other international financing; and • domestic and external borrowing for SPJ in fisheries—although this could be politically difficult to justify, the potential benefits of borrowing can be demonstrated through seed funding from philanthropic and development organizations (Bladon and Ducros 2023). BOX 4.11 SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO) FISHERIES SUBSIDIES AGREEMENT This tool (IISD 2022) supports particularly low-income countries in preparing for, and coordinating implementation of, the WTO Fisheries Subsidies Agreement (FSA). It consists of a checklist and an accompanying guide to help: • identify and collect key information and data needed to implement the FSA; • understand requirements under the different FSA provisions, evaluate current alignment with those requirements, and identify any immediate corrective actions needed to align with requirements; • assess whether the required mechanisms are in place domestically to enable ongoing alignment with FSA requirements and, if not, identify implementation gaps; and • articulate any technical assistance and capacity building needs. Countries should also explore opportunities to attract private capital through innovative and collaborative arrangements. This is particularly appropriate for reaching fisheries actors with relatively low levels of vulnerability who would not normally meet SPJ program eligibility criteria (see Figure 3.2). Existing institutional arrangements or mechanisms established to mobilize finance from a range of sectors should be identified and assessed for their potential to support innovative financing approaches and attract private capital to SPJ and fisheries. For example, partnerships with insurance companies can generate accessible insurance schemes with lower 92 Debt-for-climate-and-nature swaps are mechanisms through which countries reduce national sovereign debt in exchange for achiev- ing climate and nature performance indicators, which are becoming a feasible way for countries to increase spending on nature (Kelly, Ducros and Steele 2023). Most deals made so far have been designed to fund large marine protected areas (MPAs). Given the potential disruption that MPAs can pose to the livelihoods of fishing communities, and their potential role in governing them, there could be poten- tial to align the key performance indicators of future debt swaps with fisheries management objectives— particularly MPA objectives—to finance complementary SPJ interventions. 73 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES premiums, and arrangements such as Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and Conservation Trust Funds can facilitate private (including philanthropic organizations’) financing through SPJ or PES (Booth et al 2023). Stakeholder mapping may help identify private actors who stand to gain from fish-stock recovery as potential sources of financing, including through appropriate cost-recovery schemes. Fisheries value-chain mapping supported by consultations can identify potential financing, for example through export companies but other industry actors, such as tourism companies, could also be relevant. Finally, if sufficient data are available, conducting cost-benefit analyses on intersectoral approaches can be beneficial. Whether adapting or designing a specific SPJ program for a specific fishery, or looking at broader, more comprehensive integration of the two sectors, quantifying any long-term economic benefits can increase political will for changes and attract investment. The analysis should consider costs and benefits from the individual to the national level, and over the short, medium, and long term. If SPJ is being designed to directly incentivize a specific behavior change, the opportunity cost of that behavior change can be estimated using socioeconomic survey data or ad-hoc semi-structured consultations with fisheries actors (see Section 4.1.1). These can also provide the basis for cost estimates, along with any expected transaction and administration costs. The benefits of rebuilding or maintaining fish-stock productivity can be difficult to quantify in SSF, but rough estimates are still possible in data-deficient contexts (Mome and Arnason 2007; Akpalu 2020; Bladon et al 2020; Porras et al 2019). HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 74 SECTION 5 PRIORITIES MOVING FORWARD This section presents priority actions governments and development partners can take to leverage SPJ for sustainable fisheries to help protect people, fish, and food. The recommendations draw on previous sections of this Handbook, as well as the country case studies. Although the section focuses on immediate priorities, it also makes some recommendations for longer-term consideration that may require more substantial investment. 75 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES PRIORITIES MOVING FORWARD 5.1 SHIFT VISIONS TO ENHANCE INTRA- AND INTER-MINISTERIAL COORDINATION As the broader contributions of fisheries to society are understood and acknowledged, governments can increase coherence between SPJ and fisheries policies and the cost-effective- ness of interventions. Ministries responsible for fisheries management and those responsible for social affairs (as well as related national, regional, and local agencies), will need to shift away from sectoral approaches and short-term visions. Since productive and sustainable fisheries can contribute to many aspects of sustainable development—such as poverty reduction, nutrition, jobs, economic growth, and action on climate and nature—this agenda should not fall solely under the mandate of any one ministry. Instead, different ministries and their agencies have different areas of interest and roles in this agenda. Breaking silos may require removing restrictions or barriers to collaboration, and establishing incentives for inter-ministerial synergies. Options for this include joint programming, common monitoring and evaluation frameworks, performance-based budgets, and establishing a central fund to support SPJ and fisheries cooperation. Finance and planning ministries can coordinate other ministries, and there may be value in leveraging or establishing an inter-ministerial coordinating body to develop an SPJ and fisheries strategy and associated action plan (see Sri Lanka case study [Arin et al 2024]). Another way to strengthen cooperation, at least for fisheries with high commercial or social value, would be to mandate fisheries and SPJ authorities to carry out collaborative socioeconomic impact assessments before agreeing on new fisheries management measures. This would help identify needs for complementary SPJ and therefore more informed decision making and improved outcomes.93 In the case of transboundary fish stocks, intergovernmental coordination is required for SPJ to support fisheries management. Regional Fishery Bodies could play a role in these coordination efforts.94 Some of these—Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs)—have a fisheries management mandate, albeit mostly for highly migratory species usually targeted by large-scale fisheries, but even bodies with a purely advisory mandate can play important roles, including by representing the technical arm of intergovernmental economic communities. Stronger institutional coordination can help enable information systems’ harmonization and interoperability for better data. Expanding social registries to cover more of the population and serve multiple programs (SPJ and beyond) can be a cost-effective way to support SPJ and fisheries sector integration (Leite et al 2017; FAO 2022a). To promote information sharing between fisheries, SPJ, and other sectors, it is also important to enhance interoperability between complementary administrative data held by different ministries (see Section 5.3). 93 Such collaboration could serve as a concrete example of how to tailor SPJ to address the needs of specific sector and their climate-re- lated shocks and vulnerabilities, as part of broader efforts under National Adaptation Plans and Adaptive Social Protection (ASP) Systems. 94 See https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/rfb for a global overview of Regional Fisheries Bodies. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 76 This is crucial to promote coherence and coordination between programs, improve targeting efficiency, and strengthen monitoring, enforcement, and evaluation. 5.2 ENHANCE COOPERATION WITH, AND BETWEEN, NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS Governments can strengthen efforts to connect SPJ and fisheries through cooperation and collaboration with non-governmental actors. A coordinated governmental approach supports collaboration with institutions outside government, and government administration can also play a role in facilitating strategic partnerships between non-governmental actors to support an intersectoral approach to fisheries and SPJ (Booth et al 2023). Stakeholder mapping may help identify potential synergies and opportunities for collaboration, and meaningful consultation with these stakeholders is critical. Cooperation is important for three main reasons: 1. Supporting SPJ implementation: Fisheries organizations, such as cooperatives, associations, and collectives, as well as community-based organizations, can play an instrumental role in supporting active outreach and SPJ provision and monitoring, especially in remote areas. To reduce risks of elite capture and corruption, care should be taken to ensure that these organizations truly and transparently represent the fisheries workers and communities in question. 2. Providing critical informal SPJ functions: Community-based organizations, religious organizations, and NGOs often provide critical informal SPJ functions in fishing communities. Formal programs should not aim to replace these but rather leverage opportunities to learn from, build on, complement, and strengthen them (as seen, for example, in Solomon Islands; Kendrick et al 2024). 3. Generating financing: Partnerships with private companies in the fisheries sector, in the financial sector, and beyond, as well as with philanthropic organizations and development agencies, will likely be crucial to finance SPJ in fisheries (Section 5.6). Partnerships with insurance companies can also facilitate tailored social insurance schemes with low premiums for fisheries workers as well as parametric insurance products. 77 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 78 5.3 IMPROVE DATA AND INFORMATION ON THE FISHERIES SECTOR To leverage SPJ for sustainable fisheries, practitioners must understand fisheries’ complex socioeconomic, demographic, operational, and governance characteristics, as well as their ecological and biological nature. While the availability of formal scientific data on SSF is often limited, governments can draw more systematically on traditional knowledge to understand, for example, the status of, and trends in, stocks and catches. Linking socioeconomic data through geographic referencing to other publicly available geospatial environmental and climate data can also help measure social-ecological risk in the fisheries sector and help SPJ anticipate and respond to climate-related and other ecological hazards. Increasing the quantity and quality of socially-inclusive and gender-sensitive socioeconomic data on fisheries should be a priority. This can be done by adapting existing data collection mechanisms, such as household-survey questionnaires, to include basic information on fisheries households (as per guidance in Annex D), and by expanding the sample of fisheries households to ensure it statistically represents fisheries workers and households. Deliberate coordination between institutions to provide incentives for fisheries actors to register themselves, their assets, and their activities can also enhance data availability (Figure 3.1a). More household data will facilitate SPJ linkages to fisheries, since SPJ interventions often operate at the household level. It should also increase the visibility of women and youth, who are often left out of fisheries data collection because it focuses on individual workers, and mostly on the male-dominated harvesting element of the value chain. It is critical to collect gender- and age-disaggregated socioeconomic data in fisheries, including on youth employment, and ensure that meaningful analysis informs policy development, as well as planning and design processes for its implementation (NPCA and AU-IBAR 2016). In the longer term, countries and the international community need to comprehensively measure poverty in the fisheries sector at national and global scales. Estimates are available on the scale and geographic distribution of subsistence fishing. This is a rough proxy for the minimum extent to which SSF provide a safety net to alleviate poverty and malnutrition, but this proxy represents only part of the picture (Virdin et al 2023). There is a need to better conceptualize and validate these estimates by quantifying more precisely the extent to which fisheries contribute to preventing and reducing poverty. These data can, in turn, help provide clear justification to governments for improving and adapting SPJ for fisheries. 79 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES PRIORITIES MOVING FORWARD 5.4 ALIGN SPJ PROGRAMMING WITH FISHERIES POLICY OBJECTIVES AND ASSOCIATED MANAGEMENT MEASURES To support sustainable fisheries, SPJ program design should be informed by fisheries policy objectives and associated management measures, as well as by SPJ policy objectives. Key considerations are: • Ensure that eligibility criteria and target populations for SPJ interventions in fisheries are informed by fisheries policy objectives and associated management measures. The heterogeneity of fisheries actors in terms of activities, socioeconomic profiles, and vulnerabilities requires a comprehensive approach to prioritization focusing not only on vulnerability to poverty but also to climate and other ecological risks, and to the costs imposed by fisheries management measures. The costs and barriers of transitioning to sustainable fisheries vary across actors, which mean that different types of programs and different funding streams will be required to serve different portions of the fisheries population,95 and different contexts may require varying targeting strategies.96 • Review and adapt eligibility criteria of mainstream social assistance programs to include any vulnerable fisheries populations currently excluded. Using existing SPJ programs to create enabling conditions for sustainable fisheries should be easier than designing new programs specifically for fisheries actors, but it may require adjusting outreach approaches and eligibility criteria. In contexts where SSF play a role in poverty prevention (Box 2.1), and where resources are overexploited, policy makers may want to prioritize SPJ interventions that reduce community vulnerability as a foundational step to introducing fisheries management measures such as access restrictions, to prevent resource depletion. A related strategy could be to keep fishing pressure below what corresponds to maximum biologically sustainable harvest levels, leaving room for a periodic influx of fishers who may have few livelihood options during shocks. • Provide appropriate and adequate benefit and service packages relative to the costs fisheries workers and communities incur due to fisheries management measures, with benefits conditional on associated behavior changes. When SPJ programs are designed or adapted to directly incentivize compliance with fisheries management regulations, 95 A mainstream program for the most vulnerable fisheries households could be funded through conventional means, social insurance could be funded by workers and subsidies, whereas incentives for the least vulnerable fisheries workers to comply with regulations— for example, those in high-value export fisheries—could be provided through programs designed by ministries of fisheries and funded through innovative mechanisms to draw in private capital (Section 5.6), and delivered using SPJ implementation systems. 96 For example, in conflict-sensitive areas or where large portions of the population participate in SSF, distributing benefits at the com- munity level can be more cost effective than targeting certain individuals or households (see, for example, findings in Solomon Islands; Kendrick et al 2024). Whereas, in fiscally constrained countries aiming to reduce fishing pressure through labor market transformation, it may be cost-effective to target youth in fishing communities (see Section 3.3.2). HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 80 or to reward specific voluntary behaviors, benefits must be appropriate and adequate to cover short- to medium-term costs (Bladon et al 2014). Benefits must be adequate for target fisheries workers to follow regulations, but benefits that exceed costs could create perverse incentives to enter the fishery or increase fishing pressure, particularly in the absence of strong fisheries management regimes. For monetary benefits, the appropriate amounts can be relatively simple to estimate from available data, but it can be more complex to determine appropriate in-kind benefits. To directly incentivize a specific behavior, benefits should also be conditional on that behavior change, at least in principle. Any type of SPJ instrument can have conditions attached, be it a seasonal transfer or a support package to incentivize livelihood diversification, which could include transfers and grants conditional on completing training, giving up a certain gear type, or exiting a fishery, for example. • Use ALMPs and economic inclusion programs to reduce workers´ long-term reliance on a specific fishery, subsector, or area. Labor market transformation will take time and may be challenging, both on the supply and demand side. Fisheries livelihoods are often strongly linked to cultural identity and skills are very specific to fisheries (Pollnac et al 2001; Knudsen 2016), while on the demand side, other sectors must have the capacity to create jobs to absorb additional labor. In addition to entrepreneurship support, substantial training and reskilling or upskilling—through TVET, for example— will likely be required to attract alternative employers. It is critical that ALMPs reflect labor demand, and these programs are more likely to be successful when supporting employers to create more jobs, and when providing job placement and matching services. In fishing communities, as elsewhere, these interventions are especially required for youth (Fry et al 2021); the success of such interventions in developing the right skills for youth to participate in sustainable fisheries—and to engage in other forms of employment, where necessary—is essential for facilitating the transition to sustainable fisheries (World Bank 2023). • Tailor delivery of benefits and services to fisheries workers. It is sometimes challenging for fisheries workers to collect benefits or deposit payments at traditional places such as banks and ATMs. Especially in remote areas or for mobile workers, mobile money or wallets can facilitate the receiving of monetary benefits and paying contributions. Benefits should also be predictable to facilitate the long-term planning required for sustainable fisheries (FAO 2022a). • Adjust and align social insurance contribution requirements with the fishery production cycle. The seasonality and often uncertain nature of income from fishing and related activities can exclude fisheries workers from typical contributory programs that require 81 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES PRIORITIES MOVING FORWARD monthly or other regular fixed payments. Adjusting or aligning contribution amounts, frequency, and terms accordingly can increase the number of fish workers protected from shocks. For example, schemes could accept annual or seasonal contributions, and contributions from higher earners could cross-subsidize lower earners (FAO 2019). Voluntary saving mechanisms can also enable flexible payments and contributions (Guven et al 2021). • Enhance SPJ program outcomes through accompanying measures, such as financial and social services. Combining cash-based interventions with complementary services related to financial and digital literacy, climate adaptation, and disaster risk reduction, for example, can reduce vulnerability and enable participation in formal SPJ programs, thus expanding their reach to remote fishing communities and vulnerable and marginalized groups. By promoting a culture of savings and insurance, financial inclusion interventions can support a transition to formal activities (see Section 3.1) and are critical for long-term success of efforts to diversify livelihoods and transform labor markets. This can be particularly helpful for women in fisheries, who tend to have low financial inclusion and can benefit from exposure to formal financial services (Pomeroy et al 2020). Providing care services can also enable people—particularly women—to participate in programs such as public works or training and create job opportunities at local levels. 5.5 STRENGTHEN MONITORING, ENFORCEMENT, AND EVALUATION Governments can address limitations in fisheries monitoring and enforcement through collaborative and community-based approaches, which SPJ can support. Lack of monitoring and enforcement capacity limits and undermines many SPJ interventions in fisheries, particularly those that aim to directly incentivize behavior change. It can be difficult to monitor and enforce conditions associated with fisheries behaviors or outcomes, especially in the context of open-access fisheries, and without rigorous monitoring and enforcement these conditions can have a limited impact on compliance and even lead to increased fishing effort (Bladon et al 2014; FAO 2022a). However, collaboration with community-based and fisheries organizations (Section 5.2) can help establish relatively affordable mechanisms for monitoring beneficiary compliance and changes in eligibility status (FAO 2022a). These have been most successful under co-management or other governance structures that enable participation of resource users, and therefore motivate collective stewardship, particularly in the context of valuable and/or relatively stationary fishery resources (Gutierrez 2017; Nguyen, Momtaz, and Pham 2018; Booth et al 2021). Some SPJ programs have supported participation in these monitoring systems (see, for example, the community surveillance program in Mexico’s Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve [Méndez-Medina et al 2020]). HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 82 More efforts to evaluate outcomes would accelerate progress towards, and evidence-based investment in, connecting SPJ and fisheries at scale, both within countries and globally. To ensure SPJ interventions are effective and efficient in reducing human vulnerability and supporting sustainable fisheries, it is important to assess their impacts on welfare as well as behavior and associated fisheries management outcomes. It is also important to keep in mind that behavior change is typically easier than fisheries management outcomes to attribute to interventions.97 The range of options for evaluation design each have different strengths and weaknesses (Stern 2015). Although some options, such as quasi-experimental designs and randomized controlled trials, can be prohibitively expensive and technically challenging, several alternative evaluation approaches link cause to outcomes in different ways. These alternative approaches can also be cheaper and quicker than conventional methods (Stern 2015). Mixed methods can be most useful in understanding complex intended and unintended consequences of interventions. 5.6 ENSURE ADEQUATE FISCAL SPACE AND EXPLORE INNOVATIVE FINANCING STRATEGIES Although using SPJ to transition to sustainable fisheries will have long-term economic benefits, the approach will require some upfront investment. To create fiscal space for SPJ in fisheries, policy makers will need to understand the critical role SSF play in food security, nutrition, employment, export revenues, and other national and subnational goals, including those related to climate change, rural development, natural resource management and the blue economy. Information presented in and collected using this Handbook can support such dialogue to help make the business case for public investment. Highlighting potential benefits for climate action and synergies with the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) should open doors to accessing sources of international climate and nature finance, such as the Green Climate Fund, the Global Environmental Facility, Climate Investment Funds, and the GBF Fund. Countries could also establish a specific fund to mobilize and pool finance from different sources, even if earmarked for a specific purpose, which, in turn, could provide a financial incentive for individual ministries and agencies to coordinate. Reforming and repurposing harmful fisheries subsidies represents a huge untapped opportunity for many countries to finance SPJ for sustainable fisheries. While some countries have started reforming subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing, such as fuel subsidies, LICs and LMICs alone still spend US$ billions annually on harmful fisheries subsidies 97 Outcome Mapping could also be used, whereby results, or outcomes, are measured as changes in behavior, relationships, activities, or actions of the people, groups, and organizations with whom a program works directly. This definition of outcome puts people at the heart of the development process. (Belcher et al 2018). This is not to say that attempts to evaluate and measure actual outcomes (such as changes in stock status) should not be encouraged, but it will be more difficult, and more expensive, to isolate the causality. 83 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES PRIORITIES MOVING FORWARD that could be repurposed (Damania et al 2023; Skerritt et al 2023). Savings from removing subsidies can be repurposed not only to help the affected population—particularly vulnerable groups—manage the transition, but also to fund targeted SPJ interventions to help fisheries households comply with fisheries management measures (FAO 2021; Mukherjee et al 2023; Damania et al 2023). However, it is worth noting that harmful fisheries subsidies primarily originate from more developed countries with strong fisheries management capacity and, often, relatively sustainable fish stocks; yet, these subsidies do disproportionate harm to less developed countries with lower management capacity and/or poorer fish stock status (Skerrit et al 2023). In the context of transboundary and migratory fish stocks, subsidy reform could provide a mechanism for more developed countries to help finance SPJ to manage shared stocks.98 In parallel, considering strained public budgets, it will be critical to explore more innovative means of financing incentives for sustainable fisheries, particularly for relatively less poor or less vulnerable fisheries workers. Through mechanisms like PES and cost recovery, private companies that stand to gain from fish-stock recovery can provide financing to manage resources for sustainability. Along the same lines, in fisheries where numbers of workers need to be reduced, mechanisms can be developed that require those remaining in the fishery (who will stand to gain from stock recovery) to invest in re-skilling and alternative livelihoods for those fishers and fish workers leaving. PES can also be an attractive mechanism for channeling other novel sources of finance, such as tourism levies, crowdfunding, and marine biodiversity offsets, in addition to aid funding and philanthropy (Booth et al 2023). Blended finance can help bridge fisheries finance gaps by combining different types of capital to improve the attractiveness of perceived or actual high-risk or low-return projects to private investors, typically through PPPs (Holmes et al 2014; Environmental Defense Fund and Duke University 2018). PPPs for collaborative management of MPAs and other managed areas have had some success in attracting impact investment,99 representing a potential source of finance for incentivizing sustainable fisheries (Kelly and Bladon 2019). Partnerships with philanthropic and development organizations can also catalyze new finance flows (Bladon and Ducros 2023). Finally, once governments make progress on priority areas, such as improving SSF data and information and strengthening monitoring and evaluation, SPJ for sustainable fisheries will become an increasingly interesting investment option. 98 To facilitate this, Skerrit et al (2023) propose a model similar to the Loss and Damage Fund established at the 27th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. 99 Impact investing is the act of purposefully making investments that help achieve certain social and environmental benefits while generating financial returns. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 84 BIBLIOGRAPHY Akpalu, W. 2020. “Interventions for Sustainable Artisanal Marine Capture Fisheries Management in Ghana. Ghana Priorities.” Copenhagen: Copenhagen Consensus Center. Allison, E.H. 2011. “Aquaculture, Fisheries, Poverty and Food Security.” Penang: WorldFish Center. Allison, E.H. and Ellis, F. 2001. “The Livelihoods Approach and Management of Small-scale Fisheries.” Marine Policy 25 (5): 377-388. doi.org.10.1016/S0308-597X(01)00023-9. Allison, E.H., Ratner, B.D., Åsgård, B., Willmann, R., Pomeroy, R., and Kurien, J. 2012. “Rights-based Fisheries Governance: From Fishing Rights to Human rights.” Fish and Fisheries 12 (1): 14-29. doi.10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00405.x. Anderson, J., Anderson, C.M., Chu, J., Meredith, J., Asche, F., Sylvia, G., Smith, M.D., Anggraeni, D., Arthur, R., Guttormsen, A., McCluney, J.K., Ward, T., Akpalu, W., Eggert, H., Flores, J., Freeman, M.A., Holland, D.S., Knapp, G., Kobayashi, M., Larkin, S., MacLauchlin, K., Schnier, K., Soboil, M., Tveteras, S., Uchida, H., and Valderrama, D. 2015. “The Fishery Performance Indicators: A Management Tool for Triple Bottom Line Outcomes.” PLOS ONE 10(5). doi.10.1371/journal.pone.0122809. Andrew, N.L., Béné, C., Hall, S.J., Allision, E.H., Heck, S., and Ratner, B.D. 2007. “Diagnosis and Management of Small-scale Fisheries in Developing Countries.” Fish and Fisheries 8(3): 227-240. doi.10.1111/j.14672679.2007.00252.x. Araujo, M.C., Dormal, M., Grantham-McGregor, S., Lazarte, F., Rubio-Codina, M., and Schady, N. 2018. “Home visiting at scale and child development. Quality of Parenting Programs and Child Development Outcomes: The Case of Peru’s Cuna Ma.” Journal of Public Economics Plus 2, 2021, 100003. doi.org/10.1016/j.pubecp.2021.100003. Arévalo-Sánchez, I., Heisey, J. Chaudhary, S., Clay, T., Strokova, V., Vasudeva Dutta, P., and Andrews, C. 2024. “The State of Economic Inclusion Report 2024: Pathways to Scale.” Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-2076-2. Arin, T., Subasinghe, S., Bladon, A., and De Silva, T. 2024. “Integrating Social Protection and Economic Inclusion with Management of Sri Lanka’s Coastal Fisheries”. Social Protection & Jobs Policy & Technical Note, No. 40. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/42410. d’Armengol, L., Castillo, M., Ruiz-Mallen, I., and Corbera, E. 2018. “A Systematic Review of Co-managed Small-scale Fisheries: Social Diversity and Adaptive Management Improve Outcomes.” Global Environmental Change 52: 212-225. doi.10.1016/S0308-597X(01)00023-9. Arthur, R. 2020. “Small-scale Fisheries Management and the Problem of Open Access.” Marine Policy 115: 103867. doi.10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103867. Arthur, R.I., Skerritt, D.J., Schuhbauer, A., Ebrahim, N., Friend, R.M. and Sumaila, U.R. 2022. “Small‐ scale Fisheries and Local Food Systems: Transformations, Threats and Opportunities.” Fish and Fisheries 23(1), 109-124. doi.org/10.1111/faf.12602. 85 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES BIBLIOGRAPHY Barange, M., Bahri, T., Beveridge, M., Cochrane, K., Funge-Smith, S., and Poulain, F. 2018. “Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture.” Rome: FAO. Belcher, B. and Palenberg, M. 2018. “Outcomes and Impacts of Development Interventions: Toward Conceptual Clarity.” American Journal of Evaluation 39 (4): 478-495. doi. org/10.1177/1098214018765698. Béné, C., Arthur, R., Norbury, H., Allison, E.H., Beveridge, M., Bush, S., Campling, L., Leschen, W., Little, D., Squires, D., Thilsted, S.H., Troell, M., and Williams, M. 2016. “Contribution of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Food Security and Poverty Reduction: Assessing the Current Evidence.” World Development 79(2): 177–196. doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.007. Béné, C., Hersoug, B., and Allison, E.H. 2010. “Not by Rent Alone: Analysing the Pro-Poor Functions of Small-Scale Fisheries in Developing Countries.” Development Policy Review 28 (3): 325-358. doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2010.00486.x. Béné, C., Devereux, S., and Roelen, K. 2015. “Social Protection and Sustainable Natural Resource Management: Initial Findings and Good Practices from Small-Scale Fisheries.” Rome: FAO. Bennett, N.J., Katz L., Yadao-Evans, W., Ahmadia G.N., Atkinson S., Ban, N.C., Dawson, N.M., de Vos, A., Fitzpatrick, J., Gill, D., Imirizaldu, M., Lewis, N., Mangubhai, S., Meth, L., Muhl, E.K., Obura, D., Spalding, A.K., Villagomez, A., Wagner, D., White, A., and Wilhelm, A. 2021. “Advancing Social Equity in and Through Marine Conservation.” Frontiers in Marine Science 8: 711538. doi: 10.3389/ fmars.2021.711538. Bharadwaj R. and Mitchell, T. 2022. “Strengthening Anticipatory Risk Response and Financing Mechanisms for Social Protection: A Practical Approach to Tackling Loss and Damage.” London: IIED. Bharadwaj, R. Mitchell, T. and Karthikeyan, N. 2023. “Anticipatory Social Protection Index for Resilience—ASPIRE.” London: IIED. Bladon, A.J. and Ducros, A. 2023. “Philanthropy’s Role in Sustaining Fisheries for People and Nature.” London: IIED. Bladon, A.J., Akester, M. and Burcham, L. 2020. “The Business Case for Investing in Myanmar’s Artisanal Hilsa Fishery.” London: IIED. Bladon, A.J., Mohammed, E.Y., Hossain, B., Kibria, G., Ali, L., and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2018. “Evaluating the Ecological and Social Targeting of a Compensation Scheme in Bangladesh.” PloS ONE 13 (6): e0197809. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197809. Bladon, A.J., Short, K., E.Y. Mohammed, and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2014. “Payments for Ecosystem Services in Developing World Fisheries.” Fish and Fisheries 17 (3): 839-859. doi: 10.1111/faf.1209. Bladon, A.J., Syed, M.A., Hassan, S.M.T., Raihan, A.T., Uddin, M.N., Ali, M.L., Ali, S., Hussein, M.B., Mohammed, E.Y., Porras, I., and Steele, P. 2016. “Finding Evidence for the Impact of Hilsa Fishery Management in Bangladesh: Combining Theory-Testing and Remote Sensing Methods.” London: IIED. 86 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 86 Bladon, A.J., Tegelskär Greig, G., and Okamura, Y. 2022. “Connecting Social Protection and Fisheries Management for Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework.” Social Protection and Jobs Policy & Technical Note, No. 25. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/42426. Blanchard, J.L. and Novaglio, C. 2024. “Climate Change Risks to Marine Ecosystems and Fisheries – Projections to 2100 from the Fisheries and Marine Ecosystem Model Intercomparison Project.” FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 707.” Rome: FAO. doi.org/10.4060/cd1379en. Bodewig, C., Calcutt, E.I.N., Conner, M.G., Cook, S.J., Gentilini, U., Hill, R., Majoka, Z., Narayan, A., Saidi, M., and Tassot, C.A.I. 2021. “Stress Testing Social Protection: A Rapid Appraisal of the Adaptability of Social Protection Systems and Their Readiness to Scale-Up - A Guide for Practitioners.” Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/559321634917529231/ Stress-Testing-Social-Protection-A-Rapid-Appraisal-of-the-Adaptability-of-Social-Protection- Systems-and-Their-Readiness-to-Scale-Up-A-Guide-for-Practitioners. Booth, H., Mardhiah, U., Siregar, H., Hunter, J., Putra, G., Marlow, J., Cahyana, A., Demoor, B., Lewis, S., Adhiasto, D., Adrianto, L., and Yulianto, I. 2021. “An Integrated Approach to Tackling Wildlife Crime: Impact and Lessons Learned from the World’s Largest Targeted Manta Ray Fishery.” Conservation Science and Practice 3 (2): e314. doi.org/10.1111/csp2.314. Booth, H., Said Ramdlan, M., Hafizh, A., Wongsopatty, K., Mourato, S., Pienkowski, T., Adrinato, L., and Milner-Gulland, E.J. 2023. “Designing-Locally appropriate Conservation Incentives for Small-Scale Fishers.” Biological Conservation 277. doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109821. Bowen, T., Ninno, C., Andrews, C., Coll-Black, S., Gentilini, U., Johnson, K., Kawasoe, Y., Kryeziu, A., Maher, B., and A. Williams. 2020. “Adaptive Social Protection: Building Resilience to Shocks.” Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/33785. Brugere, C., Holvoet, K. and Allison, E.H. 2008. “Livelihood Diversification in Coastal and Inland Fishing Communities: Misconceptions, Evidence and Implications for Fisheries Management.” Rome: FAO and DFID. Cánovas-Molina, A. and García-Frapolli, E. 2022. “A Review of Vulnerabilities in Worldwide Small-Scale Fisheries.” Fisheries Management Ecology. 29(5): 491–501. Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Policy (CCRIF). 2019. “The Caribbean Oceans and Aquaculture Sustainability Facility (COAST).” World Bank and CRIF. CBNRM Net. 2024. https://www.cbnrm.net/resources/terminology/terms_cbnrm.html. Christensen, V., Coll, M., Piroddi, C., Steenbeek, J., Buszowski, J. and Pauly, D. 2014. “A Century of Fish Biomass Decline in the Ocean.” Marine Ecology Progress Series. doi.org/10.3354/meps10946. Cohen, P.J., Allison, E.H., Andrew, N.L., Cinner, J., Evans, L.S., Fabinyi, M., Garces, L.R., Hall, S.J., Hicks, C.C., Hughes, T.P. and Jentoft, S. 2019. “Securing a Just Space for Small-scale Fisheries in the Blue Economy.” Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 171. 87 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES BIBLIOGRAPHY Costella, C., Shabahat, E., Sadiq, N., and Okamura, Y. 2024. “Social Protection and Jobs for Climate Change Challenges: Current Practice and Future Opportunities.” Social Protection and Jobs Discussion Paper, No. 2405. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://hdl.handle.net/10986/41724. Costella, C., Clay, T., Donoghoe, M., Giron, L. 2023. “Pathways to Climate-Resilient Economic Inclusion: A Framework for Integrating Climate Action in Economic Inclusion Programs.” PEI in Practice; Volume 9. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/40542. Costello, C., Ovando, D., Clavelle, T., Strauss, C.K., Hilborn, R., Melnychuk, M.C., Branch, T.A., Gaines, S.D., Szuwalski, C.S., Cabral, R.B., Rader, D.N. and A. Leland. 2016. “Global Fishing Prospects Under Contrasting Management Regimes.” Proceedings of the National Academies of Science 113 (18): 5125-5129. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520420113. Crona, B.I., van Holt, T., Petersson, M., Daw, T.M., and Buchary, E. 2015. “Using Social–Ecological Syndromes to Understand Impacts of International Seafood Trade on Small-scale Fisheries.” Global Environmental Change 35: 162-175. doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.006. Crosman, K.M., Allison, E.H., Ota, Y., Cisneros-Montemayor, A., Singh, G., Bailey, M., Barclay, K., Blume, G., Colléter, M., Fabinyi, M., Faustman, E.M., Fielding, R., Griffin, P.J., Hanich, Q., Harden-Davies, H., Kelly, R.P., Kenny, T., Klinger, T., Kittinger, J., Nakamura, K., Pauwelussen, A., Pictou, S., Rothschild, C., Seto, K., and Spalding, A. 2022. “Social Equity is Key to Sustainable Ocean Governance.” Ocean Sustainability 1(4). doi.org/10.1038/s44183-022-00001-7. Damania, R., Balseca, E., de Fontaubert, C., Gill, J., Kim, K., Rentschler, J., Russ, J., and Zaveri, E. 2023. “Detox Development: Repurposing Environmentally Harmful Subsidies.” Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1916-2. Damasia, L., Lopes, P., Guariento, R., and Carvalho, A. 2015. “Matching Fishers’ Knowledge and Landing Data to Overcome Data Missing in Small-scale Fisheries.” PLOS ONE 10(7): e0133122. doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133122. Daw, T.M., Robinson, J.A.N. and Graham, N.A. 2011. “Perceptions of Trends in Seychelles Artisanal Trap Fisheries: Comparing Catch Monitoring, Underwater Visual Census and Fishers’ Knowledge.” Environmental Conservation 38(1): 75-88. doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.018. Daw T.M., Cinner J.E., McClanahan T.R., Brown K., Stead S.M., Graham, N.A.J., Maina, J. 2012. “To Fish or Not to Fish: Factors at Multiple Scales Affecting Artisanal Fishers’ Readiness to Exit a Declining Fishery.” PLOS ONE 7(2): e31460. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031460. Emerton, L. 2000. “Using Economic Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation.” IUCN. EDF and Duke University. 2018. “Financing Fisheries Reform: Blended Capital Approaches in Support of Sustainable Wild-capture Fisheries.” Environmental Defense Fund and Duke University. doi. org/10.31230/osf.io/fj7qm. 88 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 88 Espinoza-Tenorio, A., Ehuan-Noh, R.G., Cuevas-Gómez, G.A., Narchi, N.E., Ramos-Muñoz, D.E., Fernández-Rivera Melo, F.J., Saldívar-Moreno, A., Zepeda-Domínguez, J.A., Pérez-Jiménez, J.C., Oliveto-Andrade, A. and Torre, J. 2022. “Between Uncertainty and Hope: Young Leaders as Agents of Change in Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries.” Ambio 51(5):1287-1301. doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021- 01639-2. Evans, L., Cherrett, N., and Pemsl, D. 2011. “Assessing the Impact of Fisheries Co-management Interventions in Developing Countries: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Environmental Management 92(8):1938-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.010. Evans, L.S., Buchan, P.M., Fortnam, M., Honig, M. and Heaps, L. 2023. “Putting coastal communities at the center of a sustainable blue economy: A review of risks, opportunities, and strategies.” Frontiers in Political Science 4: 1032204. doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.1032204. FAO. 2002. “Recent Trends in Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Systems for Capture Fisheries.” FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 415. Rome: FAO. FAO. 2008. “Towards Integrated Assessment and Advice in Small-scale Fisheries: Principles and Processes.” Rome: FAO. FAO and IPC-IG. 2023. “Socioeconomic Impact Evaluation of Unemployment Insurance for Small-scale Fishers in Brazil (Seguro-Defeso).” Research Report, No. 78. Brasília: FAO. FAO, Duke University and WorldFish. 2023. “Illuminating Hidden Harvests – The Contributions of Small-scale Fisheries to Sustainable Development.” Rome: FAO. doi.org/10.4060/cc4576en. FAO. 2015. “Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication.” Rome: FAO. FAO. 2016. “Strengthening Coherence Between Agriculture and Social Protection to Combat Poverty and Hunger in Africa. Framework for Analysis and Action.” Rome: FAO. FAO. 2017a. FAO Social Protection Framework. Promoting Rural Development for All.” Rome: FAO. FAO. 2017b. “Social Protection to Foster Sustainable Management of Natural Resources and Reduce Poverty in Fisheries-Dependent Communities.” Report of the FAO Technical Workshop November 17-18, 2015. Rome: FAO. FAO. 2019. “Social Protection for Small-scale Fisheries in the Mediterranean Region: A Review.” Rome: FAO. FAO. 2020. “Blue Finance Guidance Note: Insurance for Small-scale Fisheries.” Rome: FAO. FAO, UNDP and UNEP. 2021. “A Multi-billion-dollar Opportunity – Repurposing Agricultural Support to Transform Food Systems.” Rome: FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6562en. FAO. 2022a. “Strengthening Coherence Between Social Protection and Fisheries Policies – Framework for Analysis and Action.” Rome: FAO. 89 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES BIBLIOGRAPHY FAO. 2022b. “Strengthening Coherence Between Social Protection and Fisheries Policies – Diagnostic Tool.” Rome: FAO. FAO. 2022c. “Guidebook for Evaluating Fisheries Co-Management Effectiveness.” Rome: FAO. FAO. 2023. “Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Framework. A Handbook in Support of the Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication.” Rome: FAO. FAO. 2024a. “FAO Terminology Portal. Fisheries.” https://www.fao.org/faoterm/collection/fisheries/ en/. FAO. 2024b. “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024. Blue Transformation in Action.” Rome: FAO. Ferraro, P.J. and Simorangkir, R. 2020. “Conditional Cash Transfers to Alleviate Poverty Also Reduced Deforestation in Indonesia.” Science Advances 6(24). doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz1298. Franks, P. and Booker, F. 2022. “Equity in Conservation – What, Why, and How? Technical Note.” IUCN and World Commission of Protected Areas. https://iucn.org/resources/grey-literature/iucn-wcpa- technical-note-series-no-7-equity-conservation-what-why-and-how. Franks, P. and Pinto, R. 2020. “SAPA, SAGE or GAPA? Tools for Assessing the Social Impacts, Governance, and Equity of Conservation.” London: IIED. Free, C., Jensen, O., Anderson, S., Gutierrez, N., Kleisner, K., Longo, C., Minto, C., Chato Osio, G., and Walsh, J. 2020. “Blood From a Stone: Performance of Catch-Only Methods in Estimating Stock Biomass Status.” Fisheries Research 223: 105452. doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2019.105452. Fry, C., Arulingam, I., Nigussie, L., and Senaratna Sellamuttu, S. 2021. “Youth in Small-scale Fisheries and Aquaculture.” Penang: WorldFish. Gaspare, L., Bryceson, I., and Kulindwa, K. 2015. “Complementarity of Fishers’ Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Conventional Science: Contributions to the Management of Groupers (Epinephelinae) Fisheries around Mafia Island, Tanzania.” Ocean and Coastal Management 114:88-101. doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.011. Glover, D. and Sumberg, J., 2020. “Youth and Food Systems Transformation.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4: 101. doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00101. Government of Fiji. 2023. “Fiji Jobs for Nature 2.0 Operations Manual.” (unpublished) Program information available at https://www.finance.gov.fj/jobs-for-nature-2-0-fiji-project/#. Gutierrez, N.L. 2017. “Harnessing Citizenry Awareness and Technology to Improve Fisheries Information: the Power of Data.” Fisheries, 42(12): 615-620. Guven, M., Jain, H., Joubert, C.J.E. 2021. “Social Protection for the Informal Economy: Operational Lessons for Developing Countries in Africa and Beyond.” Washington, DC: World Bank. https://hdl. handle.net/10986/36584. 90 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 90 Hilborn, R. and Walters C.J. 1992. “Role of Stock Assessment in Fishery Management.” In: Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615- 3598-0_1. Hilborn, R., Amoroso, R.O., Anderson, C.M., Baum, J.K., Branch, T.A., Costello, C., de Moor, C.L., Faraj, A., Hively, D., Jensen, O.P., Kurota, H., Little, Mace, P., McClanahan, T., Melnychuk, M.C., Mintok, C., Osio, G.C., Parma, A.M., Pons, M., Segurado, S., Szuwalski, C.S., Wilson, J.R., and Y. Ye. 2020. “Effective Fisheries Management Instrumental in Improving Fish Stock Status.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (4): 2218-24. Holmes, L., Strauss, K., de Vos, K. and K. Bonzon. 2014. “Towards Investment in Sustainable Fisheries: A Framework for Financing the Transition.” Environmental Defense Fund and The Prince of Wales’s International Sustainability Unit. https://www.edf.org/oceans/towards-investment- sustainable-fisheries. IISD. 2022. “Guidebook. Self-Assessment Tool for the Implementation of the WTO Fisheries Subsidies Agreement.” Canada: IISD. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2022-10/assessment-tool- wto-fisheries-subsidies-agreement.pdf. ILO. 2013. “Cataloguing in Publication Data Decent Work Indicators: Guidelines for Producers and Users of Statistical and Legal Framework Indicators: ILO manual: second version.” Geneva: ILO. ILO. 2024. “World Social Protection Database.” https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/WSPDB. action?id=15. IPBES. 2019. “Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Bonn: IPBES Secretariat. IPCC. 2007. “Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate.” Cambridge: IPCC. IPCC. 2012. “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Cambridge: IPCC. IPCC. 2014. “Summary for Policymakers In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Cambridge: IPCC. IPCC. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers.” [Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Alegria, A., Nicolai, M., Okem, A., Petzold, J., Rama, B. and Weyer, N.M. (eds.). IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3–35. doi.10.1017/9781009157964.001. 91 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES BIBLIOGRAPHY IPCC. 2022a. “Summary for Policymakers” [Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Tignor, M., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., Okem, A. (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., Okem, A., Rama, B. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3–33, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.001. IPCC. 2022b. “Fact Sheet-African Climate Change Impacts and Risks.” IPCC. ISPA (Inter Agency Social Protection Assessments). 2014. “CODI Core Diagnostic Instrument.” https://ispatools. socialprotection.org/tools/core-diagnostic-instrument-codi/. Jones, K., Visser, D. and Simic, A. 2019. “Fishing for Export: Calo, Recruiters, Informality, and Debt in International Supply Chains.” Journal of the British Academy 7(s1), 107–130. doi: 10.5871/ jba/007s1.107. Kelly, L. and Bladon, A.J. 2019. “Navigating Ocean Investments.” London: IIED. https://www.iied. org/17728iied. Kelly, L. Ducros, A. and Steele, P. 2023. “Redesigning Debt Swaps for a More Sustainable Future.” London: IIED. https://www.iied.org/21371iied. Kendrick, A., Vinci, V., Vincent, X.F.P., Howell, F., and Hoai Nguyen, S. 2024. “Opportunities for linking Fisheries Management and Social Protection in Solomon Islands.” Social Protection & Jobs Policy & Technical Note, No. 39. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/41975. Knight, C., Burnham, T.L., Mansfield, E., Crowder, L., and Micheli, F. 2020. “COVID-19 Reveals Vulnerability of Small-scale Fisheries to Global Market Systems.” The Lancet Planetary Health 4(6):E219. doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30128-5. Knudsen, M. 2016. “Poverty and Beyond: Small-scale fishing in Overexploited Marine Environments.” Human Ecology 44(3): 341–352. doi: 10.1007/s10745-016-9824-y. Lam, V.W., Allison, E.H., Bell, J.D., Blythe, J., Cheung, W.W., Frölicher, T.L., Gasalla, M.A. and Sumaila, U.R. 2020. “Climate Change, Tropical Fisheries and Prospects for Sustainable Development.” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 1: 440-454. de Lange, E., Sze, J.S., Allan, J., Atkinson, S., Booth, H., Fletcher, R., Khanyari, M. and Saif, O. 2023. “A Global Conservation Basic Income to Safeguard Biodiversity.” Nature Sustainability, 6(8): 1016-1023. doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01115-7. Leite, P., George, T., Sun, C., Jones, T., and Lindert, K. 2017. “Social Registries for Social Assistance and Beyond: A Guidance Note and Assessment Tool.” Social Protection & Labor Discussion Paper, No. 1704. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28284. Lindert, K., Karippacheril, T.G., Rodriguez Caillava, I. and Nishikawa Chavez, K. 2020. “Sourcebook on the Foundations of Social Protection Delivery Systems.” Washington, DC: World Bank. https:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34044. 92 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 92 Love, D., Allison, E.H., Asche, F., Belton, B., Cottrell, R.S., Froehlich, H., Gephart, J., Hicks, C., Little, D., Nussbaumer, E., Pinto da Silva, P., Poulain, F., Rubio, A., Stoll, J., Tlusty, M., Thorner-Lyman, A., Troell, M., and Zhang, W. 2021. “Emerging COVID-19 Impacts, Responses, and Lessons for Building Resilience in the Seafood System.” Global Food Security 28: 100494. doi.org/10.1016/j. gfs.2021.100494. Lubchenco, J., Cerny-Chipman, E., Reimer, J., and Levin, S. 2016. “The Right Incentives Enable Ocean Sustainability Successes and Provide Hope for the Future.” PNAS 113 (51): 14507-14514. doi/10.1073/ pnas.1604982113. May, J., Velia, M., and Benammour, O. 2023. “The Role of Social Protection in Strengthening Agrifood Systems and Inclusive Rural Transformation. A Case Study of the Bangladesh Enhanced Coastal Fisheries Project (ECOFISH-BD).” Rome: FAO. McClanahan, T., Graham, N., Calnan, J., and Macneil, M. 2007. “Toward Pristine Biomass: Reef Fish Recovery in Coral Reef Marine Protected Areas in Kenya.” Ecological Applications 17(4): 1055—1067. doi.org/10.1890/06-1450. McNeely, J. 2006. “A New Approach to Incentives Under the Convention on Biological Diversity.” Curitiba, Brazil: IUCN. Melnychuk, M.C., Kurota, H., Mace, P.M., Pons, M., Minto, C., Osio, G.C., Jensen, O.P., de Moor, C.L., Parma, A.M., Richard Little, L., Hively, D., Ashbrook, C., Baker, N., Amoroso, R., Branch, T., Anderson, C., Szuwalski, C., Baum, J., McClanaham, T., Ye, Y., Ligas, A., Bensbai, J., Thompson, G., DeVore, J., Magnusson, A., Bogstad, B., Wort, E., Rice, J., and Hilborn, R. 2021. “Identifying Management Actions that Promote Sustainable Fisheries.” Nature Sustainability 4(5): 440-449. doi.org/10.1038/ s41893-020-00668-1. Merayo, E., Porras, I., Harper, S., Steele, P., and Mohammed, E. 2019. “Subsidy Reform and Distributive Justice in Fisheries.” London: IIED. Metzner, R. (comp.) 2008. “Report of the Expert Consultation on Low-cost Fisheries Management Strategies and Cost Recovery.” Georgetown, Guyana, 4–7 September 2007. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report. No. 853. Rome: FAO. Mohammed, E.Y. 2014. “Economic Incentives for Marine and Coastal Conservation: Prospects, Challenges, and Policy Implications.” Routledge. Mome, M. and Arnason, R. 2007. “The Potential of the Artisanal Hilsa Fishery in Bangladesh: An Economically Efficient Fisheries”. Dissertation: The United Nations University Fishery Training Program. Mukherjee, A., Okamura, Y., Gentilini, U., Gencer, D., Almenfi, M., Kryeziu, A., Montenegro, M., Umapathi, N. 2023. “Cash Transfers in the Context of Energy Subsidy Reform: Insights from Recent Experience.” Energy Subsidy Reform in Action Series. ESMAP Technical Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/39948. 93 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES BIBLIOGRAPHY Mumtaz, Z. 2021. “Informal Social Protection: A Conceptual Synthesis.” Social Policy and Administration 56(3): 394-408. doi.10.1111/spol.12772. NPCA and AU-IBAR. 2016. “The Pan-African Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy Framework and Reform Strategy: Gender and Youth in Fisheries and Aquaculture.” NPCA and AU-IBAR: South Africa. Nguyen, D.B., Momtaz, S., and Pham, N. 2018. “The Potential of Informal Institutions for Marine Fisheries Management: A Case Study of a Coastal Commune in Vietnam.” Fisheries Management and Ecology 25 (4): 275-86. doi:10.1111/fme.12292. Nguyen, N., Nico, G., Hai Nguyen, T., Bladon, A., and Ducros, A. 2024. “Connecting Social Protection, Labor Market Interventions and Fisheries Management in Viet Nam.” Social Protection and Jobs Policy & Technical Note, No. 41. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/42330. OECD. 2020. “OECD Review of Fisheries 2020.” OECD Publishing: Paris. doi.org/10.1787/7946bc8a-en. OECD. 2022. “OECD Review of Fisheries 2022.” Paris: OECD Publishing. doi.org/10.1787/9c3ad238-en. Okamura, Y., Bladon, A., Tegelskär Greig, G., and Nico, G. 2024. “Integrating Social Protection with Fisheries Management for Sustainability: Overview of Country Case Studies.” Social Protection and Jobs Policy & Technical Note, No. 36. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle. net/10986/41932. Österblom, H., Wabnitz, C.C.C. and Tlad, D. 2020. “Towards Ocean Equity.” World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Ovando, D., Dougherty, D. and Wilson, J.R. 2016. “Market and Design Solutions to the Short‐Term Economic Impacts of Marine Reserves.” Fish and Fisheries 17(4): 939-954. Oyanedel, R., S. Gelcich, and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2020. “A Synthesis of (Non-Compliance Theories with Applications to Small-Scale Fisheries Research and Practice.” Fish and Fisheries 21 (6): 1120-34. Pela, K., De Martino, S., Ricaldi, F. and Japp, D. 2024. “Supporting Sustainability in Kenya’s Fisheries through Social Protection and Labor Market Interventions”. Social Protection and Jobs Policy & Technical Note, No. 38. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/41976. Pita, C. and Ford, A. 2023. “Sustainable Seafood and Small-scale Fisheries: Improving Retail Procurement.” London: IIED. Pollnac, R., Bavinck, M. and Monnereau, I., 2012. “Job Satisfaction in Fisheries Compared.” Social Indicators Research 109: 119-133. Pollnac, R.B., Pomeroy, R.S. and Harkes, I.H.T. 2001. “Fishery Policy and Job satisfaction in Three Southeast Asian Fisheries.” Ocean and Coastal Management 44(7–8): 531–544. doi: 10.1016/ S0964-5691(01)00064-3. Pomeroy, R., Arango, C., Lomboy, C., and Box, S. 2020. “Financial Inclusion to Build Economic Resilience in Small-scale Fisheries.” Marine Policy 118: 103982. doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2020.103982. 94 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 94 Pomeroy, R.S. 2012. “Managing Overcapacity in Small-scale Fisheries in Southeast Asia.” Marine Policy 36(2): 520-527. doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.10.002. Popova, E., Vousden, D., Sauer, W., Mohammed, E., Allain, V., Downey-Breedt, N., Fletcher, N., Gjerde, K., Halpin, P., Kelly, S., Oubura, D., Pecl, G., Roberts, M., Raitsos, D., Rogers, A., Samoilys, M., Sumalia, U.R, Tracey, S., Yool, A. 2019. “Ecological Connectivity Between Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction and Coastal Water: Safeguarding Interests of Coastal Communities in Developing Countries.” Marine Policy 104: 90-102. doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.050. Porras, I. 2019. “No Hidden Catch Mainstreaming Values of Small-scale Fisheries in National Accounts.” London: IIED. Porras, I., P. Steele, and E. Y. Mohammed. 2016. “Upscaling Solutions: The Role of Conditional Transfers for Poverty Reduction and Ecosystem Management.” London: IIED. Purcell, S.W., Crona, B.I., Lalavanua, W., and Eriksson, H. 2017. “Distribution of Economic Returns in Small-scale Fisheries for International Markets: A Value-chain Analysis.” Marine Policy 86: 9-16. doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.001. Purcell, S.W., Tagliafico, A., Cullis, B.R., and Cocks, N. 2024. “Wicked Problem of Improving Fishery Livelihoods Through Capacity Building.” Marine Policy 163: 10108. doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2024.106108. Rare. 2018. https://rare.org/story/registering-fishers-to-capture-data-and-change-norms-for- fishery-conservation/. Rigolini, J. 2021. “Social Protection and Labor: A Key Enabler for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation”. Social Protection and Jobs Discussion Paper, No. 2108. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/356911638776148708/Social-Protection-and-Labor-A- Key-Enabler-for-Climate-Change-Adaptation-and-Mitigation. Robinson, J.P.W., Mills, D.J., Asiedu, G.A., Byrd, K., del Mar Mancha Cisneros, M., Cohen, P.J., Fiorella, K.J., Graham, N., MacNeil, M.A., Maire, E., Mbaru, E., Nico, G., Omukoto, J.O., Simmance, F., and Hicks, C.C. 2022. “Small Pelagic Fish Supply Abundance and Affordable Micronutrients to Low and Middle-income Countries.” Nature Food 3:1075-1084. Sanchez Galvis, M. and Rodriguez-Novoa, L. 2024. “Exploring Alternatives for the Economic Inclusion of Low-income, Artisanal Fisher Communities in Costa Rica: Case Study of Artisanal Fishing and Mollusk Gathering Communities in Puerto Cortés and Golfo Dulce.” Social Protection and Jobs Policy & Technical Note, No. 37. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/41934. Schroeter, S.C., Gutiérrez, N.L., Robinson, M., Hilborn, R. and Halmay, P. 2009. “Moving from Data Poor to Data Rich: A Case Study of Community-based Data Collection for the San Diego Red Sea Urchin Fishery.” Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 1(1): 230-243. 95 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES BIBLIOGRAPHY Schuhbauer, A., Skerritt, D.J., Ebrahim, N., Le Manach, F., and R.U. Sumaila. 2020. “The Global Fisheries Subsidies Divide Between Small-and-Large-Scale Fisheries.” Frontiers in Marine Science 7: 792. Schutter, M., Cisneros-Montemayor, A., Voyer, M., Allison, E.H., Domarchuk-White, C., Benzaken, D., and Mohammed, E.H. 2024. “Mapping Flows of Blue Economy Finance: Ambitious Narratives, Opaque Actions, and Social Equity Risks.” One Earth 7(4): 638-649. doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.02.009. Sharma, J. and Ravindranath, N.J. 2019. “Applying IPCC 2014 Framework for Hazard-specific Vulnerability Assessment Under Climate Change.” Environmental Research Communications 1: 051004. doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ab24ed. Shester, G.G. and Micheli, F. 2011. “Conservation Challenges for Small-scale Fisheries: Bycatch and Habitat Impacts of Traps and Gillnets.” Biological Conservation 144(5): 1673-1681. doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2011.02.023. Short, R., Gelcich, S., Little, D.C., Fiorenza, M., Allison, E.H., Basurto, X., Belton, B., Brugere, C., Bush, S.R., Cao, L., Crona, B., Cohen, P.J., Defeo, O., Edwards, P., Ferguson, C.E., Franz, N., Golden, C.D., Halpern, B.S., Hazen, L., Hicks, C., Johnson, D., Kaminski., Mangubhai, S., Naylor, R.L., Rentaso, M., Sumaila, U.R., Thilstead, S.H., Tigchelaar, M., Wabnitz, C.C.C., and W. Zhang. 2021. “Harnessing the Diversity of Small-Scale Actors is Key to the Future of Aquatic Food Systems.” Nature Food 9: 733-41. Skerritt, D.J., Schuhbauer, A., Villasante, S., Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M., Bennett, N.J., Mallory, T.G., Lam, V.W., Arthur, R.I., Cheung, W.W., The, L.S., Roumbedakis, K. 2023. “Mapping the Unjust Global Distribution of Harmful Fisheries Subsidies.” Marine Policy 152: 105611. Slater, M.J., Napigkit, F.A. and Stead, S.M. 2013. “Resource Perception, Livelihood Choices and Fishery Exit in a Coastal Resource Management Area.” Ocean & Coastal Management 71: 326–333. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.11.003. Smallhorn-West, P., Allison, E., Gurney, G., Karnad, D., Kretser, H., Lobo, A.S., Mangubhai, S., Newing, H., Pennell, K., Raj, S. and Tilley, A. 2023. “Why Human Rights Matter for Marine Conservation.” Frontiers in Marine Science 10: 1089154. Stacey, N., Gibson, E., Loneragan, N.R., Warren, C., Wiryanwan, B., Adhuri, D.S., Steenbergen, D., and Fitriana, R. 2021. “Developing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries Livelihoods in Indonesia: Trends, Enabling and Constraining Factors, and Future Opportunities.” Marine Policy 132: 104654. doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104654. Stavropoulou, M., Holmes, R., and Jones, N.A. 2017. “Harnessing Informal Institutions to Strengthen Social Protection for the Rural Poor.” Global Food Security 12: 73-79. doi.org/10.1016/j. gfs.2016.08.005. Stern, E. 2015. “Impact Evaluation: A Guide for Commissioners and Managers.” London: Department for International Development. 96 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 96 Stevens, K., Irwin, B., Kramer, D., and Urquhart, G. 2014. “Impact of Increasing Market Access on a Tropical Small-scale Fishery.” Marine Policy 50: 46-52. doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.05.007. Sumaila, U.R. and Tai, T. 2020. “End Overfishing and Increase the Resilience of the Ocean to Climate Change.” Frontiers in Marine Science 7. doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00523. Sumaila, U.R., Cheung, W., Dyck, A., Gueye, K., Huang, L., Lam, V., Pauly, D., Srinivasan, T., Swartz, W., Watson, R., Zeller, D. 2012. “Benefits of Rebuilding Global Marine Fisheries Outweigh Costs.” PLoS ONE 7(7): e40542. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040542. Sumaila, U.R., Ebrahim, N., Schuhbauer, A., Skerritt, D., Li, Y., Kim, H.S., Mallory, T.G., Lam, V.W. and Pauly, D. 2019. “Updated Estimates and Analysis of Global Fisheries Subsidies.” Marine Policy 109: 103695. 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103695. Tigchelaar, M., Cheung, W.W., Mohammed, E.Y., Phillips, M.J., Payne, H.J., Selig, E.R., Wabnitz, C.C., Oyinlola, M.A., Frölicher, T.L., Gephart, J.A. and Golden, C.D. 2021. “Compound Climate Risks Threaten Aquatic Food System Benefits.” Nature Food 2(9): 673-682. Vandergeest, P. and Marschke, M. 2019. “Modern Slavery and Freedom: Exploring Contradictions through Labour Scandals in the Thai Fisheries.” Antipode 52(1): 291–315. doi: 10.1111/anti.12575. Virdin, J., Basurto, X., Nico, G., Harper, S., Mancha-Cisneros, M., Vannuccini, S., Ahern, M., Anderson, C.M., Funge Smith, S., Gutierrez, N.L., Mills, D.J., and Franz, N. 2023. “Fishing for Subsistence Constitutes a Livelihood Safety net for Populations Dependent on Aquatic Foods Around the World.” Nature Food 4: 874–885 doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00844-4. Wallace, A.P.C., Jones, J.P.G., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Wallace, G.E., Young, R., and E. Nicholson. 2015. “Quantifying the Short-Term Costs of Conservation Interventions for Fishers at Lake Alaotra, Madagascar.” PLoS ONE 10 (6): e0129440. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129440. Whaites, A. 2017. “The Beginner’s Guide to Political Economy Analysis (PEA).” National School of Government International (NSGI): London. Wiik, E., Jones, J., Pynegar, E., Bottazi, P., Asquith, N., Gibbons, J., and Kontoleon, A. 2020. “Mechanisms and Impacts of an Incentive-based Conservation Program with Evidence From a Randomized Control Trial.” Conservation Biology 34(5): 1076-1088. doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13508. World Bank and FAO. 2009. “The Sunken Billions: The Economic Justification for Fisheries Reform.” Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank and Innovations for Poverty Action. 2024. “Evidence at your Fingertips Series: Operational and Design Choices of Social Assistance Programs.” Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/41715. World Bank. 2017. “The Sunken Billions Revisited: Progress and Challenges in Global Marine Fisheries.” Environment and Sustainable Development Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. 97 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES BIBLIOGRAPHY World Bank. 2018. “The State of Social Safety Nets 2018.” Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1254-5. World Bank. 2019. “COAST: The Caribbean Oceans and Aquaculture Sustainability Facility.”. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2020. “Social Protection and Labor – Disaster Risk Management Toolkit.” Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/758321601534340630/ Social-Protection-and-Labor-Disaster-Risk-Management-Toolkit. World Bank. 2021a. “Riding the Blue Wave: Applying the Blue Economy Approach to World Bank Operations.” Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2021b. “Diagnosis of Vulnerability and Impact of COVID-19 on the Fisheries Sector in Morocco.” Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2021c. “Collaborative Management Partnership Toolkit.” Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2023. “Blue Economy: Structural Transformation & Implications for Youth Employment.” Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2024. “ASPIRE: The Atlas of Social Protection Indicators of Resilience and Equity.” Washington, DC: World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/datatopics/aspire. World Trade Organization. 2024. “Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”).” WWF and IUCN WPA 2023. “30x30: A Guide to Inclusive, Equitable and Effective Implementation of Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Version 1.” https:// www.worldwildlife.org/publications/30x30-a-guide-to-inclusive-equitable-and-effective- implementation-of-target-3-of-the-kunming-montreal-global-biodiversity-framework. 98 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 98 99 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ANNEXES HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 100 ANNEX A: SUMMARY OF COUNTRY CASE STUDIES Annex A.1: Costa Rica Exploring alternatives for the economic inclusion of low-income, artisanal fishing communities in Costa Rica: Case study of artisanal fishing and mollusk gathering communities in Puerto Cortés and Golfo Dulce Source: Sanchez Galvis and Rodriguez-Novoa (2024) Costa Rica—an upper middle-income, Central American country—has experienced sustained economic growth over the past decade, but income growth has not reached a significant portion of fisheries communities. The country’s fishing communities are facing the effects of climate change and the short-term negative consequences of government measures to protect the marine ecosystem and make fishing activities sustainable. As a result, there is a clear need to support low-income households that depend on small-scale (artisanal) fishing (SSF). Although the country has a relatively established social protection system, better coordination with the fisheries sector is needed. For example, the social registry—Sistema Nacional de Información y Registro Único de Beneficiarios Del Estado (SINIRUBE)—covers nearly all Costa Ricans, but the institutions in charge of vulnerable fishing populations do not currently use the registry to inform policies, nor to target specific benefits. The Costa Rica case study aimed to understand the socioeconomic conditions of low-income, artisanal fishing and mollusk-gathering communities, and to identify additional or alternative social and economic inclusion activities linked to, or outside of, fishing. The case study was built upon a pilot in two regions, combining quantitative and qualitative techniques, and it was informed by previous work of Costa Rica’s Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture (INCOPESCA) with support from local academic and research institutions. The case study included three types of assessment: (i) an assessment of the supply side, to understand the socioeconomic profile of low income and vulnerable SSF households; (ii) an assessment of the labor demand side (potential employers), to understand and explore current and future labor demand, while exploring potential job opportunities for low-income fisheries workers linked to, or outside of, fishing; and (iii) an assessment of the gaps between the two, to identify concrete actions to facilitate the economic inclusion of low-income fisheries workers. Findings show how SPJ programs could help support marginalized fisheries communities who have not benefited from the country’s long-term economic growth and increased social mobility. Specifically, four overarching recommendations emerged from the findings of the study: (i) Pursue a multidimensional, multi-stakeholder approach to facilitate long-term social and economic inclusion of poor and vulnerable fisheries communities. For example, improving the dialogue between INCOPESCA, the Mixed Institute of Social Assistance 101 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ANNEX-A (IMAS), and other relevant social protection stakeholders (SINIRUBE, the National Institute of Learning (INA), the Ministry of Labor, and microfinancing agencies) to design a strategy for economic inclusion of fisheries workers is a key priority.100 It is crucial that this social assistance work adequately addresses the specific circumstances and livelihoods of those who rely on fishing as a main source of income, especially in remote areas where there are few or no alternative economic activities. Similarly, efforts are being made to establish a partnership between INCOPESCA and the Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social (CCSS) to ensure the provision of health and social insurance for fisheries workers. Furthermore, it is advisable to establish a multisectoral roundtable including local governments and the private sector to develop a strategy to customize existing programs for low-income fishing communities. For example, the roundtable could work to design a pilot for multisectoral interventions—including support for vulnerable youth and/ or women collecting mollusks—through cash transfers, job intermediation, training, business development services, seed capital, and financial inclusion. (ii) Improve targeting and profiling mechanisms to identify groups with higher likelihood of engaging in economic inclusion programs, and tailor existing programs to poor and vulnerable fisheries workers. These essential pathways to sustainable social and economic inclusion include strengthening collaboration between SINIRUBE and INCOPESCA to make fisheries and social registries interoperable, enabling them to better characterize fisheries workers and identify relevant targeted programs and priority groups and regions. (iii) Tailor technical and vocational education and training (TVET) programs to the needs of communities in terms of location, level of effort, and local-economy needs to increase the effectiveness of existing efforts to support fisheries workers and households. This includes providing follow-up support to make the best use of knowledge and skills provided by TVET to enhance its benefits, and, also, in order to increase the effectiveness of TVET programs, consider what institutions are best suited to provide certain aspects of programs. Currently, TVET programs mainly come from INA in partnership with INCOPESCA; however, partnering with the Ministry of Labor would bring a cross-sectoral approach to business development and job placement services. (iv) Assess and address information, communication, targeting, and eligibility constraints for main social assistance programs to expand their reach. Periodically reviewing and adapting existing programs—for example, the Veda Subsidy—by revising poverty status, social security contributions, and licensing requirements can prevent exclusion of vulnerable people. Encouraging fisheries workers to register and obtain a license will help alleviate information and communication constraints. 100 SINIRUBE is the national social registry, INA is the technical and vocational training institution. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 102 Annex A.2: Kenya Supporting sustainability in Kenya’s fisheries through social protection and labor market interventions Source: Pela et al (2024) Kenya, a country endowed with valuable coastal and freshwater resources, faces significant challenges in managing its fisheries sector sustainably while supporting the livelihoods of fishing communities. Coastal areas are among the least developed in the country, with over 62 percent of coastal community members living below the poverty line. In response to this challenge, the Government of Kenya (GOK) prioritized the blue economy as a key component of its Vision 2030 development agenda, recognizing the potential for fisheries and the blue economy to contribute significantly to economic transformation. This vision emphasizes the need for sustainable exploitation of marine resources to create new and better jobs while reducing poverty and supporting the resilience of coastal communities. To identify opportunities for creating new and better jobs in the fisheries sector, the Kenya case study presents a quantitative analysis of fishing and aquaculture households based on official national household surveys. Specifically, the latest data from the Kenya Continuous Household Survey (2019) and the Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey (2015/16) were used to create a demographic and socioeconomic profile of fisheries workers and labor market challenges they face. The social protection system can play a critical role in mitigating short- and medium-term challenges for improving fisheries management. In many ways, Kenya has been a pioneer of social protection in East Africa, being an early adopter of social assistance programs. The Kenyan case study highlights that some fishing communities in marine coastal and freshwater areas face high poverty rates, despite periods of national economic growth. The study suggests that integrating social protection and labor market interventions with improved fisheries management could help support these communities. The report proposes several key policy channels to address challenges and create better jobs in the fisheries sector: (i) Strengthen social protection systems to mitigate short- and medium-term negative effects resulting from necessary management measure for fishing activities. This includes: • Expand social protection program coverage as well as potential social insurance schemes for informal workers in the fisheries sector. • Integrate data on climate-related shocks and climate vulnerability into targeting 103 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ANNEX-A.2 criteria for social protection programs to make them more responsive and effective in reaching the most threatened households. • Consider implementing anticipatory social protection initiatives, such as early warning systems, offering information on long-term ecosystem changes due to climate change, and assisting with investments in climate-resilient fishing technologies. (ii) Foster partnerships between government, the private sector, and fisheries cooperatives. This could help in advocating for labor standards, skills development, and job creation, as well as facilitate access to financing, technology, and market information to support establishment of sustainable and equitable value chains. For example, partnerships between the government and private-sector investors could encourage investment in infrastructure such as ports, harbors, and markets, thus reducing operational costs and enhancing product quality and efficiency. (iii) Incentivize sustainable fishing practices, including certification and registration initiatives, and expand education, training, and capacity-building programs to mitigate short- and medium-term negative effects caused by fisheries management and climate-adaptation measures. For example, the government can implement capacity-building programs and training for actors all along the value chain (fishers, processors, marketers, regulators) to enhance their expertise and knowledge related to sustainable value-chain development and climate change adaptation, as well as actively promote and incentivize education and training programs on sustainable fishing practices, including gear modification. (iv) Diversify the economy, assess skills levels, and promote alternative livelihoods for fisheries workers. Any strategy to sustain ocean resources must also capitalize on new opportunities for job creation. For instance, in addition to restricting fishing activities in protected areas to support fish reproduction, other labor-intense initiatives— such as the restoration of mangroves, seagrass beds, and dune vegetation (also called nature-based solutions)—can be leveraged to provide immediate livelihood alternatives. In parallel, supporting diversification includes providing and promoting training for alternative livelihoods that is tailored to fisheries workers´ needs. This entails assessing current skills held by fisheries workers, and identifying skills required to transition to alternative jobs. Additionally, longer-term development policies that promote education, innovation, and human-capital accumulation are needed, such as school curriculum reform to promote STEM skills for innovation and ICT, knowledge of sustainable practices, entrepreneurship skills, and related academic disciplines. It HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 104 also involves mainstreaming soft skills across academic disciplines and incorporating non-traditional gender careers into education systems. (v) Explore innovative financing mechanisms for transitioning to sustainable fisheries: (a) Blended finance: In conjunction with education and training programs, a blended finance model could be developed to redirect harmful subsidies to subsidize environmental certification for SSF to incentivize sustainable fishing practices, improve market access, signal quality for certified products and potential price premiums (along the supply chain), and improve resource control. (b) Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES): Leveraging PES for restoration projects (for example, mangrove restoration), could provide immediate livelihood support while engaging local communities. It is important to consider how such mechanisms could be designed to incentivize fishers’ registration and strengthen data to profile fisheries workers and their households. 105 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ANNEX-A.3 Annex A.3: Solomon Islands Integrating social protection and fisheries management in Solomon Islands through Community Based Resource Management (CBRM) Source: Kendrick et al (2024) The Solomon Islands, a small Pacific Island country, has one of the world’s most diverse coastal ecosystems, but while coastal resources provide a large share of both nutrition and income, coastal fishing households are vulnerable to natural disasters and climate change threats and have limited assets and access to services to help them face these risks. Formal social protection systems and mechanisms to mitigate risks for fishing households are extremely limited. Fisheries can provide a safety net for coastal households during times of crisis if they are well-managed, but risks and hazards, combined with economic pressures, can make it difficult for coastal fishers to comply with fisheries management measures. In the long term, this can diminish the availability of fish and undermine the food security and livelihoods of fishing households. The Solomon Islands case study explores the potential of integrating SPJ-related interventions with fisheries management. To investigate such possibilities, the case study consisted of a literature review, analysis of existing data from three surveys, key-informant interviews, and stakeholder workshops to obtain quantitative and qualitative data/information, in partnership with WorldFish and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Based on the analysis, the case study presents opportunities for CBRM and SPJ interventions to work in coordination to improve fisheries resource sustainability and people’s livelihoods. The potential for leveraging and integrating social protection mechanisms with fisheries management is high in the Solomon Islands. The Government has made CBRM its primary strategy for managing coastal fisheries. CBRM builds on indigenous traditions of conservation and community rights to enable communities to maintain sustainable harvests through fisheries management. “CBRM-Plus” is a term recognizing the opportunity to integrate a range of services to reduce vulnerability and risks with CBRM governance, management, and community organization. For example, using the CBRM reporting and decision-making structures to deliver social protection can promote key stakeholders’ representation and participation. Additionally, expanding CBRM to recognize, and coordinate with, traditional indigenous systems of informal social protection can strengthen community systems to build preparedness and respond to shocks, support community members facing hardships, and tackle other environmental issues. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 106 This case study presents opportunities for CBRM and SPJ interventions to work in coordination to promote several key goals: sustainable renewable natural resources use, improved livelihoods, financial inclusion, climate change adaptation, disaster-risk management, and access to essential services. The success of such initiatives will depend on political commitment and leadership, as well as community involvement. SPJ interventions linked to fishing, fisheries management, and food security can support vulnerable households to adopt sustainable livelihood and environmental practices. Social protection mechanisms—such as alternative livelihood development or income support from cash transfers—could help incentivize compliance with fisheries management measures and compensate those who are negatively impacted by such measures. SPJ activities to create jobs, improve incomes, and develop skills should be accessible to women, youth, and marginalized groups to support both fishing and non-fishing households. An adaptive social protection (ASP) system could be established and gradually expanded to meet the needs of the most vulnerable when emergencies occur. Finally, climate and blue finance mechanisms offer potential sources of funding for integrating SPJ interventions with fisheries management to promote sustainability of fisheries and livelihoods for future generations. 107 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ANNEX-A.4 Annex A.4: Sri Lanka Integrating social protection and economic inclusion with coastal fisheries management Source: Arin et al (2024) Sri Lanka’s coastal fisheries are a crucial source of livelihoods, food, and nutrition, but fish-stock productivity is in decline. About 12 percent of the total population (in 2023) derive some portion of their livelihoods from the fisheries sector, either directly or indirectly, and— as an island country—aquatic foods are central to diets nationwide. Coastal fishing effort has increased in recent decades, and fish-stock productivity has been declining and failing to meet domestic demand. Efforts are underway to conduct stock assessments and develop fisheries management plans (FMPs), but management measures impose costs on fisheries workers. Furthermore, in addition to the COVID-19 pandemic, this lower middle-income country recently experienced an economic crisis, and fisheries households are among those most affected. Sri Lanka’s social protection systems are extensive but fragmented. With reforms underway to make it more efficient, adaptive, and coherent with other sectors, there is an opportunity to better leverage social protection interventions to support fisheries sustainability. This case study aims to explore how SPJ policies and programs could help rebuild and maintain coastal fishery stocks. The study focuses on the spiny lobster fishery, which has a high value in export markets. It consisted of two parts: (i) a literature review of Sri Lanka’s SPJ policy and programs, focusing on their coverage and adequacy for the coastal fisheries sector; and (ii) an analysis of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics and aspirations of coastal households conducted using data from a small household survey (about 500 households, non-representative). This survey was designed to collect data for modelling biophysical and economic outcomes under various fisheries management scenarios.101 Although lacking some questions to illicit information on people’s preferences for livelihood and entrepreneur- ial activities and skills development, the case study demonstrates how a comprehensive household survey can inform policy advice on the social protection and fisheries management nexus. The case study highlights the potential of SPJ interventions to help strengthen coastal fisheries management, if governed, designed and delivered in complementary and synergistic ways. It identifies the following main opportunities to do so: 101 The Bioeconomic modeling and local economy-wide impact evaluation (Bio-LEWIE) method forms part of the Fisheries Sector As- sessment Toolkit. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 108 (i) Strengthen governance and policy to connect SPJ objectives with fisheries policy objectives. Opportunities include better institutional cooperation and coordination (including within and between ministries and with non-governmental institutions); strengthening and streamlining of fisheries community organizations, which can help build communities’ trust and fill gaps in institutional capacity and information; implementing fishery co-management; and strengthening fisheries governance. (ii) Leverage SPJ programs to help prevent increased coastal fishing effort by reducing poverty and vulnerability across the coastal belt. Active labor market programs (ALMPs) and related economic inclusion programs may be the best long-term solution, particularly those that support the capacity of youth to find skilled, well-paid employment outside the fisheries sector. Improving adequacy and targeting of mainstream social assistance, together with changes in how fisheries actors and wider coastal communities are registered and assessed for SPJ, could also help reduce poverty in coastal areas, therefore reducing the likelihood of the poor turning to fishing in times of shock. Creating a more functional and dynamic social registry covering more of the population—including fishers and fish workers, whose specific vulnerabil- ities are not necessarily reflected in the targeting methodology—would support this. Furthermore, reforming the Fishermen’s Pension and Social Security Benefit Scheme could help limit fishing effort by reducing the numbers of licensed older fishers not yet at retirement age, while also reducing vulnerability in fishing communities. It is crucial that SPJ support does not conflict with fisheries management by promoting entry to the sector or an increase in effort. (iii) Leverage SPJ programs to alleviate the short-term costs of fisheries management regulations—such as an extended lobster-fishery closure to rebuild stock—for the poor and severely poor. Support should be conditional on not increasing fishing effort and requires monitoring and enforcement of compliance. Mainstream social assistance could support poor fishers harmed by short-term restrictions, but there may be fiscal constraints. Unemployment insurance might be a more efficient option to support a short-term regulation that recurs annually, and this could be incorporated into the current Fishermen’s Pension scheme. Promoting, strengthening, and streamlining Sri Lanka’s fishing insurance schemes for fishing vessels, gear, and death or disability, and exploring parametric insurance, could also support fishers to comply with short-term restrictions by making them more able to anticipate and cope with other risks. (iv) Given Sri Lanka’s fiscal situation, innovative financing strategies are needed to support these recommendations. Since most fisheries households are not in the lowest income 109 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ANNEX-A.4 groups prioritized for social assistance, mechanisms may be needed to channel finance from stakeholders who stand to benefit from fishery stock recovery, such as export companies. However, strengthening tax and fee collection from the fisheries sector is likely to be challenging. Sri Lanka could also explore international climate and biodiversity finance (including funds for loss and damage and climate adaptation) to channel towards SPJ for fisheries management. Follow-up work is required to explore in depth innovative financing options and assess their feasibility. Studying how SPJ can support sustainable coastal fisheries management in specific Sri Lankan districts is a priority follow-up activity. These studies should focus on community and household-based livelihoods and entrepreneurial activities as well as youth skills development. This would inform World Bank and other development partners’ activities pertaining to coastal resource management and rural development. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 110 Annex A.5: Viet Nam Connecting social protection, labor market interventions, and fisheries management Source: Nguyen et al (2024) Viet Nam—a lower middle-income, Southeast Asian country—is the third largest exporter of fish products globally, but fish-stock productivity is in decline due to lack of effective management of both small-scale inshore and larger-scale offshore fisheries. In addition, the vulnerability of fisheries is further intensified by climate change, as more frequent extreme weather events damage fisheries infrastructure, and warming waters alter the productivity and distribution of fish stocks. As these environmental impacts eventually erode the incomes and livelihoods of the more than 0.6 million people who rely on marine and inland fishing as their primary job, strengthening Social Protection and Jobs (SPJ) systems has become an urgent priority. While the country’s SPJ systems have evolved since the 1990s, programs remain small and fragmented, even compared to peer countries. Although Viet Nam’s current legal and policy framework provides for transitioning to more sustainable fisheries, including by reducing the fishing fleet in order to reduce fishing pressure, implementation of interventions remains limited. This Viet Nam case study offers quantitative analysis on vulnerability and socioeconomic assessment of fisheries actors to better integrate SPJ and fisheries management. The objective is to gain a deeper understanding of the vulnerabilities faced by the population reliant on fisheries and to leverage SPJ programs to promote sustainable practices. The case study aims to make SPJ programs more responsive to the needs of fisheries communities while reducing environmental pressures and enhancing resilience to climate change. It draws on a quantitative analysis of nationally representative data from two official government surveys—the Living Standard Measurement Survey (LSMS) from 2022 and the Labor Force Survey (LFS) from 2020—to create a socioeconomic and demographic profile of the fisheries sector and assess fisheries households’ and workers’ vulnerability relative to other groups. The Viet Nam case study gives insight into the challenges faced when fisheries management must change course, including measures to convert thousands of coastal and offshore vessels to aquaculture, aquaculture services, recreational fishing, or similar, and transit fishers to those or other occupations. This analysis provides the basis for the following recommendations on how to strengthen, adjust, and use SPJ to support the transition and the management actions needed, while underpinning the socioeconomic wellbeing of fisheries actors: 111 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ANNEX-A.5 (i) Improve inter-ministerial collaboration to encourage and support informal self-employed fishers and fish workers to register their activities and employees in centralized fisheries databases managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. For example, linking registration to the provision of social protection programs can incentivize registration. However, strong monitoring and enforcement of fisheries regulations must accompany this approach not to incentivize overfishing or encourage more workers to enter the sector. (ii) Integrate the social protection information system with fisheries databases, including vessel monitoring systems, to help validate fisheries workers and households for social protection eligibility. The Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social affairs is in the process of digitalizing its databases, starting with the social assistance database, and gradually linking it to the national population database (near 90% coverage). Once these databases are clean and up to date, they could link to ministries’ databases, such as social insurance and health, as well as the fisheries database to better understand coastal communities´ needs and offer relevant social protection and labor programs. (iii) Support income diversification among fisheries workers through active labor market programs (ALMPs) to reduce ecological harm from the fisheries sector. Encouraging income diversification within the sector—for example, by training workers in fish processing, packaging, and branding to access higher-value markets—must be implemented carefully to avoid encouraging overfishing. Adequate support should be provided to workers who lose their jobs due to the reduction of fishing vessels through ALMPs, such as job-search assistance or providing access to low-interest loans and startup capital for new ventures. Conditioning support upon giving up a vessel or other productive equipment can help maximize ecological benefits. Additionally, tailoring ALMPs according to specific community needs—including the needs of marginalized groups such as women and youth—is likely to benefit participating households and the wider fishing community. (iv) Increase socioeconomic wellbeing of fisheries workers and their households. One option is to strengthen adaptive social protection (ASP) measures by extending cash transfers to fisheries households in case of reduced income due to shocks. The Government could also consider a subsidized parametric insurance scheme to fisheries households, given the vulnerability of the capture fisheries sector to natural disasters. The Ministry of Finance, which piloted subsidized agricultural insurance in a similar way, could support this effort. Further, early warning systems (EWS) would need to be strengthened and linked to ASP measures. HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 112 ANNEX B: PHASES OF FISHERY DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL CORRESPONDING FISHERY MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND SPJ INTERVENTIONS The development of a fishery follows distinct patterns, which we describe in six main phases (Figure B.1(A)). Within each phase, and informed by stock assessment, varying levels of fish abundance, fishing effort, catches, and economic profit can guide design and implementation of fishery management measures (Figure B.1(B)) and related SPJ interventions (Figure B.1(C)). When SPJ is being used to directly incentivize behavior change (see Figure 3.1c), the specific phase of a fishery´s development can inform the selection of SPJ interventions to mitigate short- to medium-term costs imposed by management measures, or, where required, to motivate longer-term livelihood diversification and labor market transformation. During the initial stage of fishery development (phase 2 in Fig. B.1(A)), fishers start to exploit the stock(s), resulting in increasing catch rates, fishing effort, and economic profit. If the fishery is “open access”, new fishers will continue to join the fishery, and profits will keep rising but at a decreasing rate. While the fishery stock is abundant during this phase, it begins to decline, and the introduction of particularly input-control measures and their monitoring becomes important in order to prevent an increase in fishing effort to levels where catch exceeds the biological reproductive capacity of fishery stock(s). In the third phase, the fishery is fully exploited but still sustainable. Both catch rates and fishing effort may continue to rise, while profits peak and stabilize throughout this phase. However, despite the fishery stock remaining sustainable, it continues to decline. Alongside continuous monitoring of already introduced fisheries regulations, additional management interventions will be required, such as short-term closures (whether one-off or recurring) to allow for biological replenishment. SPJ interventions can complement these fishery management measures, for instance by providing periodic conditional transfers during seasonal closures when profits may otherwise decline enough to significantly threaten livelihoods. For how long these SPJ measures may need to be in place depends on the time required for the stock to reach a sustainable level with a corresponding level of fishing effort, yielding profits high enough that no supporting SPJ measures are required. For example, small pelagic fish, with their fast growth rates and high biomass turnover, hold significant potential for sustaining productive fisheries with minimal fishery management effort (Robinson et al 2022), such as implementing short periods of fishing closures during the reproductive period. In the fourth phase, the fishery becomes overexploited. Although fishing effort remains stable, catch rates and profits decline due to excessive exploitation of the stock. In the fifth phase (an extension of phase 4), the fishery collapses, with fish-stock biomass, catch, and profit approaching zero. In response, longer-term fishery management interventions will need to be implemented until the fishery has sufficiently recovered. This may require long-term closure of the fishery. During this closure period, SPJ interventions would be required to support the livelihoods of those affected. Instruments such as ALMPs and economic inclusion, for example, can provide economic support to affected communities and enable transitions to livelihoods outside the collapsed fishery. 113 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ANNEX-B During the sixth phase, as the fishery begins to recover, no SPJ interventions to directly incentivize behavior change are typically necessary, but SPJ interventions to promote livelihood diversification and labor market transformation can help to ensure that fishing effort does not increase beyond its initial level. Interventions that help to create the enabling conditions for sustainable fisheries (see Figure 3.1(b) will also be beneficial. Fishery management measures should also be in place to facilitate gradual reopening of the fishery. Continuous monitoring is essential during this phase to ensure the biological sustainability of fish stocks. Phases of fishery development (A) with potential corresponding fishery FIGURE B1 management measures (B) and SPJ interventions (C). Sustainable Unsustainable (A) Patterns of fishery development Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 CUT-OFF Fish Stock Biomass Fishing E ort Catches Profit Unexploited Developing Fully Over Fishery Fishery fishery exploited exploited collapse recovery (B) Fishery management Measures such as seasonal fishery closure for fish-stock replenishment (which reduce e ort and catch in the short to medium term) Long-term closure of the fishery for stock recovery (which reduces/maintains at a low level e ort and catch over a longer period of time) Continuous monitoring and regulation (including input-control measures and to curtail harmful fishing practices) (C) SPJ to provide direct incentives Potential instruments to mitigate short- to medium-term costs of fishery management measures include: conditional transfers, public works, and unemployment benefit Potential instruments to promote livelihood diversification and longer term labor market transformation: active labor market programs, economic inclusion programs, and retirement packages Source: own elaboration based on fishery development phases from Hilborn and Walters (1992). HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 114 ANNEX C: TABLES TO SUPPORT SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES Table C.1a presents resources to check as a first step, to take full advantage of existing information. Where information is not readily available, various tools and approaches are available to assist with primary data collection (Table C.1b). TABLE C.1a Potentially existing information sources for desk-based review and analysis. The left-hand column highlights potential information sources, organized by approach, and the symbols indicate which subsection of the Handbook they are relevant to. “” indicates that the information source is likely to be directly relevant, whereas “” indicates some indirect relevance or application. Section of the Handbook 4.3 Mapping 4.2 Assessing 4.1 Characterizing and assessing 4.4 Assessing Existing information sources institutional social-ecological programs and financial con- and how they can be used arrangements risks implementation text and policies systems Understanding and assessing existing policy and legislation National policies on fisheries, SPJ, climate and environment    Strategies related to priority issues and interventions in the fisheries and SPJ sectors,     as well as climate and envi- ronment Laws around fisheries man- agement and SPJ at national    and subnational level Analysis of literature and existing studies Country climate and develop- ment reports   Sectoral reviews (including policies and programs)     Impact evaluations     IMF Macroeconomic overviews  Public financial management  Medium-term expenditure frameworks  Existing Public Expenditure Reviews (including fisheries   and SPJ expenditure reviews) 115 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ANNEX-C Analysis of existing datasets and statistics Fisheries information sys- tems, administrative data & statistics from ministries of     fisheries and environment Targeted survey data & sta- tistics   Stock assessment reports   Catch per unit effort (CPUE) data  National and local environ- mental assessment datasets  National climate change scenarios  Social registries   National survey data and sta- tistics (e.g. census, household living standard surveys, labor    force surveys) Foundational identification systems (e.g. civil/population  registries, national ID) Global social protection databases (ILO World SP da- tabase, World Bank’s ASPIRE database, FAO’s forthcoming   fisheries social protection database) National fiscal and macroeco- nomic data.   HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 116 TABLE C.1b Tools and approaches available for collecting primary data. The left-hand column highlights potential tools and approaches, and the symbols indicate which subsection of the Handbook they are relevant to. “” indicates that the information source is likely to be directly relevant, whereas “” indicates some indirect relevance or application. Section of the Handbook 4.2 Assessing 4.3 Mapping 4.1 Characterizing and assessing 4.4 Assessing Tools and approaches available for institutional social-ecological programs and financial collecting primary data arrangements risks implementation context and policies systems Fisheries Sector Assessment Toolkit, including six tools below: 1. Statistical Capacity Assessment Tool   2. Fisheries Public Expenditure Re- view guidance document  3. Household Survey Module  4. Fisheries Stock Assessment Capa- bility Guidance Tool    5. The Fisheries Performance Assess- ment Toolkit (FPAT)   6. Fisheries Functional Role Matrix Template and Guidance (including to map entities responsible for deliver-   ing specific functions in the fisheries sector) FAO Diagnostic Tool (literature review, KIIs/FDGs, workshop) parts A and B: Part A on policies, programs, and beneficiary experience     Part B on Interview guides: E.g. semi-structured consultation with fisheries actors to understand com-   pliance with and cost of fisheries management and effectiveness of SPJ Other Resources FAO SSF Guidelines, including MEL Framework    Core Diagnostic Instrument (CODI) (KIIs, desk reviews)   Atlas of Social Protection Indicators of Resilience and Equity (ASPIRE) (KIIs,   desk review to collect program data) World Bank Social Protection Stress     Test Tool (KIIs, FGDs with ministries) Part 1 Part 2 Cost-benefit analysis  Scoping of opportunities for innova- tive finance (literature review, KIIs,  workshop) 117 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ANNEX-D ANNEX D: CHECKLIST GUIDANCE ON VALIDATING EXISTING DATA ON FISHERIES Terminology and data availability Explanations, definitions, notes 1. Do your data have information at When questions are asked at the household level (e.g., does individual and/or household levels? anyone in your household fish?) without asking about individ- a.  individual level ual-level details (e.g., which household members are engaged b.  individual and household level in fisheries), the answer should be at the household level. 2. Do your data have information on Fishers are those who are doing wild-capture harvesting (fish- fishers only, or also on other fisheries ing). Fisheries workers include all those involved in any part workers? of the fisheries value chain, including fishing and fishing-re- a.  Fishers only lated activities (pre- and post-harvest) such as processing, b.  Fishers and fish workers (fisheries trading, marketing, net mending, and boat building. Workers workers) in these fishing-related activities are often called fish workers. 3. (Related to the above) Do your data This question overlaps with and validates the answer to ques- have information on pre- and tion 2. If you have information on fishing only, you do not have post-harvest activities, as well as fishing? information on pre- and post-harvest activities done by fish a.  Yes (please provide the breakdown) workers. If you have information on pre- and post-harvest ac- b.  No tivities, as well as fishing, then you have information on fishers and fish workers (fisheries workers). 4. Do your data have information on Subsistence activities (or ‘working for own consumption’) whether the fishing or fisheries activities refer to fishing and/or processing primarily for household are for own consumption vs. for sales? consumption, as opposed to employment. Subsistence fish- a.  Yes (please provide the breakdown) eries are small-scale. (Note: this is different from the ‘sub- b.  No sistence level’ of living standard, although the two are often correlated). 5. Do your data disaggregate for small- The small-scale fisheries (SSF) sector is typically understood scale vs. large scale fishing/fisheries (SSF to be comprised of relatively small production units with vs. LSF)? low input and output, and low levels of technology or capital a.  Yes (please provide the breakdown) investment (incl. subsistence fishing). Large-scale fisheries b.  No (or don’t know) (LSF) include industrial and semi-industrial operations. What is considered a large-scale operation in one country may be considered small-scale in another. 6. Is fishing/fisheries information Marine fisheries describe activities related to fishing in disaggregated for marine and inland coastal/oceanic waters (or sometimes referred to as inshore/ activities? offshore). Inland refers to fisheries in rivers, streams, lakes, a.  Yes (please provide the breakdown) wetlands. (Note: Inland fisheries activities are typically small- b.  No (or don’t know) scale and conducted on a part-time or seasonal basis togeth- er with agricultural activities). 7. Are income/consumption for marine and/or inland fishing/fisheries data available? a.  Yes (please include incidence analysis) b.  No 8. Do your data have information on ownership of fisheries assets? a.  Yes (Please check below)  Boat  Fishing gear  Fish storage  Other (please specify) b.  No HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 118 ANNEX E: GUIDANCE ON QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN AND STATISTICAL INDICATORS FOR PROFILING FISHERIES ACTORS Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (HIES), routinely collected as part of the country’s monitoring system, offer a crucial entry point for informing the profiling of fisheries workers. However, many HIES questionnaires lack comprehensive questions specifically targeting fisheries households. Therefore, it is often necessary to adjust the current structure of the household questionnaire to include a bare minimum of questions to enable calculating statistical indicators for profiling fisheries workers and their households. In collaboration with the FAO, the World Bank has developed a comprehensive household survey module for fisheries within the framework of the Fisheries Sector Assessment Toolkit (FSAT). Questions included in this module adhere to internationally recognized statistical standards and have been designed to gather data from both households and individuals involved in the harvesting element of the fisheries value chain. Furthermore, FAO is developing a similar household survey module tailored specifically to gather data on households and individuals involved in pre- and post-harvest activities along the value chain. The World Bank questionnaire has been designed as a standalone survey module for inclusion in broader household surveys (for example, LSMS or similar surveys), thereby equipping data users and practitioners with more and better data to understand and profile fishers and their households, including roles, needs, and contributions. Building upon the World Bank and FAO survey modules, including a minimum set of questions in existing household survey instruments to better profile fisheries workers and households is recommended. Additional demographic and geographic data, as well as information on participation in other economic sectors, can be obtained from other pre-existing modules in the household survey (for example, household and individual rosters and employment modules), thus enabling comprehensive profiling of fisheries workers and households. Bare-minimum questions to include in HIES for calculating statistical indicators presented in Table E1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ GPS coordinates of the fisheries location Enumerator inquires about the approximate location where the activity is conducted and records GPS coordinates accordingly. Latitude [ ] Longitude [ ] 119 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ANNEX-E A. SCREENING QUESTIONS 1. Was any household member engaged, at least partially (1 day), in any fishing or fishing-related activity in the last 12 months, either for harvesting and/or processing and trading? • Catching fish (incl. boat/gear owner)……………………………………………………………………………………Y/N • Processing fish ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Y/N • Trading fresh or processed fish ……………………………………………………………………………………………Y/N • Pre-harvest activities ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………Y/N B. CATCHING FISH (HOUSEHOLD-LEVEL QUESTIONS) 2. Is this activity officially registered? • [Y/N] 3. Do you pay VAT? • [Y/N] 4. What fishing assets are owned by the household and what is their corresponding value? Assets Type Number Value Boat* Engine** Main fishing gear(s)*** Fish storage Other *Trawlers, Purse seiners, Other seiners, Gill netters, Trap setters, Long liners, Other liners, Multipurpose vessels, Dredgers, Other fishing vessels ** kW *** Fishing Rod and Reel, Fishing Net (e.g., cast net, gill net, seine net), Fishing Line, Hooks (e.g., J-hooks, circle hooks), Fishing Lures (e.g., spinners, plugs, flies), Trawls (e.g., otter trawl, beam trawl), Pot traps (e.g., lobster pots, crab traps), Spears (e.g., harpoons, spear guns), Fish Traps (e.g., fyke nets, hoop nets), Hand Gathering (e.g., handpicking, spearfishing), Draggers (e.g., bottom trawlers, midwater trawlers) Seines, Fyke Nets 5. How many fishers (by gender) did you hire during the last 12 months? • Number of men………………………………………………….…………………….............................................…[ ] • Number of women……………………………………………….……………………..............................................[ ] • Number of boys (less than 15 y.o.) …………………………………………….............................................[ ] • Number of girls (less than 15 y.o.).……………………………………………..............................................[ ] HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 120 C. CATCHING FISH (LABOR) 6. For each household member who engaged in catching fish for at least 1 day during the last 12 months, ask questions 6.1 - 6.8 6.1 Type of employment • Own-account worker........……………………………………………………….......................................[Y/N] • Contributing family worker.......……………………………………………........................................[Y/N] • Employer......………………………………………………………………………….......................................[Y/N] • Employees.......………………………………………………………………………......................................[Y/N] 6.2 Which months were high (H), low (L) season, no difference (A). Blank indicates no fishing in that month • January.......…………………………………………………………………………..........................................[H/L] • February.......…………………………………………………………………………........................................[H/L] • March........…………………………………………………………………………............................................[H/L] • …….. 6.3 Usually, how many hours per day? • Hours/day......………………………………………………………............................................................[ ] 6.4 Usually, how many days per weeks? • Days/week.......………………………………………………………............................................................[ ] 6.5 Usually, how many weeks per month? • Weeks/month...………………………………………………………............................................................[ ] 6.6 Was this fishing activity mainly for pay/profit or for own consumption? • Pay/profit.......……………………………………………………………………................................................[ ] • Own consumption.....………………………………………………………................................................[ ] 6.7 How much was your last payment? • Local unit.......……………………………………………………………………................................................[ ] • Time unit.......……………………………………………………………………........[1=day, 2=week, 3=month] 121 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ANNEX-E 6.8 Benefit from employer/own-account worker (Ask only employees and contributing family workers identified in question 6.1) • Pension or retirement fund…………………………………………………………………………………….…[ ] • Parental leave……………………………………………………………………….…..…….………...………………[ ] • Paid sick leave……………………………………………………………………….……………………………………[ ] • Child-care facilities ……………………………………………………………….……………….……….…………[ ] • Protection equipment or cloth……………………………….……………………………….…………………[ ] D. PRE-HARVEST, HARVEST, PROCESSING AND TRADING (FORMAL AND INFORMAL EMPLOYMENT IN FISHERIES) 7. Is this activity officially registered? • [Y/N] 8. Do you pay VAT? • [Y/N] 9. How many fishers (by gender) did you hire during the last 12 months? • Number of men…………………………………………………………………….…………………………….….....................[ ] • Number of women……………………………………………………………………....................................................[ ] • Number of boys (less than 15 y.o.)………………………….......................................................................[ ] • Number of girls (less than 15 y.o)……………………………………………………………....................................[ ] E. PRE-HARVEST, PROCESSING AND TRADING (LABOR) 10. For each household member who engaged in pre-harvest activities or processing or trading fish for at least 1 day during the last 12 months, ask questions 10.1 - 10.9 10.1 Type of activity • Equipment building and maintenance……………………………………………………………………[Y/N] • Gear preparation and repair...………………………………………………………….………………………[Y/N] • Bait gathering and preparatio....………………………………………………………….…………………[Y/N] • Other pre-harvest activities...……………………………………………………….…………………………[Y/N] • Processing and handling..………………………………………………………….…………………………....[Y/N] • Storage and preservation..………………………………………………………….……………………........[Y/N] • Quality control and assurance..…………………………………………………….…………………………[Y/N] • Distribution and transportation.....………………………………………….……………....................[Y/N] • Waste management and by-product utilization.…………………………………………...........[Y/N] HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 122 10.2 Type of employment • Own-account worker...………………………………………………………........................................[Y/N] • Contributing family worker....……………………………………………........................................[Y/N] • Employer.....…………………………………………………………………………........................................[Y/N] • Employees.....………………………………………………………………………......................................[Y/N] 10.3 Which months were high (H), low (L) season, no difference (A). Blank indicates no activities in that month • January......…………………………………………………………………………...........................................[H/L] • February.....…………………………………………………………………………........................................[H/L] • March......…………………………………………………………………………............................................[H/L] • …….. 10.4 Usually, how many hours per day? • Hours/day........……………………………………………………….............................................................[ ] 10.5 Usually, how many days per weeks? • Days/week......……………………………………………………….............................................................[ ] 10.6 Usually, how many weeks per month? • Weeks/month.....……………………………………………………….......................................................[ ] 10.7 Was this activity mainly for pay/profit or for own consumption? • Pay/profit....……………………………………………………………………................................................[ ] • Own consumption.....………………………………………………………................................................[ ] 10.8 How much was your last payment? • Local unit....……………………………………………………………………................................................[ ] • Time unit....…………………………………………………………………..................[1 day, 2, week, 3 month] 10.9 Benefit from employer/own-account worker (ask only employees and contributing family workers identified in question 6.1) • Pension or retirement fund • Parental leave • Paid sick leave • Child-care facilities • Protection equipment or cloth 123 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 124 Critical statistical indicators for profiling fisheries workers and the questions TABLE E.1 needed to calculate them. All indicators are intended to be disaggregated by gender and age group (using the household roster). Questions presented in Annex E, Sections A to E, above. INDICATOR DESCRIPTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Seasonal Percentage of workers Employ- engaged in fisheries ment Rate only during the high fishing season. Multiple Job Percentage of fish- Holder eries workers who hold additional jobs outside the fisheries sector. Subsistence Percentage of workers Work Rate engaged in fisheries primarily to catch fish consumed within the household. Informal Percentage of Sector Em- self-employed work- ployment ers in fisheries who have not registered their fishing unit. Informal Percentage of em- Employees ployees in fisheries who do not benefit from social protec- tion. Informal Percentage of Employ- self-employed work- ment Rate ers in informal sector employment and informal employees. Employment Percentage of fisher- in Excessive ies workers engaged Working in fisheries for more Time than 48 hours per week Real Cost-adjusted daily Earnings of earnings of seasonal Seasonal workers in fisheries. Workers Employees Percentage of em- with Low ployees in fisheries Pay Rate earning less than 2/3 of the median nation- al daily earnings. Working Percentage of fish- Poor eries workers with a daily earning below the national poverty line 125 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ANNEX-E Questions presented in Annex E, Sections A to E, above. INDICATOR 6.6 6.7 6.8 7 8 9 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 Seasonal Employ- ment Rate Multiple Job Holder Subsistence Work Rate Informal Sector Em- ployment Informal Employees Informal Employ- ment Rate Employment in Excessive Working Time Real Earnings of Seasonal Workers Employees with Low Pay Rate Working Poor HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 126 BLUE SOCIAL PROTECTION Protecting People, Fish and Food HANDBOOK Leveraging Social Protection and Jobs Interventions for Sustainable Fisheries 127 HANDBOOK TO LEVERAGE SOCIAL PROTECTION AND JOBS INTERVENTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES