4.6 Article

Why are fisheries agencies unable to facilitate the development of alternative livelihoods in small-scale fisheries and aquaculture in the global South? A case study of the Tam Giang lagoon, Viet Nam

期刊

MARINE POLICY
卷 133, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104778

关键词

Alternative livelihoods; Fisheries agencies; Small-scale aquaculture; Small-scale fisheries; Tam Gi a n g lagoon

资金

  1. European Commision and Uppsala University, Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article investigates the challenges in establishing alternative livelihoods in small-scale fisheries, attributing the difficulties to fisheries agencies' failure to consider the actual needs of fishers and aquaculturists, lack of motivation in facilitating alternative livelihoods, and insufficient support from local governments. The article suggests developing leadership skills and providing knowledge of alternative livelihoods to address these issues.
The establishment of alternative livelihoods in small-scale fisheries is frequently recommended as a way to restore aquatic resources while at the same time improve fishers' and aquaculturists' livelihoods. Yet fisheries agencies are often unable to facilitate the development of alternative livelihoods through fisheries policies and management. The aim of this article is to investigate why this is so. Based on a case study of the Tam Giang lagoon, Viet Nam, it finds possible explanation includes: (1) failure to integrate an understanding of the realities of the socio-economic conditions and needs of fishing and aquaculture households; (2) lack of motivation, commitment, and capacity to facilitate alternative livelihoods; and (3) lack of support from local governments. Drawing from the literature on small-scale fisheries in the global South, the article suggests that the development of leadership and provision of knowledge of alternative livelihoods to both fisheries managers and local government leaders can help to address these shortcomings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据