Promoting Gender Equity and Equality Through the Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines: Experiences from Multiple Case Studies

Abstract

Gender equity and equality is the fourth guiding principle of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries (SSF Guidelines), and sits within its wider human rights framework. The SSF Guidelines contain acknowledgement of the roles of women in the small-scale fisheries value chain, the need for gender equity and equality in access to human well-being resources, and the need for equal gender participation in fisheries governance. While the inclusion of gender 738 in the SSF Guidelines is unprecedented and encouraging, effective implementation is the critical next step. Part of the implementation process will include the creation of culturally and regionally-specific information that allows local agencies to recognize and prioritize gender needs. To provide an example of the diverse and interacting issues related to the implementation of the gender equity and equality principle, we use case studies and expertise from seven countries and regions. We examine the context-specific issues that should be considered in the implementation process and focus on the many barriers to gender equity and equality in small-scale fisheries. We conclude by outlining the many gender approaches that could be used to implement the SSF Guidelines, and suggest a gender transformative approach. Such an approach focuses on illuminating root causes of gender injustice and inequality, and requires ongoing examination of power relationships as well as capacity development for women and marginalized groups.

Full text

737
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017
S. Jentoft et al. (eds.), The Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines, MARE Publication
Series 14, DOI10.1007/978-3-319-55074-9_35
Chapter 35
Promoting Gender Equity andEquality
Through theSmall-Scale Fisheries Guidelines:
Experiences fromMultiple Case Studies
DanikaKleiber, KatiaFrangoudes, Hunter T.Snyder, AfrinaChoudhury,
StevenM.Cole, KumiSoejima, CristinaPita, AnnaSantos,
CynthiaMcDougall, HajnalkaPetrics, andMarilynPorter
Abstract Gender equity and equality is the fourth guiding principle of the Voluntary
Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries (SSF Guidelines), and
sits within its wider human rights framework. The SSF Guidelines contain acknowl-
edgement of the roles of women in the small-scale sheries value chain, the need for
gender equity and equality in access to human well-being resources, and the need
for equal gender participation in sheries governance. While the inclusion of gender
D. Kleiber (*)
Pacic Island Fisheries Science Centre, Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research,
Honolulu, HI, USA
Sociology Department, Memorial University Newfoundland, St. John’s, Canada
e-mail: danika.kleiber@noaa.gov
K. Frangoudes
Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest, France
e-mail: Katia.Frangoudes@univ-brest.fr
H.T. Snyder • H. Petrics
Dartmouth School of Graduate & Advanced Studies, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
e-mail: huntertsnyder@gmail.com; Hajnalka.Petrics@fao.org
A. Choudhury
WorldFish, Dhaka, Bangladesh
e-mail: a.choudhury@cgiar.org
S.M. Cole
WorldFish, Lusaka, Zambia
e-mail: s.cole@cgiar.org
K. Soejima
National Fisheries University, Shimonoseki, Japan
e-mail: soejima@sh-u.ac.jp
C. Pita
University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
e-mail: c.pita@ua.pt

738
in the SSF Guidelines is unprecedented and encouraging, effective implementation
is the critical next step. Part of the implementation process will include the creation
of culturally and regionally-specic information that allows local agencies to recog-
nize and prioritize gender needs. To provide an example of the diverse and interact-
ing issues related to the implementation of the gender equity and equality principle,
we use case studies and expertise from seven countries and regions. We examine the
context-specic issues that should be considered in the implementation process and
focus on the many barriers to gender equity and equality in small-scale sheries. We
conclude by outlining the many gender approaches that could be used to implement
the SSF Guidelines, and suggest a gender transformative approach. Such an
approach focuses on illuminating root causes of gender injustice and inequality, and
requires on-going examination of power relationships as well as capacity develop-
ment for women and marginalized groups.
Keywords Implementation • Gender equity • Equality • Small-scale sheries •
Value chain • Barriers • Opportunities
Introduction
The presence of gender equity and equality in the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing
Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries (henceforth SSF Guidelines) is unprecedented in
global sheries policy. The SSF Guidelines include gender equity and equality as
one of its 13 guiding principles and gender is also considered in the more detailed
section on responsible sheries and sustainable development (FAO 2015). As signa-
tory countries begin to implement the SSF Guidelines, gender equity and equality
discourse offers an important opportunity to introduce gender issues in small-scale
sheries contexts.
A. Santos
National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center,
Seattle, Washington, USA
e-mail: annasantos@email.tamu.edu
C. McDougall
WorldFish, Batu Maung, Malaysia
e-mail: C.McDougall@cgiar.org
M. Porter
Sociology Department, Memorial University Newfoundland, St. John’s, Canada
e-mail: mporter2008@gmail.com
D. Kleiber et al.

739
The inclusion of gender in the SSF Guidelines was not universally agreed upon.
The SSF Guidelines were forged at Committee on Fisheries (COFI) meetings
(2010–2013) which included representatives of each signatory country, and Civil
Society Organizations (CSOs) who were present at COFI meetings as observers.1
While country representatives were often reluctant to include a gender dimension,
CSOs lobbied COFI decision makers between meetings to convince national dele-
gates of the importance of women’s contribution to small-scale sheries and coastal
communities, and the need to address gender equity and equality in these contexts.
“CSOs outlined a strong gender agenda to ensure that the SSF Guidelines steer
away from the mainstream approach of equating sheries with shing, with a focus
on shermen” (Sharma 2013, 9).
The current priority is to support the implementation of the gender equity and
equality principle. The inclusion of gender in the SSF Guidelines is essential for
three key reasons. First, it recognizes that women and men participate in all aspects
of the small-scale sheries value chain around the world, often in ecologically, eco-
nomically, and culturally distinct ways (The WorldFish Center 2010; Kleiber etal.
2015). Women and men’s sheries labor are also often given different cultural and
economic value, with women’s work often going uncounted and not considered in
sheries governance, despite being vital to small-scale sheries (Frangoudes 2013;
Kleiber etal. 2014; Santos 2015). Second, it is essential to understanding the cen-
trality of gender to other intersecting issues, particularly human rights and well-
being, food security, and climate change (Badjeck etal. 2010). Small-scale sheries
sit within gendered social and cultural systems that perpetuate well-being dispari-
ties between men and women and introduce vulnerability within processes of eco-
logical and social change (Gopal etal. 2015). Hence, gender is a key variable in
understanding and enacting change to these systems. Lastly, it also highlights how
gender differences in power and decision making exist in small-scale sheries con-
texts and how those differences inuence representative, fair, and sustainable small-
scale sheries governance (Ram-Bidesi 2015).
Our study examines the gender discourse in the SSF Guidelines to highlight what
issues are being prioritized for implementation, and which areas may require more
attention. We also explore issues specic to implementation including potential
political, cultural, and institutional barriers that may overlook the gender concerns
of the SSF Guidelines, and vice versa. Finally, we explore the different approaches
that could be used to operationalize the gender discourse of the SSF Guidelines, and
make some context-specic recommendations. To highlight the diversity of con-
texts that are considered when engaging with gender equity and equality in small-
scale sheries, we explore these concerns through examples that vary by discipline
and location.
1 These included the Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), the World Forum of Fish
Harvesters and Fishworkers (WFF), the World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP), and the
International Planning Committee on Food Sovereignty (IPC), etc.
35 Promoting Gender Equity andEquality T hrough theSmall-Scale Fisheries…

740
D. Kleiber et al.
Concepts, Analytical Framework andMethods
Concepts
Gender is a social variable that permeates all aspects of human society and culture,
and small-scale sheries are no exception. Gender is fundamental to the organiza-
tion of human institutions. Addressing issues of gender equity and equality is con-
text dependent and requires working at multiple and intersecting scales and systems.
Importantly, gender is internalized through constant social and cultural reinforce-
ment, which can lead to false assumptions that gender roles are biologically-based
and hence cannot be changed. Universalizing myths of women as saviours or vic-
tims deny their agency and belie the diversity and complexity of women’s experi-
ences, which may vary greatly within and between geographic contexts and by
intersecting social categories of ethnicity, nationality, class, caste, age, education,
among others (Cornwall etal. 2007).
Focusing only on policy changes or a limited list of inequality indicators is
unlikely to create gender equity and equality (Cornwall etal. 2007). General sup-
port of women, without recognition of power difference among women, can lead to
detrimental elite capture of development programs, without fundamentally chang-
ing gender relationships or addressing other systems of inequality such as poverty
(Resurreccion 2008). Including gender in development policy can be a long-term
and often challenging task, and one that is frequently made harder by the assump-
tion that it is unnecessary, peripheral, or has ‘been solved already’ (Mukhopadhyay
2007). Meaningful change to gender equity and equality requires working with
policy, society, and culture in context to engage with root causes of inequality.
Analytical Framework
We use a feminist lens to explore the complexity of gender across national contexts
and critically examine the discourse on gender equity in the SSF Guidelines. The
theoretical grounding for work on gender and sheries has followed a trajectory
from women in development (WID) to gender and development (GAD) (Williams
2008), shifting from a focus on women-only projects and analyses to ones that
examine and address larger issues of equity and equality and gendered power rela-
tionships at multiple interacting scales (Pearson and Jackson 1998). A feminist lens
also supports more recent intersectional and gender transformative approaches in
development work that acknowledge the diversity of experience among women and
use collaborative research to openly catalyze pro-equity shifts in constraining gen-
der and social norms (Cole etal. 2014a).

741
Methods
In keeping with the use of case studies throughout this volume, we also illustrate
many contexts in which the SSF Guidelines are being implemented. Examples are
drawn from co-authors with expertise across seven countries or regions including
Bangladesh,2 Brazil,3 the European Union,4 Greenland,5 Japan,6 Portugal,7 and
Zambia.8 Co-authors shared their expertise by answering a survey, which was devel-
oped to cover the topics related to gender found in the SSF Guidelines. Throughout
the chapter the survey responses are used to illustrate the issues of gender and sh-
eries found in the SSF Guidelines. Secondary resources from the gender and sher-
ies literature are also used.
The SSF Guidelines Gender Discourse
The discourse surrounding gender and women in the SSF Guidelines is found
throughout the text, and often in tandem with ‘equity’, ‘equality’, and ‘mainstream-
ing’. The meaning of these words in development contexts can have multiple and
evolving interpretations (Reeves and Baden 2000). The exibility of these deni-
tions can allow for context-specic interpretation, but can also lead to loss of mean-
ing and power to enact change (Cornwall and Rivas 2015). An important rst step
in an implementation process would be to agree on the interpretation of these words
in small-scale sheries contexts (See Table35.1 for our denitions).
In the SSF Guidelines, gender equality is brought up in a variety of sheries
contexts and this was intentional (Sharma 2013). It begins very broadly in Part 1
(Introduction) that enumerates the 13 Guiding Principles of the SSF Guidelines.
The 4th principle of the SSF Guidelines states: “Gender equality and equity is fun-
damental to any development. Recognizing the vital role of women in small-scale
sheries, equal rights and opportunities should be promoted.” (FAO 2015, 2). Issues
of gender are also brought up in the second principle “Respect of cultures”. While
this principle outlines a commitment to “respecting existing forms of organization,
traditional and local knowledge and practices of small-scale shing communities”
it also encourages women’s leadership and ends with the stipulation that respect of
2 Choudhury 2016. Expert survey response (Bangladesh).
3 Santos 2016. Expert survey response (Brazil).
4 Frangoudes 2016. Expert survey response (European Union).
5 Snyder 2016. Expert survey response (Greenland).
6 Soejima 2016. Expert survey response (Japan).
7 Pita 2016. Expert survey response (Portugal).
8 Cole 2016. Expert survey response (Zambia).
35 Promoting Gender Equity andEquality T hrough theSmall-Scale Fisheries…

742
Table 35.1 Denitions
GENDER EQUALITY: Gender equality usually pertains to the creating of, or the outcome of
equal opportunities for women and men by removing formal barriers (Reeves and Baden
2000). In a small-scale sheries context this could mean changing policies that exclude
(primarily) women from equal access to sheries jobs, markets, or other resources. It can also
be thought of as an outcome of efforts to create equal opportunities.
GENDER EQUITY: Gender equity is the process by which equality can be achieved. While
equality and equity are often used synonymously, there are differences in emphasis, and hence
operationalization. Equity works towards equality by acknowledging the different positions of
women and men in society, and compensating for those differences (Reeves and Baden 2000). In
small-scale sheries context this could include capacity development aimed towards women, but
also programs that incorporate elements of gender and power at several different levels.
GENDER MAINSTREAMING: The addition of gender considerations in policy-making, which
necessitates addressing the implications of policy for women and men, and girls and boys. The
aim is to ensure that gender is present in all aspects of a certain project or activity, with a larger
goal of gender equality (UN Women 2016). It begins with an analysis of the context, capacities,
attitudes, policies, and monitoring approaches, and when done properly is can be a very
powerful tool to induce change. This is rarely done in small-scale sheries contexts (but see
Frangoudes 2015). Mainstreaming models that do not regard local context may fail to address
the complexities of gender inequality (Subrahmanian 2007).
EMPOWERMENT: “The process by which those who have been denied the ability to make
strategic life choices acquire such an ability” (Kabeer 2000, p.435). According to Kabeer
(2000) the focus should be on strategic life choices that can make a difference in a person’s
well-being, such as their choices related to livelihood, marriage, children, and living
conditions. This includes having resources available that can be chosen between, but also the
agency with which to make those choices. Empowerment can also be examined at broader
scales to address power relationships between groups of people. The relational aspect of
empowerment means that it is always shifting (Cornwall 2014).
D. Kleiber et al.
cultures must also consider the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The remaining principles do not men-
tion women or gender, but the discourse in all other principles, such as the third
principle of non-discrimination in policy and practice could easily be assumed to
include dimensions of gender.
The discourse on gender in the principles is necessarily broad, but is more spe-
cic in the subsection “Gender equality” (8.1–8.4, Part 2). Part 2, section 8 details
gender equality in terms of governance such as gender mainstreaming, and
challenging gender discriminatory practices. There is also attention paid to gender
in policy with calls for states to adapt legislation for gender equality, as well as
compliance with CEDAW.This section also goes on to mention the representation
of women in decision-making, leadership, and organizations, and in key personnel
such as sheries extension ofcers.
To help frame the different types of gender equality barriers and opportunities in
small-scale sheries w e h ave g rouped t he d iscourse o n g ender i nto t hree b road
interacting categories: (1) access to the sheries v alue c hain, ( 2) i ndicators o f
human well-being, and (3) governance (Table 35.2). Gender wording related to

743
Table 35.2 Barriers to gender equity and equality in small-scale sheries
Barriers SSF guidelines section Major gender issues
Small-scale
sheries value
chain
Tenure rights (5.3–5.4) Fishing policy can deny women equal tenure
rights.
Fishing policy can displace women shers.
Women may be less likely to be granted
lease or tenure over shing resources.
Women may be denied membership to sher
groups that are given tenure rights.
Access to shing
resources (6.4)
Women may not, or are less likely to own
shing gear.
Household owned shing gear might not be
available to women.
Access to markets and
marketing resources (7.6)
Fish markets may exclude or be dominated
by women.
Women may have access to inferior product
than men.
Women may have less access to credit or
nancial resources than men.
Women that can access credit may not have
decision-making power over it.
Recognition of and
opportunities for sheries
labour (6.5)
“Gender neutral” policies that do not take
unequal gender roles into account may give
women fewer opportunities than men.
Equal pay for sheries
labour (7.4)
Women’s sheries labour is often unpaid, or
paid less.
Human well-being Education (6.2) Differences in access to education can
impact women and men’s sheries labour.
Food security (5.2 & 7.8) Women’s shing often focused on small but
reliable subsistence catch.
Women may have less access to food within
households.
Occupational health and
safety (6.12)
Men and women are often exposed to
different risks due to different roles in the
sheries value chain.
Violence (6.9) Shifting gender roles in sheries related to
changes in resource availability can also lead
to increases in gender based domestic
violence.
(continued)
35 Promoting Gender Equity andEquality Through theSmall-Scale Fisheries…

744
Table 35.2 (continued)
Barriers SSF guidelines section Major gender issues
Governance Policy coherence (10.1) Gender equity and equality cohere strongly
with international CEDAW policy.
Major barriers may be in the will and
capacity to implement existing policy.
Capacity development
(11.7, 12.1)
Lack of technical and formal sheries
training programs that are targeted to or
include women.
Women are often not recognized as
stakeholders and must contend with cultural
barriers to their full participation in
decision-making.
Capacity development should include
increase training for gender work in sheries
institutions.
Research and monitoring
(11.1, 11.10, 13.3)
Lack of sex-disaggregated data collection.
Lack of prioritization, money, and training
for gender research and gender researchers.
D. Kleiber et al.
access to the sheries value chain, and indicators of human well-being are found
throughout Part 2 (Responsible Fisheries and Sustainable Development). As stated
above issues of governance are initially laid out in Part 2 (8.1–8.4), but are also
specied i n P art 3 ( Ensuring a nd E nabling E nvironment a nd S upporting
Implementation).
The inclusion of gender in these many and varied parts of the SSF Guidelines
points to gender as a key cross-cutting issue. However, it is not universally pres-
ent, and is missed in some other themes such as climate change (Djoudi and
Brockhaus 2011). Other issues, such as reproductive health, which have been suc-
cessfully integrated in small-scale sheries a nd c oastal m anagement p rograms
(Westerman etal. 2013), are not addressed in the SSF Guidelines, although they
are often considered an important aspect of gender equity and equality (Singh
etal. 2003).
Barriers, Challenges, andOpportunities toGender Equality
inSmall-Scale Fisheries Contexts
To understand why gender was included in many of the different themes of the SSF
Guidelines, we will examine the barriers to gender equality in small-scale sheries
contexts. We will begin by discussing underlying cultural barriers to gender
equity

74535 Promoting Gender Equity andEquality T hrough theSmall-Scale Fisheries…
in access to the sheries value chain, human well-being, and governance, and how
those interact with policy (Table35.2). We connect the main issues to specic sec-
tions in the SSF Guidelines in Table35.2, and illustrate the issues with specic and
diverse examples in the text.
Gender, Fisheries, andCulture
Gender inequalities in all contexts are deeply embedded in cultural traditions and
the organization of social institutions. The SSF Guidelines include principles of
gender equity and equality and respect for cultures, while acknowledging that there
is potential for tension between the two. The “Respect of Cultures” principle ends
with deference to gender equality through the application of CEDAW.When dis-
cussing tenure rights, preference is given to traditional cultural practices with the
stipulation that, “where constitutional or legal reforms strengthen the rights of
women and place them in conict with custom, all parties should cooperate to
accommodate such changes in the customary tenure systems.” In short, cultural
practices should be respected, but when in conict with gender equity, they should
also be reconsidered. Successful efforts for change would not discount or disrespect
cultural practices or impose others, but rather work from within existing systems. It
is therefore important to directly examine cultural barriers that may prevent gender
equity and equality in small-scale sheries contexts (Onyango and Jentoft 2011).
Women and men often perform different roles in sheries labour, and those roles
are often given different cultural importance. Socially-proscribed gender roles can
shape how, where, when, and what women and men sh, or what part of the value
chain they predominately occupy. Women’s participation in sheries can often be
limited by the domestic social obligations related to their gender roles. For example
in Kiribati: “Gleaning shellsh is women’s major shing activity because it can be
done close to home, takes relatively little time, requires no costly shing equipment
and may be done in the company of children” (Tekanene 2006). Many of the same
social structures and gender roles that can limit women’s equal participation in sh-
eries can also create gender difference in indicators of human-well-being, and
access to full participation in governance. Differences in access to education, health
care, and nancial institutions can all be rooted in gender roles and interact with
access to and roles in sheries. For example in Greenland, current gender roles
make women more likely to receive higher levels of education than men, and hence
less likely to work directly in small-scale sheries. The assumption that sheries are
the domain of men can limit women’s full participation in sheries governance, as
can gender roles that restrain or stunt women’s ability to participate in public spaces
(Figs.35.1 and 35.2)

746
Fig. 35.1 Women shellsh gatherers of Cambados in Galicia, Spain
Fig. 35.2 Fishers processing the morning catch of sea cucumber. Batasan Island, Bohol, The
Philippines 2011 (Photo credit: Adam Cormier)
D. Kleiber et al.

747
Barriers andOpportunities toGender Equality inFishing
andtheValue Chain
Tenure Rights (5.3–5.4)
35 Promoting Gender Equity andEquality T hrough theSmall-Scale Fisheries…
One common form of sheries policy is to determine who has access to  shing
grounds, which falls within the domain of tenure rights. Discussions of tenure rights
in sheries relate to issues of access to  sheries resources, and rights-based
approaches emphasize the need for inclusive regulations. A social justice frame-
work goes further to include special attention to the needs of marginalized groups
(Jentoft 2013). Women are often denied access to shing either directly or indirectly
through sheries policy. In some cases, this is quite direct, such as Oman women,
who are barred from obtaining shing licenses (Anderson 2016, personal commu-
nication). In other cases, spatial management measures can have a disproportionate
impact on women, such as the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem in the Gulf
of Mannar, India, where the creation of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) displaced
women seaweed collectors (Rajagopalan 2007). In Bangladesh there is no formal
barrier, but women’s groups are simply unlikely to be given leases to shing grounds
while in Japan women are denied membership in the Japanese Fisheries Cooperative.
Access toFishing Resources (6.4), Markets, andMarketing Resources (7.6)
Women may also be limited in the types of shing they can participate in because
they do not have access to shing gear. For example, in Zambia resource ownership
within households is controlled by husbands, so women may not have unrestricted
and regular access to gears needed to sh. In the Philippines, women sh in boats,
but almost exclusively with their husbands or other male relatives, as women by
themselves are unlikely to own boats (Kleiber etal. 2014). By contrast, in Brazil
women can inherit shing gear and often buy a boat specic to the needs of their
mangrove sheries. Similarly, in Ghana customary inheritance law favours women,
which has led to some relatively afuent women being the sole owners of boats and
shing gear. However, the owners lease the gear exclusively to men, so this does not
change women’s direct participation in shing (Walker 2001). In many European
countries, wives of professional shermen can inherit shing boats, but may still be
barred from shing because they themselves do not have access to quotas that are
only allotted to professional shers. In some cases, this restriction has changed in
countries such as Norway where, after many years of struggle, wives of shers
gained access to quotas along with inherited boats.
Participation in shing markets is a key part of the small-scale  sheries value
chain, and the gendered nature of this occupation can vary widely. In Bangladesh,
markets are almost exclusively the domain of men, although poorer women are
found marketing catch because poverty levels determine the strictness of gender
norms. Poorer women face far more relaxed norms from necessity of survival.
In

748
D. Kleiber et al.
Kenya, both women and men participate in marketing sh, but men have access to
the larger and more valuable catches (Matsue etal. 2014). In Ghana, elite women’s
ownership of boats and shing gear allows them to dominate the marketing of the
catch (Walker 2001), but this should not be assumed to be representative of all
women’s participation. In Southern Europe, including Portugal, selling sh at the
market is often performed by women, especially in the marketing of small-scale
sheries catches (Frangoudes 2013).
Access to nancial credit can also determine gender specic access to shing
gear, markets, and processing equipment. The ability of women and men to access
credit is highly variable. In Japan, women are less likely than men to access credit
for shing gear, largely because they are not allowed to be members of the Fishing
Cooperative Association. In Bangladesh, women often access microcredit loans
precisely because they are usually denied formal loans through banks. However,
while women bear the responsibility of repaying the loan, they often have little say
in how the loan is used (Kabeer 1998). By contrast, in the Barotse shery in western
Zambia, while overall access to credit is low in rural areas, women participate more
in village savings and lending groups, enabling them to gain access to small loans
for buying and reselling sh, among other small-business ventures. In the European
Union, women nance  sh marketing through the European Fisheries structure
fund. It is common that when men obtain bank loans for shing gear and boats, their
wives are always included as co-borrower.
Recognition ofandOpportunities forFisheries Labor (6.5)
The SSF Guidelines state that “All [sheries] activities should be considered: part-
time, occasional and/or for subsistence” (FAO 2015, 22). This is particularly impor-
tant for women since their labor in sheries often falls into these three categories. In
some cases, policies have been effectively changed to formally recognize women’s
shing (Frangoudes etal. 2008), as well as women’s shing labor (Frangoudes and
Keromnes 2008). In other cases, policies that are ‘gender blind’ impact women and
men differently. These policies can also have broader gender-specic impacts on
people in shing communities and were implicated in changing gender roles in
Norway, Iceland, and Newfoundland (Neis etal. 2013; Gerrard 2015). Furthermore,
assumptions of equality can lead to lack of interest in gender-specic policies.
Equal Pay forFisheries Labor (7.4)
Women’s labor in sheries often goes unpaid because in many cases it is character-
ized as being part of women’s household duties (Williams 2015). Labor can include
pre-harvest activities such as gear manufacturing or maintenance, but also post-
harvest activities such as marketing, processing, accounting, and cooking. In
Portugal, women still carry out much of the unpaid sheries work, including prepar-
ing and fixing gear, baiting fishing gear, as well as assisting their husbands and

74935 Promoting Gender Equity andEquality Through theSmall-Scale Fisheries…
family members with other tasks. Since 1986, EU Members States have acknowl-
edged women’s labor contributions by giving them the legal status of ‘assisting
spouse’, with corresponding social rights such as maternity leave and pensions
(Frangoudes and Keromnes 2008; Frangoudes 2013). In other cases, women’s
labour is paid, but often less than that of men. In Brazil, women’s wages earned as
marisquieras or by participating in the shrimp shery is reported as half that of men
involved in the shery, although some women shell-shers may have income equal
to shermen. These gender differences are often overlooked because the income is
seen as belonging to the household, not to the woman as an individual. However,
viewing households as cooperative units overlooks within-household power dynam-
ics that inuence how resources are shared and distributed.
Barriers andOpportunities toGender Equality inHuman
Well-Being
Education (6.2)
Gender differences in access to general education can impact the roles that women
and men play in small-scale sheries. In some cases, due to lack of education oppor-
tunities, women are more likely to perform lower-skill sheries jobs. In other cases,
such as Greenland, women attain higher levels of general education, while men are
more likely to take vocational education training in shing and hunting (women
only comprise 5–7% of vocational students). The result is that men dominate the
small-scale sheries sector, while women have appreciably higher earning potential
working as government employees.
Food Security (5.2 & 7.8)
Small-scale sheries are an important source of food security around the world and
subsistence catch by women is often a key part of household food security strategies
(Porter and Mbezi 2010; Béné etal. 2016). For example, in the Central Philippines
men bring in the majority of the subsistence catch, but women are more likely to be
solely subsistence shers, and their catch can be relied on when other forms of sh-
ing are not available (Kleiber 2014). In Eastern Brazil, women’s catch concentrates
on the daily consumption needs of their household, while men’s catch (often larger
but more variable) is distributed throughout the community and linked to systems of
social capital (Santos 2015). Intra-household differences in how food gets distrib-
uted is noteworthy in Bangladesh, where there is a general belief that men work
harder and hence should eat better and more. It is common for women to sacrice
some of their portions, which is especially harmful for pregnant and lactating
women (D’Souza and Tandon 2015).

750
D. Kleiber et al.
Occupational Health andSafety (6.12)
The gendered nature of occupational health and safety risks often relates to the divi-
sion of labour in the sheries value chain. The risks involved in shing are high and
can be fatal (Power 2008). For example, in 2014in Japan 65 people were killed or
went missing from shing vessels accidents. Although the statistics are rarely disag-
gregated by sex, men are assumed to be at greater risk given their dominance as
shers. However there are also occupational health and safety risks in the process-
ing and marketing of sheries resources, which are often dominated by women. For
example, in Indian shrimp processing plants, where all workers are women, occupa-
tional hazards put workers at greater risk of injury (Saha etal. 2006). In other cases
such as Zambia, low access to nancial resources has led to women sh processors
and marketers exchanging sex for sh catch, putting them at higher risk of HIV
infection (Béné and Merten 2008).
Violence (6.9)
Related to broader issues of health is a concern with gender-based violence in small-
scale shing communities. While in no way unique to small-scale sheries contexts,
violence against women was recognized by co-authors as a major issue in
Bangladesh, Zambia, and Greenland. In Greenland, women who experience vio-
lence are often unable to move due to a housing shortage, which is a result of wide-
spread employment-based housing where men who work in the shing s ector
receive housing benets as part of their remuneration. In other cases, such as the
Philippines, increases in domestic violence have been linked to changing gender
roles related to changes in availability of marine resources. Dwindling catch has led
to shifting roles in sheries where men are more likely to be at home, a sphere tra-
ditionally connected with women. Unhappiness with these shifting roles has led to
an increase in domestic violence (Turgo 2014). It is also important to note that other
forms of gendered violence, such a sexual harassment, may hinder women’s partici-
pation in male-dominated parts of the sheries value chain.
Barriers andOpportunities toGender Equality inSmall-Scale
Fisheries Governance
Policy Coherence (10.1)
The SSF Guidelines gender equity and equality principle may support or conict
with local, national, and international sheries policy. T he aims of gender equity
and equality t well with the international CEDAW policy, which has been a stan-
dard bearer of women's rights since the UN rst adopted it in 1979. W hile the
implementation from ratifying nations has been variable, its influence on national

75135 Promoting Gender Equity andEquality Through theSmall-Scale Fisheries…
gender policy and women’s rights is noticeable (Cho 2014), including recognition
of the need for widespread cultural shifts to achieve social equality for women
throughout the world. Both CEDAW and the SSF Guidelines agree on the need to
include gender equity and equality in rights-based approaches. Recently the FAO
recommended that the CEDAW Committee refer to the SSF Guidelines in the
General Recommendations on the rights of rural women (CFS and FAO 2012;
CEDAW 2016), in order for government to see how the two policy instruments
could be mutually supportive. Hence having gender equity and equality discourse in
the SSF Guidelines offers an opportunity to reinforce CEDAW policy in small-scale
sheries contexts.
While CEDAW and many other national gender equality policies are relevant to
small-scale shing communities, they often go unimplemented for a variety of
reasons. For example, in Japan the national gender policy has not been broadly
applied to the sheries sector. It does mandate a quota of women represented on the
boards of shing collectives, but it does little to address broader gender labor dis-
parities in the sector, and so cannot contribute to the resolution of gender equality
issues. In other cases, broad gender equality policies that could include shing com-
munities were nonetheless beset by nancial and capacity decit barriers. In
Zambia, the gender-specic policies have translated to women’s greater access to
and ownership of land, support for girls to return to school after pregnancy, and
prevention of violence against women. However, few of these policies are ade-
quately implemented or lead to widespread change at district and provincial levels–
especially in sheries contexts– due to lack of human and nancial resources. By
contrast, in the EU, gender policy has formalized women’s previously unrecognized
labor in the sheries sector because all EU policies must include the principle of
gender equality. In these cases, women are now eligible for social benets that had
previously been reserved for male shers, although their role is still characterized as
‘assisting spouse’, rather than as sheries participants in their own right.
Capacity Development (11.7, 12.1)
Capacity development in the SSF Guidelines focuses on the inclusion of shing
communities in increasing their knowledge of sheries through technical training
and support (11.7), but also increasing their inclusion as stakeholders in the gover-
nance process and their ability to participate in decision making (12.1). In both
cases the SSF Guidelines highlight the need to include women. To this denition of
capacity development, we would also include the need for increasing capacity for
gender work within sheries institutions, and representation of women in more for-
mal education programs necessary to become a shery ofcer, researcher, or policy
maker.
Technical training is not always available to women, and can reinforce deeply
ingrained gender roles that exclude women from certain parts of the sheries value
chain, particularly shing. For example, in Japan women’s contributions to small-
scale fishing activities have not been recognized and subsequently in the past women

752
D. Kleiber et al.
have not been included in training programs. More recently, women’s groups have
been targeted for sh processing and marketing training. In Bangladesh the recogni-
tion of gender differences in technical knowledge has led capacity development
programs to target women. However, these programs have fallen short because they
only address technical knowledge but do little to change the other social barriers
that women face, such as the roles attributed to them by traditional or religious
socio-cultural norms.
Fewer women are involved in small-scale sheries decision-making institutions.
Part of this disparity may be the perception that women are not equal actors, which
can be tied to the devaluation of their contributions to sheries value chains. In other
cases, such as Bangladesh, women are perceived not to have the necessary knowl-
edge and experience to participate in management decisions. In other cases, the
labor associated with women’s socially assigned roles can be a barrier to participa-
tion. For example, in Brazil women have multiple responsibilities as shellsh
extractors, shery processors, and domestic obligations, leaving little time to par-
ticipate in sheries council meetings.
The common absence of women from these fora has led to a great deal of empha-
sis on the representation of women in sheries decision-making groups. While the
presence of women has been found to inuence decision making (Agarwal 2009),
the presence of women does not assure that women’s voices are being included. For
example in Bangladesh, women in mixed-sex settings were less likely to speak
(World Bank etal. 2009). In addition, the presence of women does not guarantee
representation of the diversity of women’s priorities. In cases where women are
included specically to ll a quota, women from elite groups (by wealth, education,
caste) are often more likely to be chosen, and may not necessarily represent the
needs of more vulnerable populations of women (Resurreccion 2008). The desire
for women to have their needs prioritized may lead them to create women-only
organizations where women’s priorities could be addressed in a way that could not
occur in either male-dominated, or mixed-sex settings (Agarwal 2001). For instance,
in Japan women have been forming their own sheries groups after they felt their
needs and priorities were not being met by government-run groups. However,
women-only groups do not necessarily guard against the marginalization of wom-
en’s needs. In many cases women’s groups are given responsibility over inferior
resources, and receive less recognition and support than their male counterparts
(Buchy and Rai 2008).
The capacity development of gender expertise or gender-responsive organiza-
tional culture within sheries institutions also requires attention. In an effort to
strengthen gender capacities, some institutions have a dedicated gender expert or
gender team. While laudable, if the role of gender experts is not well understood or
appreciated by all institutional divisions, gender issues may be easily compartmen-
talized, disregarded and under supported (Harrison 1997). These models may also
mean that gender experts are over-burdened. For many co-authors who work as
gender experts within their organizations, the existing gender expertise is thinly
spread across a number of projects and too few people are responsible for gender
inclusion. Gender training for fisheries officers in particular should be
prioritized.

75335 Promoting Gender Equity andEquality Th rough theSmall-Scale Fisheries…
Fisheries ofcers are often the main way institutions connect with small-scale sh-
ers and in shing c ommunities. T hey c an b e i mportant f or f acilitating t echnical
trainings, organizing programs, and ensuring stakeholder participation. Fisheries
extension ofcers are also much more likely to be men, and may be less likely to
include, consider, or address women’s needs and priorities (Seniloli et al. 2002;
Adeokun and Adereti 2003). In some cases women have stated that they would feel
more comfortable talking to a female sheries e xtension ofcer and this may be
especially important in contexts where it is culturally inappropriate for unrelated
men and women to speak to each other (Adeokun and Adereti 2003). Training and
including women in sheries management institutions is important, but it must be
noted that simply adding women to the staff does not mean that programming will
automatically be gender-sensitive. Nor should gender concerns be the sole burden
of women. It is important to train both women and men in gender analysis and
gender-sensitive design and delivery of the services of their institutions (Petrics
etal. 2015).
Research andMonitoring (11.1, 11.10, 13.3)
Research and monitoring is often used to inform policy decisions and is an impor-
tant part of the governing process. However the lack of inclusion of gender in small-
scale sheries research limits and is limited by many of the issues already raised in
this chapter. For example, lack of interest in or awareness of women’s contribution
to the sheries value chain as well as limited gender expertise among  sheries
researchers are some of the reasons gender and sheries research (while growing) is
still quite limited (Kleiber etal. 2015). Unfortunately, the lack of data only perpetu-
ates the assumption that women’s participation is either non-existent or unworthy of
research notice.
The most basic form of data required for gender analysis is gender or sex-
disaggregated data (Hill 2003). Sex-disaggregated data is rarely collected in natural
resources research, and this is especially true of sheries contexts. Many countries
do not have regulations regarding the collection of gender-disaggregated data, but
even in cases where it required, such as in Zambia, limitations of funding and train-
ing of sheries extension ofcers results in sporadic collection. Women may also be
left out because of narrow denitions o f who counts as a sher. In Japan, people
who work on land are not considered to be working in sheries, which leave out
most of women’s participation. As noted above, a decit in training and time can
also lead to gender data being sidelined. In Bangladesh, the collection of gender
data required more time and training and was considered the job of the gender
experts or social scientists. This was often done in separate studies or added in as an
afterthought. In addition, data on women’s involvement in sheries value chains are
challenging to collect because many of the tasks they carry out are either unpaid or
less valued (at least by those conducting the research who inadvertently leave out
questions that would capture the necessary data). Thus, greater attention by research-
ers working in small-scale fisheries contexts is needed to collect sex-disaggregated

754
D. Kleiber et al.
data to enhance our understanding of the complex settings where women and men,
girls and boys reside and depend on for their livelihoods.
Approaches toImplementing Gender Equality
In this section, we will highlight approaches that can be used to address the barriers
and challenges to implementing gender equality in sheries, while recognizing that
there is no simple, short term, or “one size ts all” solution to achieving gender
equality. A focus on development can lead to approaches that focus on measurable
targets of human well-being and economic growth. However, the SSF Guidelines
are very explicitly modeled on a human rights framework, which would also include
approaches that recognize the aspiration for gender equity and equality, not only as
a means to a material end, but simply because it is the right thing to do (Cole etal.
2015).
Many gender approaches begin with an understanding of historical and cultural
contexts that highlights the gendered aspects of the passage of assets from one gen-
eration to the next, and what public and private spaces are available to women and
men. This information can help to understand the underlying social structures that
create the gendered distribution of resources (Zhang etal. 2008). Cultural under-
standing can also give greater depth to our understanding of the status of women
and men in a society. For example, while women in Brazil are largely responsible
for domestic tasks, certain women (Bahianas) have a reputable role in religious
ceremonies that are highly regarded by communities. These types of data are typi-
cally found in ethnographic and anthropological research.
Other approaches, such as gender roles frameworks, examine the material reali-
ties of women and men by characterizing the gendered division of labor and access
to resources (Razavi and Miller 1995). This information is often unavailable, so it is
important to understand the local sheries context by focusing on the roles of men
and women inside the household, but also within the sheries value chain. Livelihood
approaches– which focus on material realities and adaptability– include gender as
one social variable that can produce differences in access (Allison and Ellis 2001).
Research on roles, labor, and material realities, would situate this focus in the realm
of sociology and feminist economics.
Social relations frameworks and gender transformative approaches allow the
inclusion of power relations (Cole etal. 2015). The use of these approaches allows
the realization of a deeper analysis of the power differences that perpetuate differ-
ences in access in the rst place (Razavi and Miller 1995). “Gender transformative
research is informed by conceptual frameworks that recognize the inuence social
institutions have on creating and perpetuating gender inequalities” (Cole et al.
2015). These approaches help create greater gender equity and equality by address-
ing inequitable gender and social norms, differences in power, social expectations,
and capacity to participate in civil society (Kantor etal. 2015). Engaging in a gender
transformative approach means also acknowledging the diversity among
women

755
and among men and including intersecting power structures based on multiple
social categories. This approach sits within the theoretical framework of intersec-
tionality, and works to combat the homogenization of gendered experience (Walker
and Robinson 2009).
The operationalization of gender transformative approaches can be quite similar
to participatory action research in that it is a long-term process of collaboration
between researchers and people in the communities they work in. WorldFish9 has
been using gender transformative approaches in their work in Zambia and
Bangladesh (Cole etal. 2014b; Kantor et al. 2015). In western Zambia, projects
designed to process high-quality sh with minimal loss also included a Gender
Transformative Communication (GTC) tool of critical reection sessions on the
social limitations on women’s participation in certain parts of the sheries value
chain. Through piloting these technical and social innovations together, the project
aimed to reduce post-harvest losses and improve gender relations in the shery
value chain.
Conclusion
The inclusion of gender equity and equality in the SSF Guidelines is the result of the
hard work of many dedicated small-scale sheries experts, practitioners, and CSOs.
There has never been a global sheries policy document that includes gender so
broadly and thoroughly. Far from a call for small technical xes, the SSF Guidelines
has outlined the need for no less than gender equity and equality- a mighty aspira-
tion for a policy document that is already ground-breaking in many other important
ways. While the efforts to include gender equality and equity principles in the SSF
Guidelines are commendable, the implementation phase that follows will demand
even more resolve and attention.
Our regional review show that tenure rights, access to shing resources and mar-
kets, recognition of and opportunities for sheries labour, equal pay, education and
food security, among several other themes emerge as gender concerns for many
small-scale sheries. Investigating small-scale sheries through these themes pro-
vides direct evidence for sound policy design of the SSF Guidelines. It also illus-
trates the participation of women and men in all aspects of the small-scale sheries
value chain, that gender equality is inextricable linked to human rights and food
security, and that women are often overlooked and undervalued by governing insti-
tutions leading to lack of fair gender representation in small-scale sheries gover-
nance. Beyond presenting our ndings in this chapter, our analyses also explain how
and to what extent it may be possible for governments to address gender equity and
equality concerns with the aid of the SSF Guidelines.
Unprecedented as it is to present gender within an instrument of this stature, our
ndings show potential for aligning global small-scale sheries with effective and
9 WorldFish is an international research organization of sheries and aquaculture.
35 Promoting Gender Equity andEquality T hrough theSmall-Scale Fisheries…

756
appropriate policy. Further research on how governments implement the SSF
Guidelines will be needed, especially considering the ambitions of the SSF
Guidelines and that lessons of implementation from one region may hold value for
other countries with similar challenges.
References
Adeokun, O. A., & Adereti, F. O. (2003). Agricultural extension and sheries development:
Training for women in sh industry in Lagos– State, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and
Social Research, 3, 64–76.
Agarwal, B. (2001). Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: An analysis for
South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development, 29, 1623–1648.
Agarwal, B. (2009). Rule making in community forestry institutions: The difference women make.
Ecological Economics, 68, 2296–2308.
Allison, E.H., & Ellis, F. (2001). The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale sher-
ies. Marine Policy, 25, 377–388.
Badjeck, M.C., Allison, E.H., Halls, A.S., & Dulvy, N.K. (2010). Impacts of climate variability
and change on shery-based livelihoods. Marine Policy, 34, 375–383.
Béné, C., & Merten, S. (2008). Women and sh-for-sex: Transactional sex, HIV/AIDS and gender
in African sheries. World Development, 36, 875–899.
Béné, C., Arthur, R., Norbury, H., Allison, E.H., Beveridge, M., Bush, S., Campling, L., Leschen,
W., Little, D., Squires, D., Thisted, S.H., Troell, M., & Williams, M. (2016). Contribution of
sheries and aquaculture to food security and poverty reduction: Assessing the current evi-
dence. World Development, 79, 177–196.
Buchy, M., & Rai, B. (2008). Do women-only approaches to natural resource management help
women? The case of community forestry in Nepal. In B.P. Resurreccion & R.Elmhirst (Eds.),
Gender and natural resource management (pp.127–150). London: Earthscan.
CEDAW. (2016). General recommendation No. 34 on the rights of rural women. New York:
CEDAW (Committee on the Elimination of Descrimination Against Women), CEDAW/C/
GC/34.
CFS, & FAO. (2012). Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, sher-
ies and forests in the context of national food security. Rome: FAO.
Cho, S. Y. (2014). International women’s convention, democracy, and gender equality. Social
Science Quarterly, 95, 719–739.
Cole, S.M., van Koppen, B., Puskur, R., Estrada, N., DeClerck, F., Baidu-Forson, J.J., Remans,
R., Mapedza, E., Longley, C., Muyaule, C., & Zulu, F. (2014a). Collaborative effort to opera-
tionalize the gender transformative approach in the Barotse Floodplain, Program brief: AAS-
2014038. Penang: CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems.
Cole, S.M., Kantor, P., Sarapura, S., & Rajaratnam, S. (2014b). Gender-transformative approaches
to address inequalities in food, nutrition and economic outcomes in aquatic agricultural
systems, Working paper: AAS-2014-42. Penang: CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic
Agricultural Systems.
Cole, S.M., Puskur, R., Rajaratnam, S., & Zulu, F. (2015). Exploring the intricate relationship
between povery, gender inequality and rural masculinity: A case study from an aquatic agricul-
tural system in Zambia. Culture, Society & Masculinities, 7, 154–170.
Cornwall, A. (2014). Women’s empowerment: What works and why? WIDER working paper
2014/104. Helsinki: UNU: WIDER.
Cornwall, A., & Rivas, A.M. (2015). From “gender equality and ‘women’s empowerment” to
global justice: Reclaiming a transformative agenda for gender and development. Third World
Quarterly, 36, 396–415.
D. Kleiber et al.

757
Cornwall, A., Harrison, E., & Whitehead, A. (2007). Gender myths and feminist fables: The strug-
gle for interpretive power in gender and development. Development and Change, 38, 1–173.
D’Souza, A., & Tandon, S. (2015). Using household and intrahousehold data to assess food
insecurity: Evidence from Bangladesh, Economic research report: 190. Washington, DC:
U.S.Department of Agriculture.
Djoudi, H., & Brockhaus, M. (2011). Is adaptation to climate change gender neutral? Lessons
from communities dependent on livestock and forests in northern Mali. International Forestry
Review, 13, 123–135.
FAO. (2015). Voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale sheries in the context of
food security and poverty eradication. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
Frangoudes, K. (2013). Women in sheries: A European perspective. European Union: Directorate-
general for internal policies. Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies:
BA-01-13-425-EN-C.
Frangoudes, K. (2015). Fisheries policy, Policy-specic module: EIGE/2014/OPER/10. Vilnius:
European Institute for Gender Equality.
Frangoudes, K., & Keromnes, E. (2008). Women in artisanal sheries in Brittany, France.
Development, 51, 265–270.
Frangoudes, K., Marugán-Pintos, B., & Pascual-Fernández, J. J. (2008). From open access to
co-governance and conservation: The case of women shellsh collectors in Galicia (Spain).
Marine Policy, 32, 223–232.
Gerrard, S. (2015). Mobility practices and gender contracts in a shery-related area. In S. M.
Channa & M. Porter (Eds.), Gender, livelihood and environment: How women manage
resources (pp.113–140). Dehli: Orient Black Swan.
Gopal, N., Porter, M., Kusakabe, K., & Choo, P.-S. (2015). Guest editorial: Gender in aquaculture
and sheries– Navigating change. Women in Fisheries Information Bulletin, 26, 3–11.
Harrison, E. (1997). Fish, feminists and the FAO: Translating “gender” through differing institu-
tion in the development process. In A.M. Goetz (Ed.), Getting institutions right for women in
development (pp.61–76). London/New York: Zed Books.
Hill, C.L. M. (2003). Gender-disaggregated data for agriculture and rural development: Guide
for facilitators. Rome: FAO Socio-economics and Gender Analysis (SEAGA) Programme.
Jentoft, S. (2013). Governing tenure in Norwegian and Sami small-scale sheries: From common
pool to common property? Land Tenure Journal, 91–115.
Kabeer, N. (1998). “Can buy me love”? Re-evaluating the empowerment potential of loans to
women in rural Bangladesh, IDS.Discussion paper: 363. Sussex: IDS.
Kabeer, N. (2000). Resources, agency, achievements: Reections on the measurement of women’s
empowerment. Development and Change, 30, 435–464.
Kantor, P., Morgan, M., & Choudhury, A. (2015). Amplifying outcomes by addressing inequal-
ity: The role of gender-transformative approaches in agricultural research for development.
Gender, Technology and Development, 19, 292–319.
Kleiber, D. (2014). Gender and small-scale sheries in the Central Philippines. Doctoral disserta-
tion, The University of British Columbia, Canada.
Kleiber, D., Harris, L.M., & Vincent, A.C. J.(2014). Improving sheries estimates by including
women’s catch in the Central Philippines. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,
71, 1–9.
Kleiber, D., Harris, L.M., & Vincent, A.C. J.(2015). Gender and small-scale sheries: A case for
counting women and beyond. Fish and Fisheries, 16, 547–562.
Matsue, N., Daw, T., & Garrett, L. (2014). Women sh traders on the Kenyan coast: Livelihoods,
bargaining power, and participation in management. Coastal Management, 42, 531–554.
Mukhopadhyay, M. (2007). Mainstreaming gender or “streaming” gender away: Feminists
marooned in the development business. In A.Cornwall, E.Harrison, & A.Whitehead (Eds.),
Feminisms in development: Contradictions, contestations and challenges (pp. 135–149).
London/New York: Zed Books.
35 Promoting Gender Equity andEquality T hrough theSmall-Scale Fisheries…

758
Neis, B., Gerrard, S., & Power, N.G. (2013). Women and children rst: The gendered and genera-
tional social-ecology of smaller-scale sheries in Newfoundland and Labrador and Northern
Norway. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 64.
Onyango, P. O., & Jentoft, S. (2011). Climbing the hill: Poverty alleviation, gender relation-
ships, and women’s social entrepreneurship in Lake Victoria, Tanzania. Maritime Studies, 10,
117–140.
Pearson, R., & Jackson, C. (1998). Introduction: Interrogating development: Feminism, gender
and policy. In C.Jackson & R.Pearson (Eds.), Feminist visions of development: Gender analy-
sis and policy (pp.1–16). London/New York: Routledge.
Petrics, H., Blum, M., Kaaria, S., Tamma, P., & Barale, K. (2015). Enhancing the potential of fam-
ily farming for poverty reduction and food security: Through gender-sensistive rural advisory
services, Occasional papers on innovation in family farming. Rome: FAO.
Porter, M., & Mbezi, R.G. (2010). From hand to mouth: Fishery projects, women, men and house-
hold poverty. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 31, 381–400.
Power, N.G. (2008). Occupational risks, safety and masculinity: Newfoundland sh harvesters’
experiences and understandings of shery risks. Health Risk & Society, 10, 565–583.
Rajagopalan, R. (2007). Uncertain future. Yemaya, 24, 3–5.
Ram-Bidesi, V. (2015). Recognizing the role of women in supporting marine stewardship in the
Pacic Islands. Marine Policy, 59, 1–8.
Razavi, S., & Miller, C. (1995). From WID to GAD: Conceptual shifts in the women and develop-
ment discourse. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. United
Nations Development Programme.
Reeves, H., & Baden, S. (2000). Gender and development: Concepts and denitions, Report: 55.
Brighton: University of Sussex.
Resurreccion, B.P. (2008). Gender, legitimacy and patronage-driven participation: Fisheries man-
agement in the Tonle Sap Great Lake, Cambodia. In B.P. Resurreccion & R.Elmhirst (Eds.),
Gender and natural resource management (pp.151–174). London: Earthscan.
Saha, A., Nag, A., & Nag, P.K. (2006). Occupational injury proneness in Indian women: A survey
in sh processing industries. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 1, 23–27.
Santos, A.N. (2015). Fisheries as a way of life: Gendered livelihoods, identities and perspectives
of artisanal sheries in eastern Brazil. Marine Policy, 62, 279–288.
Seniloli, M., Taylor, L., & Fulivai, S. (2002). Gender issues in environmental sustainability and
poverty reduction in the community: Social and community issues. Development Bulletin, 58,
96–98.
Sharma, C. (2013). Beyond lip service. Yemaya, 42, 9–11.
Singh, S., Darroch, J.E., Vlassoff, M., & Nadeau, J.(2003). Adding it up: The benets of investing
in sexual and reproductive health care. NewYork: UNFPA.
Subrahmanian, R. (2007). Making sense of gender in shifting institutional contexts: Some reec-
tions on gender mainstreaming. In A.Cornwall, E.Harrison, & A.Whitehead (Eds.), Feminisms
in development: Contradictions, contestations and challenges (pp.112–121). London/New
York: Zed Books.
Tekanene, M. (2006). The women sh traders of Tarawa, Kiribati. In P.-S.Choo, S.J. Hall, & M.J.
Williams (Eds.), Global symposium on gender and sheries. Seventh Asian sheries forum, 1–2
December 2004, Penang, Malaysia (pp.115–120). Penang: WorldFish Center.
The WorldFish Center. (2010). Gender and sheries: Do women support, complement, or subsi-
dize small scale shing activities, Issue brief: 2108. Penang: The WorldFish Center.
Turgo, N.N. (2014). Redening and experiencing masculinity in a Philippine shing community.
Philippine Sociological Review, 62, 7–38.
UN Women. (2016). UN Women Training Centre glossary. https://trainingcentre.unwomen.org/
mod/glossary/view.php?id=36. Accessed 2 May 2016.
Walker, B.L. E. (2001). Sisterhood and seine-nets: Engendering development and conservation in
Ghana’s marine shery. The Professional Geographer, 53, 160–177.
D. Kleiber et al.

759
Walker, B.L. E., & Robinson, M.A. (2009). Economic development, marine protected areas and
gendered access to shing resources in a Polynesian lagoon. Gender, Place & Culture, 16,
467–484.
Westerman, K., Oleson, K.L. L., & Harris, A.R. (2013). Building socio-ecological resilience to
climate change through community-based coastal conservation and development : Experiences
in southern Madagascar. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science, 11(1), 87–97.
Williams, M.J. (2008). Why look at sheries through a gender lens? Development, 51, 180–185.
Williams, M.J. (2015). Women in today’s sheries economy. Yemaya, 50, 2–4.
World Bank, FAO, International Fund for Agricultural Development. (2009). Gender in sheries
and aquaculture. In The World Bank, Food and Agriculture Orhganization, and International
Fund for Agricultural Development (Ed.), Gender in agriculture sourcebook (pp.561–600).
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Zhang, L., Liu, C., Liu, H., & Yu, L. (2008). Women’s land rights in rural China: Current situation
and likely trends. In B.P. Resurreccion & R.Elmhirst (Eds.), Gender and natural resource
management (pp.87–108). London: Earthscan.
35 Promoting Gender Equity andEquality T hrough theSmall-Scale Fisheries…