Memoire Online - Ocean grabbing: a threath to food security in Sierra Leone

INTRODUCTION PART I - FROM SELF-SUFFICIENCY TO FOOD SECURITY I. SELF-SUFFICIENCY: SIERRA LEONE'S RESPONSE TO FOOD INSECURITY			1 6 6
	1.	A historical return and state of play of Sierra Leone	6
		a. Sierra Leone: an example to be followed. From political disruption to peaceful democratic transition	7
		b. A failed economy model resulting in a struggling economy	7
		c. The struggle for development	8
	2.	The impact of the 2007 global food crisis in Sierra Leone	9
		a. The causes and consequences	9
		b. The government's efforts and their results	10
	3.	Sierra Leone's self-sufficiency policy	10
		a. Sierra Leone's rice dependence	10
	b. The strategy of self-sufficiency	11
II.		THE STATE OF FOOD SECURITY IN SIERRA LEONE: QUESTIONING THE CONCEPT OF SELF-SUFFICIENCY	13
	1.	Food security in Sierra Leone	13
	2.	Trends in food insecurity within Sierra Leone	14
		a. Chronic food insecurity	14
		b. Seasonal food insecurity	15
		c. Transitionary food insecurity	15
	3.	The different responses to food insecurity: coping mechanisms	16
	4.	Self-sufficiency: a concept ill-suited to Sierra Leone's needs and reality	16
	5.	Self-sufficiency and food security: two concepts for one answer	18
III.		FOOD SECURITY: MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS AND THE NECESSITY FOR A MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE	20
	1.	The evolution of the concept offood security	20
		a. The different approaches that shaped the concept of food security	21
		i. The entitlement theory	21
		ii. The livelihood approach to food security	22
		iii. The human security and rights-based approach	23
		b. The 1996 World Food Summit: a turning point	23
		i. The 1996 World Food Summit	23
		ii. The Millennium Summit iii. The 2010 United Nations Conference «Keeping the Promise: United to Achieve the Millennium	23
		Development Goals»	24
	2.	The components and targets of the concept offood security	24
		a. Four pillars and three trends	24
		i. The four pillars model	24

PARTIE II - FISHERY: A LEAD IN IMPROVING FOOD SECURITY AND

III. THE GOVERNANCE OF FISHERY: AN ACCUMULATION OF STANDARDS, TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS 43

1. Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing: consequences and response to a widespread

2. The recognition and obligations related to the concept of the right to food 62

First and foremost, I would like to thank God Almighty for giving me the strength, and the courage to undertake this work to complete it satisfactorily. Secondly, I thank my family and friends who supported me throughout this process. I am particularly grateful for my mother, Fatima Zohra, whose undying love for her children gives strength and comfort. Last but not least I thank Mr. Eyrard who supervised my thesis and gave me relevant information and advised me in the most adequate way thanks to his expertise. Also, Dr. Roche who supported not only me but all of my classmates through the year. She always had kinds words and reassured me when I doubted.

CESCR: Committee on economic, social and cultural rights CFA: Community Fisheries Agreements

ICESCR: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights IEZ: Inshore Exclusive Zone

IPOA-IUU: International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing

MFMR: Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources MPA: Marine Protected Areas

NERS: National Ebola Recovery Strategy NRDS: National Rice Development Strategy NRS: National Recovery Strategy (NRS)

PACHPR: Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights

RFMO: Regional Fisheries Management Organization RFSR: West Africa Regional Food Security Reserve

SFLP: Sustainable fisheries livelihoods Programme in West and Central Africa

SSF Guidelines: Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the

UNCLOS: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea UNDP: United Nations Development Programme UNMD: United Nations Millennium Declaration

VG Tenure: Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security

WHO: World Health Organization, the UN specialized organization for health WWF: World Wildlife Fund

INTRODUCTION

In 2012, ocean grabbing was qualified as equally dangerous to food security than land grabbing by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter. He has thereupon brought to light an issue that is still today only rarely mentioned. Sierra Leone enjoys more than 500 km of shoreline, three rivers and four coastal islands giving it the perfect environment to develop a thriving fishery sector. Located in Western Africa, Sierra Leone is well-endowed with fish stocks but the growing practice of ocean grabbing opposes a threat for multiple reasons. The consequences of ocean grabbing are significantly harmful, especially to the small-scale fisherfolks who rely on fish as a dietary input and mean of subsistence. As fishery represents 10%¹ of the gross domestic product (GDP) and employs around half a million Sierra Leoneans, therefore ocean grabbing puts in jeopardy the already fragile economy and subsequently the entire population that depends on fisheries (Neiland, et al. 2016).

Sierra Leone has a total population of 7 million of which 59% live in the rural and 41% live in the urban areas. Characterized with a young demography, 40.9% of the population are children² and 55.6% are of working age³. The country's economy is essentially agricultural, accounting for approximatively half of the real gross GDP with coffee, cocoa, and fish representing the major agricultural exports. According to the African Development Bank economic outlook, Sierra Leone has managed modest economic growth rates during the post-war era (AFDB 2018). It reached its zenith at 20.7% in 2013 thanks to the Agenda for Prosperity 2013-18 (A4P) an initiative launched by the government conjointly with the United Nation Development Programme (UNDP) (GoSL 2013).

Hunger (FAO 2017) kills more than AIDS (UNAIDS 2016), malaria (WHO 2016) and tuberculosis (WHO 2018) combined⁴. In 2000 a large part of the international community

¹ Data from 2013, before the Ebola virus outbreak that ravaged the country and damaged the economy.

4 The World Food Program and the Food and Agriculture Organization explain that out of the 777 million people suffering from hunger and malnutrition approximatively 9 million died in 2015. According to the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) out of the 36.7 million people affected by HIV in 2015, 1.1 million died of an AIDS related disease. The World Health Organization (WHO) states that out of the 212

adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), one of which was `to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger' by 2015. At the time 900 million people suffered from hunger compared to 815 million in 2016⁵ (FAO 2017). In spite of those encouraging statistics we must put forward the times when hunger was on the rise in the last fifteen years. In 2007, caused by a mismanagement of wheat stock and poor harvest the previous years the global food crisis increased the number of people suffering from hunger. The same phenomenon occurred in 2016, this time due to climate change and conflicts (WFP 2017).

The goal to reach `zero hunger' by 2015 failed and since then the Sustainable Development Goals, adopted in 2016, set 17 new goals, including n°2 `zero hunger and food security'. Hunger is a consequence of many factors, amongst which food insecurity. Sierra Leone is ranked the third poorest country by the Global hunger index⁶, progressing from a GHI index of 57.2 in 1992 to 38.5 in 2017. Its current situation is partly due to the civil war that ravaged the country between 1991 and 2002 but also the recent Ebola virus outbreak (EVO) of 2014. After the civil war and since the official end of the Ebola epidemic two years ago⁷, the country had made progress and but is still facing many challenges. Sierra Leone's Ministry of Health and Sanitation associated with Action Against Hunger, qualified the country's hunger situation as `poor' in line with the Food Consumption Score (FCS) (GoSL, DFN et ACF 2017). This allows the understanding of the high prevalence of food insecurity. More than half of its population lives under the poverty line⁸ which means more than 3 million Sierra Leonean are food insecure (UNDP s.d.)⁹.

For a comprehensive understanding of the subject we will naturally define the concepts briefly at first and more extensively later in the dissertation. In 1996 the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defined food security as: «sufficient, safe and nutritious

millions people affected by malaria 429 000 died in 2015 and that out of the 10.4 million people affected by tuberculosis 1.7 million died in 2016.

⁶ The Global Hunger Index is designed to comprehensively measure and track hunger globally and by country and region. Calculated each year by the International Food Policy Research Institute, the GHI highlights successes and failures in hunger reduction and provides insights into the drivers of hunger. It ranks 119 countries based on four components: undernourishment, child wasting, child stunting, and child mortality. Each country is given a score from 0 to 100, the smaller the index the better the hunger situation.

⁸ The poverty line was updated by the World Bank in 2015 raising it from US$ 1.25 to US$ 1 .90

food (É) for an active and healthy life» (FAO 1996). Here hunger is linked to quantity and quality of the food one should consume, but it ignores other dimensions of the problematic. According to this argumentation, nutritional requirements will be met if the production of food increases, therefore reducing malnourishment and hunger (Malthus 1992). The issue of hunger is often associated with availability to food, access becoming secondary. But the question of access is crucial as the amount of food available is irrelevant to populations if they don't have the opportunity to obtain it (Sen 1981). This definition is the most popular one and is widely used, in particular by internationally recognized institutions and organizations like the World Bank, the World Food Program (WFP) or the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). It takes into account the importance of access to food which is key when studying food security because as we said availability without access is irrelevant to the populations in need. After defining food security, we can ask ourselves about the right to food and its meaning.

The World Food Summit organized by the FAO in 1996 also established a definition of the right to food. The right to food is internationally recognized by multiple institutions and organizations such as the UN. Indeed, it is considered a fundamental human right since it was inscribed in the first paragraph of the Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Its definition reads as follows:

«Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of
himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness,
disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his
control.» (UN 1948)

Other organizations recognize the right to food, we will later address those definitions. The comprehensive UDHR definition showcases the many aspects of the right to food. Evidently, one can think that the right to food only concerns aspects linked with food, nutrition and diet but it is linked to socio-economical aspect of day-to-day life. This shows us that the right to food is a complex concept that needs to be thoughtfully examined in order to comprehend its link with ocean grabbing.

The term ocean grabbing has been used to describe actions, policies or initiatives that deprives small-scale fishers of resources, dispossess vulnerable populations of coastal lands, and/or undermine historical access to areas of the sea (James Benett, Govan et Satterfield 2015). In Sierra Leone ocean grabbing is ravaging small-scale fisherfolks. International fleets have been looting West African seas for decades now, whether though illegal means or in due and proper form through international treaties. Entities such as the European Union (EU) were accused of looting fish stocks in the West African region through bilateral agreements (Greenpeace 2011). By depriving smallholders of their resources and livelihood, those who perpetrate ocean garbing are in fact violating international law.

Even though hunger and food security might seem like `Third World problems', the global impact of the phenomenon on developed countries isn't trivial. The developing and poor countries represent approximatively half to two thirds of the world (ISO 2018)¹⁰. Considering that information, any issue concerning developing countries also concerns the rest of the world. That being said, not all developing countries face the problematic of hunger and food security to the same extent. In this dissertation we will focus on the concepts of food security, the right to food and ocean grabbing in general and try to look at their specificities in Africa. The goal here is to show the link between these concepts and apply them to Sierra Leone, our case study. We would like to demonstrate that ocean grabbing represents a serious threat to food security.

Since it was qualified as equally dangerous to food security than land grabbing¹¹, the practice of ocean grabbing aggravated mainly due to the appearance of the Global Partnership for Oceans, an initiative led by the World Bank which seeks to privatize the property rights regimes to aquatic resources (Franco, et al. 2014). How can fishery governance improve the supply of fish in countries where fish plays an important part in to the economy and the human development? The lack of regulation or will to circumvent them, whether by the country itself or a foreign country, has significant consequences on the national economy and human development. Indeed, the practice of illegal fishing or the inadequate and ineffective regulations of the fishing sector leads to an impoverishment of the volume of fish

¹⁰ ISO list of developing countries based on the UN list of Member States of the Group of 77 (G77)

¹¹ De Schutter O. «Ocean-grabbing as serious a threat as land-grabbing» during the United Nations General Assembly, sixty-seventh session, October 2012, New York

available and consequently makes the populations who depend on fishing to provide for their basic needs, food insecure. Worldwide, hunger in linked to poverty. In Sierra Leone, a country that benefits from fishery for food and employment poverty rates are alarming. According to the FAO, fish is a critical source of protein in Sub-Saharan Africa, providing an estimated 22% of protein intake. But with marine resources being over-exploited, African fish production is failing to keep up with rising populations and demand. These questions lead us to ask ourselves: To which extent does ocean grabbing represent a threat to food security in Sierra Leone?

To answer this question, the dissertation is split into three parts, each one focusing on explaining how the mechanisms of ocean grabbing oppose a threat to food security by taking away from vulnerable populations their means of subsistence and main source of protein intake. In the first part we will discuss the shift of thinking in Sierra Leone's food policy. The Sierra Leonean government always led a self-sufficiency policy which it reinforced to counter the plunge in rice stock following the 2007 food crisis¹². After analysing the results of this policy we will question the concept of self-sufficiency and define the concept of food security and its evolution from the 70's till today. In the second part we will try to show how fishery could represent a serious lead in improving food security. More specifically we will attempt to display the benefits of fishery for food security in Sierra Leone. Finally, in the third and last part we will present the relationship between ocean grabbing and food security.

¹² The 2007 food crisis here can also be referred to as the «2008 food crisis» or «2007/08 food crisis». The crisis being the product of the complex addition of multiple factor. For this reason, a precise date cannot be given. That being said, the period that corresponds to the food crisis above-mentioned goes from around September 2007 to April of 2008.

I. Self-sufficiency: Sierra Leone's response to food insecurity

In this section we will lay out the opening facts about Sierra Leone that are essential to the understanding of the dissertation as a whole. After a brief historical return, we will address the impact of the 2007 food crisis and Ebola virus outbreak on Sierra Leone and study the government's initiative to counter the negative effect on the economy, poverty rate as well as food security. Lastly, we will analyse the current state of food security and how it is related to the government's self-sufficiency policy.

1. A historical return and state of play of Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone's first Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) considers a number of short-to medium-term challenges that should not only impact immediately the living conditions of people but also lay solid foundations to address the long-term causes of conflict and poverty. The continuous progress since the cessation of the civil war in January 2002 was facilitated by the government's various initiative to look ahead and rebuild the country. Ahead of the end of the civil war, the government of Sierra Leone designed the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (IPRSP) in June 2001. Coupled with the National Recovery Strategy (NRS) created in 2002, the goal was to support the transition from peace-keeping to peace-building. Later, in 2003 the drafting of Vision 2025 intended to reduce poverty on longer term, supported the IPRSP and the NRS. With the re-election of Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, the government has maintained its efforts to reduce poverty and improve food security, among other things and developed the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 2005-07 (SL-PRSP), which for the first and last time introduced the concept of right to food. The Agenda for Change (AfC) inaugurated in 2008, is the second generation of Sierra Leone's PRSP. With a particular focus on development, it was designed in the midst of the 2007 food crisis. Taking over for the AfC, the Agenda of Prosperity 2013-2018 (A4P) aimed at creating a `middle-income country by 2035' (AFDB 2013). The third generation of poverty reduction strategy paper introduces the environmental aspect as a possible constraint to the implementation of the different measures. In line with the desire to be self-sufficient in rice, the government has developed the specially designed PRSP for this issue in 2009 in the form

of the National Rice Development Strategy (NRDS). Finally, the most recent initiative took shape in the National Ebola Recovery Strategy (NERS) in 2015 as a response to the official end of the epidemic.

During the 20 years that followed Sierra Leone's independence in 1961, the economy grew rather modestly. In addition, the 80's marked a stagnation followed by a decline «on account of misguided economic policies and economic mismanagement» (GoSL 2005). Since then Sierra Leone has endured a constant economic volatility, from encouraging surges to concerning drops. The successful implementation of the IPRSP and NRS forged an economic recovery throughout 2004. The country demonstrated high economic growth rates scoping from 6% to 15% yearly, and saw its mining industry boom in 2011 when iron ore was discovered. Subsequently, it became Sierra Leone's second most important GDP input right behind agriculture. The mining industry represented the main driver of the economy and even saw a 21% growth rate in 2013. However, the economy was driven mainly by agriculture and mineral production (AFDB 2013). As a result, in 2015, when iron ore's price dropped in the world market combined with the EVO Sierra Leone's economy faced a

¹³ The last military coup happened in 1997 when elected president Ahmad Tejan Kabbah was deposed but later resumes his duties as president in 1998 and completed his term.

depreciation in activity with a 20.6% contraction (AFDB s.d.). Indeed, despite an average annual growth rate of 7.8% between 2003 and 2014, economic growth stalled to 4.3% in 2017 despite new investments in mining, agriculture and fisheries and due to a limited recovery from the iron ore price fall (World Bank 2018). Although the economy experienced positive economic growth in the last decade and proved resilient in the face of the Ebola epidemic and collapse of iron ore prices, it still excessively depends on international aid, with about 50% of public investment programs financed by external resources (UNDP s.d.). Nonetheless, the African Development Bank Group in its 2018 outlook projects that Sierra Leone's GDP will grow from 6.1% in 2018 to 6.5% next year (AFDB 2018).

With great international assistance, progress was achieved in strengthening security, restoring social sectors, and supporting the vulnerable. For example, the road network mostly destroyed by the civil war, is in rehabilitation with international aid provided essentially by the European Union (France s.d.). But despite the strong performance of the IPRSP and AfC, Sierra Leone's growth is generally non-inclusive and undiversified. Therefore, poverty rates are still high with 53% in 2011 compared to 66% in 2003 (AFDB 2013). Notwithstanding the country's agricultural potential, the consequences of corruption, the effects of war and the underinvestment translated in a decreased capacity of the country to provide staple food for its population, causing to some extent the worsening of poverty (Steve Wiggins 2010). Still, thanks to substantial efforts made by the government, Sierra Leone has managed to improve its socio-economic indicators. For instance, Sierra Leone's Human Development Index (HDI) progressed from 0.302 in 2000¹⁴ to 0.420 in 2015 (UNDP 2016). Despite the achievement of moving upward in the index, the country lags behind the Sub-Saharan Africa HDI average of 0.475 and ranks below most African countries for multiple other social well-being indicators. Also indicative of slow development the unemployment rates remain high especially with the younger population. It is estimated that 70% of youth is unemployed or underemployed in Sierra Leone (UNDP s.d.). Furthermore, in 2014, Sierra Leone was severely affected by the worst Ebola epidemic since the first diagnosis in 1976 (GoSL 2015). According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, the Ebola virus killed 3,956 Sierra Leoneans and infected 8706 others (Kaner et

¹⁴ Sierra Leone ranked last at of 187 countries echoing the ongoing civil war

Schaack 2016). As a response, the government designed the NERS in 2015. The consequences of the EVO combined with the fallout of the iron ore's price drop represent a major setback in the achievement of the A4P with the surge in poverty levels and vulnerability (GoSL 2015).

2. The impact of the 2007 global food crisis in Sierra Leone

In early 2017, the United Nations declared that food crises are largely «manmade» and the result of violent conflict or internal strife that are preventing people from accessing food when it's available in adequate quantity (Welthungerhilfe et IFPRI 2017). Whatever causes food crisis, the fact remains that they have an immediate impact with lingering effects especially on developing and poor countries.

a. The causes and consequences

In 2007, Sierra Leone suffered from yet another setback due to the food crisis that affected economies worldwide. It caused substantial surge in the cost of food, especially staple foods such as rice, which is the number one staple food in Sierra Leone. Multiple factors led to the crisis but it was mainly the rise of oil price and the drought in major wheat-producing countries the previous years (Shah 2008) that caused the unfortunate situation. Rice occupies a predominant place in the Sierra Leoneans food consumption. A study conducted in 2013 by the World Food Programme (WFP) showed that Sierra Leoneans households used 63% of their income in food. The share of the budget allocated for food is significantly high for precarious social groups, and about 52% of the country's population borrows money for food (WFP 2003). In the context where households have little margin for other spending such as education or health, a spike in the price of rice can have dramatic impact on their mean of substance. They resorted to reducing their food spending and ceased the consumption of nutritious food such as eggs, meat or vegetables. The impoverishment of their diet may have increased the nutritional risk of vulnerable groups. Encouraged by the government in an effort to diversify their diet, some supplied rice for cassava. But the implementation of this coping strategy only resulted in higher level of food insecure household (Mendez del Villar, et al. 2011). About two thirds of the rice consumed in Sierra Leone is produces domestically, the rest is imported. The preponderance of imports, coupled

with the high level of poverty, Sierra Leone was amongst the countries most vulnerable to the shock of a food price rise on the international market. When the market is not subject to a crisis, local rice is sold at a higher price than the imported one in Sierra Leone (Steve Wiggins 2010). So when the price of imported rice began to rise in September 2007¹⁵ consumers were left with no choice.

b. The government's efforts and their results

In reaction to the global food crisis the government of Sierra Leone launched a series of actions. The export of local rice and re-export of imported rice were banned and import duty on rice experienced a 5% cut. The government also negotiated an import deal with India allowing for a 40, 000 tonnes of Indian rice to enter the market. Pursuant to the deal, a 2000 Leones/kg maximum price was enforced. These measures coast a great deal in revenue to the government as a consequence of reduced tariffs, but the country was supported by the World Bank that provided US$3 million. The results were mixed as price control was only moderately helpful and by the end of the crisis imported rice price peaked at 73%. The export ban was unsuccessful in blocking the flow of rice into Guinea¹⁶. Lastly, the reduction of import tariffs was somewhat minimal (Steve Wiggins 2010).

3. Sierra Leone's self-sufficiency policy

Rice being the number staple food for the Sierra Leonean people, the government has always established policies to achieve rice self-sufficiency. But the realities of the global market and the dependence of the people on a staple food heavily subject to price variation has put entire communities in a vulnerable state of food security.

a. Sierra Leone's rice dependence

Since its independence, Sierra Leone's agricultural development policy have essentially been fixated on accomplishing rice self-sufficiency. Rice is a staple food for 90% of Sierra Leoneans but it is also an important source of employment and income for rural communities

¹⁵ The price of imported rice first increased by 35% in real terms in Sierra Leone.

¹⁶ Sierra Leoneans and Guineans farmers have a historically long-standing trade relations.

(Bah 2013). According to the Africa Rice's¹⁷ report : «the yearly rice consumption in Sierra Leone is amongst Sub-Saharan Africa's highest with 104 kg, largely supported by small scale farmers» (AfricaRice Center 2017). In contrast, the offer doesn't seem to match the growing demand. 530 000 MT of milled rice is required to sustain the consumption of the Sierra Leonean population annually. The country has not been able to produce enough rice to meet its local consumption demand for decades (Conteh, Yan et Sankoh 2012) and reached its peak rice self-sufficiency between the 70's and 80's with around 80 to 90% (GoSL, WFP et UNICEF 2010) and its lowest in 2000 with 50%.For that reason, the remaining portion of rice has to be imported at increasingly expensive prices.

b. The strategy of self-sufficiency

«Rice self-sufficiency by 2013» was the latest benchmark set by the government. In order to achieve this goal, Sierra Leone deployed considerable amount of resources and launched largescale operations that combined both direct and indirect government action. The targets of these operations were small scale farmers who represent 90% of the farming community (Conteh, Yan et Sankoh 2012). To go along with the plan, the government intended to extend the rice paddy area used for to 830 000 hm2. This way, the hope was to increase productivity and secure the income and food security of smallholders (Bah 2013). Unfortunately, the government's strategy was not the most suited, as the productivity difficulties that Sierra Leone is faced with don't come from lack of space but rather from lack of multiple other factors such as technology, labour force, involvement and targeted development. Farming is still essentially artisanal and farming techniques are mostly outdated and unproductive. The scarce labour force coupled with the absence of involvement from a large part of the farming population further constraint the productivity. This is due to the fact that Sierra Leoneans have to engage in approximatively three activities in order to subsist. In farming populations, they engage in:

· Income Generating Activities (IGA), which consist of small businesses in order to increase the household's income

At the moment, food crop doesn't cover the needs of the population as food and especially staple foods are partly imported from abroad. Large scale cash crop is hardly sustainable because it requires a lot of investments that neither farmers nor the government are capable of providing. Also, the need for quick cash discourages farmers from making long-term commitments and investments and prefer a mean of subsistence that brings in money quicker. This partly explains why IGA is the mean of subsistence favoured by the people. Lastly, the government failed to develop existing and abundant rice fields like the `bolilands', which have great potential for productivity and possibly reducing food insecurity (ACF 2005). As a result, the realization of most operations in agricultural sector were unfortunately unsatisfying and did not help create to desired effect.

According to Joseph Sam Sesay, the Minister in charge of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security in 2014:

«The country's excessive rice dependency could cost the food security target. He calls on the Sierra Leoneans to change their habits and go for alternative goods cultivated domestically, such as, yam, cassava or sweet potato.» (Ighobor et Harsch 2014).

The former Minister was inspired by Nigeria and Ghana which were avid consumers of rice but managed to reduce their consumption by incorporating substitutes. But as we mentioned before¹⁸ strategies to substitute the population's diet only resulted in higher levels of food insecurity. As a silver lining, the government is spending less on food importation. Spendings dropped from US$ 32 million in 2007 to US$ 15 million in 2013, while for the same period rice production almost doubled from 370,000 tonnes to 693,000 tonnes (AfricaRice Center 2017). Questions surrounding rice remains eminently political in Sierra Leone, the determination of its price and the measures taken with regard to it are continuously examined by the population, in particular the rice farmers.

After a decade long civil war, Sierra Leone was in a deployable state and a long national recovery was ahead. The government had to deal with an economy that nearly stopped during the hostilities, the worst human development level of the world, child soldiers and a population either lost to war or displaced in neighbouring countries. However, by the early 00's Sierra Leone became an example of post-conflict recovery. Unfortunately, both the 2007 food crisis and the Ebola virus outbreak frustrated the recovery of the country leading to a failure to reach the MDGs. Although those two events slowed Sierra Leone's progress, they also highlighted the fragility of the economic system based on agriculture and self-sufficiency. The variations of prices on the global market coupled with economic and sanitary crises unsettle a country supported by poor agricultural communities who barely subsist with their crop. The government's stubbornness to achieve self-sufficiency combined with the population's rice dependency showed a real lack of adequate governance and hurt efforts made towards poverty reduction and food security improvement.

II. The state of food security in Sierra Leone: questioning the concept of

In this section we will tackle food security as a concept and an answer. We will detail the trends that food insecure people follow and the coping mechanism they use to endure food insecurity for a short time or month on end. Then we will analyse the flaws of the self-sufficiency policy the government has been trying to push to work, to show how and why Sierra Leone is now more inclined to apply food security policies rather than self-sufficiency.

Food security is a complex state of being that relies on multiple factors such as climate, state governance or the capacity of one's state and population to cope with a shock like war, drought, an epidemic or a decline in economic activity. To this day, with the exception of the recent EVO, food insecurity drivers in Sierra Leone remain the same. That is mainly but not restricted to, low agricultural productivity, poverty and poor infrastructures. As of 2015, 49.8% of Sierra Leoneans were food insecure compared to 45% in 2010 (GoSL, WFP et UNICEF 2010). The 5% increase means that an additional 2.5 million people suffered food

insecurity. The total number of food insecurity stricken population includes 8.6% of «severely food insecure» and 41.2% «moderately food insecure». Rural regions show higher levels of food insecurity with 59.7% including 11.4% severely and 48.4 % moderately (GoSL, WFP et WHO 2015).

Populations can be subjected to food insecurity in three forms: chronic, seasonal or transitionary, each one linked to the different drivers of food insecurity.

Chronic food insecurity is a durable failure to meet the minimum recommended dietary intake. A state of food insecurity maintained for at least 6 months a year can be considered chronic¹⁹. Chronic food insecurity is due to structural elements that affect the food production system and keeps farmers from producing enough food. Some of the leading factors are: lack of demand for agricultural products, insufficient yields caused by traditional and inefficient agricultural methods, low soil fertility, high production costs and poor access to market²⁰. Agriculture remains essentially traditional with outdated farming methods like the predominant use of hand tool. This is especially problematic as 77.3% of the rural households indicate agriculture as their main mean of subsistence. Compared to the previous year's rice harvest, the 2014-2015 harvesting season experienced a 15% drop. Most importantly, farmers able to produce enough for their own consumption throughout the year equal only 4% of the farming population. This clearly indicates that the vast majority of farmers produce below subsistence levels²¹.

Adding to that, poverty rates are still high. 19.9% Sierra Leonean households are poverty-stricken while an added 33.5% is labelled `borderline'. If the latter is subject to any kind of shock they can quickly fall into the `poor' category with more risk of becoming food insecure. Also, challenging food access and availability increases the possibility of food

insecurity. Poor infrastructures push Sierra Leoneans to travel further in order to reach a market, with just 17% of Sierra Leoneans benefiting from a functional market within their own community²². On average they travel 7.7 miles, increasing the cost of transportation for farmers which subsequently increases the cost of purchase for buyers. Evidently, the added cost of transportation forces farmers to sell at a higher price. It not only affects buyers, but also farmers whose goods are then less competitive compared to the imported merchandise²³.

If food insecurity last less than 6 months a year it can be regarded as transitional (Margolis, et al. 2016). The disastrous state of the economy post-civil war, almost brought the agriculture to a stop. As a result, the GDP crashed, almost cut in half approaching its lowest value with US$142 (Welthungerhilfe et IFPRI 2006). Unsurprisingly, the rates of poverty peaked accompanied by food insecurity. Most recently, the 2014 EVO caused «unprecedented damage to the socio-economic fabric of Sierra Leone» (GoSL 2016). Negative repercussions persisted throughout 2015 and the number of people vulnerable to food insecurity was estimated to amount 2 million (FAO, WFP 2015). The National Ebola Strategy Paper assessed that half of the population was affected in some capacity, increasing

²⁴ Lean season in Sierra Leone can vary from June to august or July to September

levels of poverty and vulnerability nationwide (GoSL 2015). The impact of the EVO on food security is particularly visible in districts where populations were mostly food secure or showed low levels of food insecurity. By the end of the EVO, it caused a surge of 20 to 50% food insecure Sierra Leoneans (GoSL, WFP et WHO 2015).

Self-sufficiency expresses the capacity of a country to satisfy its dietary needs with the domestic production (FAO 1998). The concept became popular in agricultural policy implemented in Africa in the 70's in response to two phenomenon : the rise of food prices on the global market following the 1973 oil shock; and the drought in the Sahel (Staube

Tercier et Sottas 2000). Self-sufficiency is then perceived as an answer to the insufficient local demand and the dependence on the international market. It comes after a bitter post-colonial economic realization: high inflation, budget and trade deficits and low growth which led Sub-Saharan countries to worry about their ability to keep pace with the accelerating globalisation (Robert s.d.). Self-sufficiency subsequently becomes an extension of the self-centred growth strategy (Azoulay et Dillon 1993). «Africa must cultivate the virtue of self-reliance» (OAU 1980), when the State Members of the African Union adopted the Lagos Plan of Action (LPoA)²⁶ in 1980, self-reliance was the watchword. The goal was to achieve national, regional and sub-regional self-reliance in economic and social fields with the purpose of establishing a «new international economic order» (OAU 1980). The LPoA details a vast programme of measures for the 20 years following its launching, focusing on «self-reliance», «self-sustainability» and «self-sufficiency» where food self-sufficiency is envisioned as part of the regional development strategy. To this day, self-sufficiency still constitutes a political et economic imperative. However, complete self-sufficiency has not been asserted in any African country, even in countries most favourably endowed in natural resources (Azoulay et Dillon 1993).

As of 2017, the cost of basic food importation amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. More than 80% is still imported showcasing the failure of the rice self-sufficiency policies and their implementation some 15 years after the development of several programmes and papers. The government of Ahmad Teja Kabbah, which instigated the programmes in favour of self-sufficiency has been massively criticized (Thomas 2017). The succeeding government of Ernest Bai Koroma, didn't do better as the import expenses further increased during his term. In office for a decade, Koroma's strategy also proved to be unsuccessful as between 2007 and 2016 the country's rice importations increased from 4.4% to 8.5% (OEC 2016). Monty Patrick Jones, the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security (MAFFS) intended on creating jobs across key value chains, in order to support and boost the agriculture sector. Farmers have been unable to provide for the country's food security needs due to lack of technology, corruption, and poor access to investment finance (Thomas 2017). According to the MAFFS:

²⁶ Officially: the Lagos Plan of Action for the Economic Development of Africa 1980-2000

«agriculture contributes to over 50 percent of Sierra Leone's GDP. Virtually all farmers in Sierra Leone grow rice which is the staple food. Rice development therefore would not

only provide food for the populace, it would provide employment for a considerable
number of farmers, save valuable foreign exchange and impact positively on the overall

Although, his strategy failed in the end, the logic behind it was clear and in line with the goals to be achieved. In addition to being cheaper local rice has the added benefit of having better nutritional quality as it contains 2% more protein than imported rice. The promotion of local rice production should therefore be valuable to food security. In spite of being, less favoured by Sierra Leoneans, local rice is particularly popular in Guinea who import it in large quantity (OEC 2016).

The answer to the question «what is self-sufficiency?» is often too simplistic: it is the capacity to produce what we consume. The preconceived idea is that the desire to set up a self-sufficiency policy necessarily involves subsistence crop. This type of crop can present `traps' that cannot be guessed by following such an argument. To effectively put into effect such a policy a country must also consider its economic autonomy. It is what most Sub-Saharan countries including Sierra Leone attempted, with little success concerning Sierra Leone. Evidently, if achieving self-sufficiency requires an economic autonomy, it itself requires the right strategy, implemented through good governance (Rocher 1998).

Self-sufficiency doesn't mean food security as malnutrition and hunger levels can maintain and increase even when the self-sufficiency rate is growing. Production growth and a higher degree of self-sufficiency do not necessarily remedy a state of food insecurity because they do not necessarily lead to a better satisfaction of the food needs of poor households (Azoulay et Dillon 1993). Strengthening production potential in low-income and food-deficit countries is an imperative. Complete food self-sufficiency is not a goal to be pursued by all countries. The degree of self-sufficiency to be achieved must be determined by political, climatic and economic conditions. Some countries will have more interest in importing rather than producing locally if they possess the means to finance these imports. In the case of Sierra

Leone, it seems plausible, by specializing its economy the country can export the goods produced in abundance and at low cost in order to reinvest the financial manna in economic diversification. However, the government continues to pursue a self-sufficiency that does not materialize and struggles to diversify its economy. An economy massively based on agriculture, supported by small scale farmers who have difficulties producing enough to feed themselves, and mining which is subject to strong price variation as it was the case in 2013 when the price dropped sharply causing a decline in the Sierra Leonean economy. Self-sufficiency must be achieved by seeking to increase national production capacities. This objective is not in contradiction with greater food security. This is a priority objective especially for countries like Sierra Leone that are in food deficit and low income (FAO 2017). Indeed, the increase in domestic production capacity allows a modernization of agriculture which is an essential basis for accumulation in a sector so important for the GDP (Azoulay et Dillon 1993).

The World Bank recognizes the benefits of such logic but nevertheless places food aid at the centre of its conception of food security and rejects the priority search for self-sufficiency considered less efficient. Self-sufficiency must be part of the desire for greater food security; it must be integrated into a global food strategy modulated according to climatic, economic and socio-political conditions. The financing capacity of deficit countries therefore becomes a central problem that refers to two main food security issues. Firstly, the state of international markets (fluctuation in prices, available quantities...), and secondly, the economic state of the country (productive potential, export levels, debt levels...). A country can only use imports to satisfy its domestic consumption if its agriculture or another economic sector provides the necessary foreign exchange resources, which isn't the case for Sierra Leone. It is obvious that no country can tolerate basing the satisfaction of its nutritional needs on the world market. The stakes of food security are so high that no country will be reluctant to achieve a certain degree of self-sustainability at more or less significant costs in order to finance national food sector protection policies (Azoulay et Dillon 1993).

Whether one decides to see the cup half full or half empty, doesn't change the fact that
approximatively 3 million Sierra Leoneans are suffering from a form of food insecurity.

While the numbers fluctuate with seasons and the occurrence of crisis of al kind, they are still high for a country that benefits from abundant natural resources and a rather stable democracy. The widespread food insecurity in Sierra Leone is the simple sum of the poor choices made by the governments regarding the agriculture sector as well as a combination of deficit. Sierra Leone like many African governments failed to realize that the economic and social development model they envisioned were not adapted and in line with globalization. Because the government was too obstinate it didn't take into account its environment, an environment that cannot be occulted as is shapes a country as much as a country shapes the rest of the world. The deficit of infrastructure, access or technology are just the manifestation of the government's misleading policies that facilitated the current state of food insecurity.

III. Food security: multiple definitions and the necessity for a multilevel governance

Achieving food security is the second of the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by world leader in September 2015. The SDG's took over for the Millennium Development Goals (MDG's) that expired at the end of 2015. In this section we will address the ever evolving definition of food security, how the concept of food security is addressed by the different international, regional and Sierra Leonean stakeholders, and study how the policies at those three levels are then implemented nationwide.

1. The evolution of the concept of food security

The many attempts at defining the concept of food security attest that it is complex but also appears to be flexible. 15 years ago, hundreds of definitions could be found in different publications and reviews. The plethora of definition was also the product of interpretations and many were designed to serve a biased vision (Maxwell et Frankenberger 1992). The concept of food security has evolved in response to the major events of the 20th and 21st centuries. It has gained increasing importance and now occupies an essential place in international, regional and national agricultural policies. Over the past 40 years, the continuous modifications of the definition indicate the ever-evolving way of thinking and produced profuse viewpoints including the entitlement theory and the livelihood approach

a. The different approaches that shaped the concept of food security

Food security is a concept created in the middle of 70's during a global food crisis. The World Food Conference (WFC) was a product of international negotiations after the international community realised that the Green Revolution didn't meet with the objective of mechanically reducing poverty, levels of malnutrition and the occurrence of famines. During the first World Food Summit (WFS) held in Rome in 1974, the issue of hunger was galvanized when the American Secretary of State ambitiously declared that no child would go to bed hungry within the next 10 years. To say that the bold declaration didn't lead to satisfactory results is an understatement. Nevertheless, the issue of hunger was now on the global agenda. At the time, it was believed that sufficient supply would insure availability and automatically counter malnutrition and food insecurity (Staube Tercier et Sottas 2000), which led to the following definition :

«availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and prices» (UN, Report of the World Food Conference 1975)

The United Nations subsequently created the Committee on World Food Security (CWFS), an intergovernmental body in specifically in charge of the conversation surrounding food security. The concept was originally envisioned as tripartite indicating: availability, access and stability. Be as it may, the definition was rapidly reconsidered by scholars from different academic fields.

The work of Indian economist Amartya Sen questioned the definition of the concept. According to him availability doesn't guarantee the reduction of food insecurity. He based his theory on observations made in India and set his focus on the demand rather than the availability of food on the market. The Green Revolution, insured a more important production of food, but even then millions of Indian were still facing poverty, hunger and food insecurity. He studied the reasons behind the difficulty for some people to simply have enough food to satisfy their nutritional needs (Staube Tercier et Sottas 2000). The issue

resides in the capacity of people to access food, availability doesn't mean much if the food insecure can't access it (Sen 1981). A person's ability to access food is just as valuable as the availability of the food. Sen introduced the Theory of entitlement, where people have rights over the food they need. These rights can be formulated in 3 different ways:

· Directly: through local farms or garden production by cultivating their own food

· Exchange: through trading-off food they produced or using their salary to purchase food

· Transfer: through receiving food aid, gifts or inheritance in the form of food or money.

He stresses that it is the lack of entitlement that spawns hunger (Sen 1997). Sen's entitlement theory establishes «an ethical and human rights dimension into the discussion of food security» (Gibson 2012).

Consequently, the FAO adapted its definition and added the dimension of `access' to food security in 1983. The definition then read:

«Ensuring that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to the basic food that they need» (FAO 1983)

De Waal, a British expert on issues concerning Africa and more specifically Sudan, challenged Sen's assumption of a passive individual who resigned to selling his assets to feed himself (De Waal 2005). According to him, Sen neglected the `choice' factor, which can greatly influence an individual's decisions and actions. In keeping with that logic, people faced with hunger would sometimes rather deliberately endure hunger than sell their assets (De Waal 1991). Populations subjected to prevalent food shortage, develop coping mechanisms like reducing food consumption. Instead of selling their assets, they will consider the long and short term stakes and acts accordingly, demonstrating that unfortunately food isn't always a priority (De Waal 2005).

In 1994 UNDP Human Development Report advocated for human security, a paradigm which includes different components comprising food security. The human security approach is closely tied to the human rights perspective that influenced debates about food security and contributed its evolution (FAO 2003).

b. The 1996 World Food Summit: a turning point

The 90's served a true turning point as food security was acknowledged to be a major concern that involved stakeholders of all levels from individuals to international organizations. The concept was further broadened and perfected to include dimensions such as food preference (FAO 2003).

The Millennium Summit held this time at the United Nations headquarters in New-York symbolizes the most historical step made towards the improvement of the human condition.

World leaders adopted at the end of the summit the United Nations Millennium Declaration (UNMD), from which derives 8 goals, 21 targets and 60 measurements indicators (UN 2000) (UNDP 2011). Even though it symbolizes a historical commitment, the UNMD was flawed in many regards. The said flaws include but are not restricted to: the absence of food security, which was never specifically mentioned even if goal n°1 tackles extreme poverty and hunger and could be interpreted as implied. Secondly, the MDG's failed to involve the people most concerned by the issues being tackled. The civil society wasn't consulted or involved at any point during the negotiations. Also, inequalities within countries were not taken into account and therefore automatically weakening the successful outcome of the MDG's.

A decade after the Millennium Summit and the introduction of the MDGs, a summit was held to evaluate the advancement of the MDG's. World leaders adopted a plan of action to accelerate the implementation of the MDG's and introduced new commitments concerning women empowerment²⁷ and poverty and hunger.

2. The components and targets of the concept of food security a. Four pillars and three trends

i. The four pillars model

The four pillars model was established on the basis of the 1974 WFC definition with the contribution of Amartya Sen. Since then the four pillar model is well-established and used. The food security concept is a set of 4 different but interconnected factors (FAO 2009).

· Availability: meaning the sufficient quantity and appropriate quality of food supplied through domestic production and/or imports together or food aid. In order to make availability possible, adequate transportation and infrastructure are required.

After extensively defining the concept of security it is most important to identify the possible individuals, households or communities vulnerable to food insecurity (Scaramozzino 2006). The World Food Programme refines vulnerability as follows:

« exposure to risk, mitigated by the ability to cope» or more precisely «probability of an
acute decline in food access or consumption» (WFP 2009)

The correlation between poverty and food insecurity is well-documented (Arcand 2001) (Cohen 2005). 776 million²⁹ people live under the poverty line worldwide (World Bank 2018), profoundly affecting their capacity to attain food security. This has a profound impact on their ability to provide food security. It was estimated that developed countries spend around 10% to 20% of their budget on food, while developing countries spend around 60% to 80% (USDA 2008). Such proportions make poor populations even more vulnerable to shocks generally linked to the country or world's economic health.

Food security can be described as a phenomenon relating to the nutritional status of individuals, households and communities and the risk of that adequate status not being achieved or becoming undermined.

3. Food security: Sierra Leone and the multi-level governance a. Global governance

1st of January 2016 marked the day the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development became operational. Adopted in September 2015, they took over for the Millennium Development Goals (MDG's). More numerous and comprehensive, they define the goals to be achieved by 2030 in terms of sustainable development (UN 2016). Signatory parties have a 15 years window to organize their country in order to reach the targets set and make sure every stakeholder is involved in the process. Gathered in the Agenda 2030, the negotiations lasted 2 years and took into account both

governments and civil society. Unlike the MDG's food security was specifically mentioned. and incorporated into the goal n°2 `End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture'. The Agenda 2030 brought under a unique goal food security and nutrition, therefore facilitating the understanding of the multi-dimensional concept (FAO 2017). The SDGs, also known as Global Goals, build on the success of the Millennium Development Goals and are set to do more to end all forms of poverty. Unlike the MDG's, the SDG's involve country leaders as well as the civil society. Everyone has a part to play in the advancement toward better more equal world. While they are not legally binding, governments are expected to live up to their promises by fulfilling their duty and mobilizing all necessary means for the end goal. In order to do so, they must «establish national frameworks for the achievement of the 17 Goals» (UN, The Sustainable Development Agenda 2016).

Despite having made evident progress toward the achievement of the MDG's, Sierra Leone failed to do so. The MDG's are tailored to give countries 15 years to achieve the goals. However, in Sierra Leone's case the first 10 years were lost to the civil war which left the country in shambles (GoSL 2016). At the time of the MDG's launching Sierra Leone's civil war was still taking place. Infrastructures, health system and the economy were severely devastated. The repercussions of war were such that, the economy came to a close stop for several month entailing increased levels of poverty and food insecure people. After a somehow successful recovery, the EVO once again struck the country. The economy contracted by approximatively 50% and social indicators such as HDI declined (GoSL 2016). This once again prevented the government from achieving the MDG's. Nonetheless, those were not the only factors that played a role in the government's failure to deliver on its promises. Actually, Sierra Leone has demonstrated flagrant structural fragilities in several areas, such as infrastructure, providing populations with satisfying public service or health system. The MDG's were incorporated in the Agenda for Change (A4C), which was launched and implemented in 2008 (GoSL 2008).

The West African sub-region implemented several plans and committed to improve food security and reduce poverty on multiple occasions. The most widespread is the Lagos Plan of Action, which pushed the idea of self-reliance and self-sufficiency (OAU 1980). Even if

today the idea seems somehow outdated, most countries in Africa still cling onto it. However, today, countries like Sierra Leone are more focused on policies surrounding food security rather than self-sufficiency. The Nepad's Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme has however taken the lead. More up to date and less focused on self-sufficiency (NEPAD, Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme 2003). Sierra Leone also takes advantage of the ECOWAS' Regional Agency for Agriculture and Food and West Africa Regional Food Security Reserve launched in 2013 to specifically tackle food security in West Africa. The Initiatives are recent but the ECOWAS has great expectations from them (ICTSD 2012) (ReliefWeb 2013).

Since the end of the civil war in 2002, Sierra Leone has been a leading example of a country successfully emerging from conflict. This is evidenced by some significant progress made on several MDG indicators since 2000. One key factor supporting progress has been that the national priorities Ð as set out in the Agenda for Change, the Agenda for Prosperity, and most recently the National Ebola Recovery Strategy Ð have mirrored and complemented the MDGs. In line with sustained efforts to meet the MDGs for Sierra Leone, the government has revised and consolidated long-term targets for development as exemplified by the pillars of the A4P: Pillar 2 Ð Managing Natural Resources, Pillar 7 Ð Governance and Public Sector Reform.

The concept of food security evolved with landmarks of the 20^th century perfected by contributors from all fields of work. The major contribution remains that of Amartya Sen who revolutionized the way we perceive and approach the concept of food security. The four pillar definition then was established and used by important institutions giving it more legitimacy. The three levels of governance integrated the concept and made food security a rather important focus with time. In Sierra Leone the it's only recently that the way of approaching food security shifted. While the MDG's were not attained, the recent PRSP incorporated the concept and made it a greater concern.

Conclusion of the first part

Despite, a devastating 10 years civil war Sierra Leone is an example of post-conflict recovery. The economic growth resumed with the exploitation of natural resources like iron ore, reducing poverty rates. However, even with peace and democracy restored, the country seems to struggle with keeping a sustained economic growth. The issues that government face are mainly linked to poor governance and choices regarding the economic development. The self-sufficiency ambition never became a reality and the self-centred economic growth based on natural resources and agriculture failed. Nonetheless, the country supported by regional efforts is slowly changing gears and diverting its policies towards food security rather than self-sufficiency while making progress towards improved governance. The concept was incorporated in national and regional strategies and allowed for a more appropriate approach to poverty reduction, and human development.

PARTIE II - Fishery: a lead in improving food security and alleviate

With globalization and an increased demand, fish became one the most traded commodities in the last 20 years (FAO 2014). The growth was so important that its value was estimated at about US$ 100 billion in 2008, making a 50% push since 1998 (WorldFish Center 2011). The link between poverty and food security has been largely proven and documented. Here, we try to demonstrate how poverty and food security can be improved through fishery. Based on this idea, it is surprising to witness how little fishery was integrated into the PRSP's at first given its importance and then how the consideration evolved to a more sustainable approach (FAO 2008).

I. Fishery in Sierra Leone: between potential and contribution

«When the number of fishermen increases or decreases, a domino effect occurs. Fish
processors and traders are obviously affected but so are boat builders, fuel providers, wood
sellers and other less financially rewarding, often temporary and unrecorded, jobs which
provide a real safety net for the poor». (FAO 2006)

1. Fishery a profitable sector

The contribution of fishery to the economy is undeniable in Sierra Leone but we must underline the many ways this sector contributes to the economy. Evidently it contributes to the economy in more ways than one. Besides providing the population with food, fishery also creates employment opportunities, boosts the GDP with a 10% contribution and insures revenue for the government in the form of fishing licences (FAO 2014). The fishery sector in Sierra Leone is divided into three sub-sectors: artisanal fishery, industrial fishery and finally inland and aquaculture.

· Artisanal Fishing Activity: characterized by small-scale fishing operates in estuaries and coastal waters using mostly non-motorized boats. It is largely subsistence-oriented.

· Industrial Fishing Activity: operates in the deep waters, outside the Inshore Exclusive Zone (IEZ) and it is characterized by multinational fleet which include trawlers. It is largely export-oriented.

· Inland Fishing and Aquaculture: Inland fishery operates in rivers, lakes and swamps. Aquaculture on the other hand, is mostly practiced in valley swamps and wetlands and has great potential for development.

Artisanal fishery contributes significantly to the national fish production while industrial and inland fishery have a more marginal contribution (FAO 1986).

a. Fishery: high economic potential lacking the infrastructure to thrive

Sierra Leone's abundant natural resources might suggest that the country enjoys a thriving economy and society (Neiland, et al. 2016). However, the development of the country since its independence proves quite the opposite despite the continuous efforts of the government (UNEP 2010) (AFDB 2013). The country disposes of a large variety of fish both in marine and inland environments, essentially exploited through marine fishing with a minor inland structures (FAO 2004). Sierra Leone's fish stocks are highly valuable. Their capitalised economic value was estimated at about US$ 735 million, and could potentially increase their contribution to the GDP from the current 10%. In 2008, the Government of Sierra Leone estimated the total annual production at about 150 000 tonnes. Marine artisanal fishing as mentioned before represents approximatively 80% of the total production, amounting to 120 000 tonnes which is valued at US$ 100 million every year (AFDB 2018). The marine industrial fishing catches, relatively more profitable amounts for an estimated 24 000 tonnes valued at US$ 25 million every year. Both inland fisheries and aquaculture activity and production are comparably limited. Fish stocks a particularly valuable, with a capitalised economic value estimated at about US$ 735 million, it could potentially increase its contribution to the GDP from the current 10%. Each year, Sierra Leone exports US$ 2.5 million worth of fish and another 2.5 million in fishing license, mostly to the UE and Asian firms. It must be noted that these figures don't take into account the full potential of the fishery sector as the secondary economic activities linked with fishery are overlooked.

Frozen fish and fish products intended for the domestic market constitute a sizable part of the fishery sector. They are generally sold and stored in Freetown, while the expensive fish brought ashore by industrial boats is repackaged and exported to neighbouring countries and the EU. Frozen fish is noticeably more expensive, and the operators in charge of cold storage have full control over the price (WorldFish Center 2017). Unlike industrial and semi-industrial boats, small artisanal boats mostly lack built-in cold storage which forces them to be dependent on the prices set by such operators. A total of 6 companies share the fish auction business in Freetown, amongst which the Sierra Fishing Company that devotes its activity entirely to the domestic market. Today the frozen fish and sea-food business is mostly in the hands of eminent businessmen who control the prices, the supply, transport, sale and storage of fish and shellfish on the Freetown market.

Despite fishery sector's economic potential major challenges remain. Important proportion of fish and thus revenue is lost due to lack of proper infrastructures like roads and refrigerated storage spaces and knowledge. In 2005, the government estimated the loss at 15% and subsequently launched a nation-wide training programme targeting small-scale artisanal fisherfolks in order to educate them on the preferred handling and processing technics as well as providing them with technical support. The government also increased the number of refrigerated containers from 6 to 23 in 2007, allowing for better preservation and sanitary conditions (GoSL 2008). Besides the infrastructural issues, the country was subject to an export ban by the UE due to poor sanitary conditions (EFJ 2009). In the first pillar of the A4P the government expresses the wish to resume exports with EU, an important economic partner with a large market for fish (GoSL 2013). The EU export ban led Sierra Leonean fisherfolks to export their merchandise to neighbouring countries at a lower price or forced them to export to EU using a third country also reducing their margin. The ban also dissuaded a number of countries from purchasing fishing licences from Sierra Leone, therefore depriving the country of consequent revenue (GoSL, Agenda for Change 2008).

b. The pivotal role of small scale fishery

In 2003 the Working Group on Small-Scale Fisheries meeting held in Bangkok, acknowledged the necessity of a unique definition concerning small scale fisheries (SSF's) (FAO 2005). The importance of small-scale fishery and its contribution to the development of several areas of a country was then established. At a national level, they can generate foreign exchange from

international trade. The international trade of fish increased considerably the last 30 years and SSFs play a growing part in stimulating fish exports and thus the GDP (FAO 2005). In order to function, fishery involves other activities and can therefore create a `trickle up' effect that benefits the national economy. Last but not least, SSFs contribute to the economy through the taxes. As we mentioned before, the fishery sector in Sierra Leone is mostly artisanal, employing small-scale fisherfolks³⁰. The production of such fisheries is intended for direct consumption, local or domestic markets, as only about 2.5% of small scale fishing is frozen and then destined to be sold on the global market (WorldFish Center 2017). Nonetheless, export have slowly increased in the past 30 years thanks to better market integration and globalization (FAO 2005).

c. Foreign-investments oriented policy

Despite the elaboration in 2007 of the Policy and Operational Framework for Fisheries of Sierra Leone which indicated a real willingness to take into account small-scale fisherfolks and to implement policies that include them in promoting sustainability, it would seem that the government is actually conducting a policy much more focused on relations with international firms especially from Asia and the European Union. Although the industrial sector is much smaller³¹, it seems to be favoured by the government in comparison to the artisanal sector which employs over half a million people (WorldFish Center 2011). Foreign investment is particularly considerable in the private sector. By selling important numbers of operating licences to Asian and European companies, the Government of Sierra Leone lets foreign companies take an increasingly important place in the private sector. Let us recall that the revenue generated by these licenses amounts to US$ 2.5 million, a significant financial windfall for Sierra Leone who needs serious inflows of money to face the aftermath of the Ebola crisis. The economic benefits created through the exploitation of fish stocks can restore economic growth and with it improve social development, reduce poverty and therefore food insecurity. If a government expects to rely on its renewable natural resources, it must first asses the value and the quantity which can be exploited in a sustainable manner in order for them to service the economy. When natural resources are discussed, a question often arises: why do countries with so much natural resources tend to have so little economic growth? This paradox called the `resource curse' or `paradox of plenty' (Frankel 2012) (Venables 2016) often occurs in developing countries like

Sierra Leone, which built their growth on their abundant natural resources, attracted by the rapid financial benefits. But in reality, for plenty of reasons development based on natural resource is fragile and unsustainable especially if the resources are not appropriately managed. Even though the industrial fishery sub-sector is smaller, it is more profitable and represents the backbone for revenue generation in the fishery sector (GoSL, Agenda for Change 2008).

Unlike what they announced EU-West African fisheries agreements did not improve the management of marine resources in West African waters. On the contrary, they contributed to the depletion of fish stocks, directly impacting the livelihoods of small scale fisherfolks. Established in 1976 by the European Council, there is two types of Community Fisheries Agreements (CFA). First, `mutual agreements' based on access rights exchanges and second, which define the conditions for the purchase of access rights to fishing areas under the sovereignty of non-member States. Since the first agreements was signed approximatively 700 vessels from the EU pay for permanent or temporary fishing licences in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of West African countries. These agreements are essentially built on make-believe that a better management scheme will be established but also that the new management scheme would effectively protect West African marine resources from overexploitation and illegal fishing practices. These kind of agreement only look to negotiation and indirectly control the marine resources of the countries they are in business with. Fishery regulations requires a considerable striking force. For legislations to be respected they must be legally enforceable. Numerous West African countries have concluded bilateral treaties with foreign countries and organizations such as the EU. These treaties are governed by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, meaning they are a matter of international law. In reality, we can observe that these agreements, which in theory should serve the interests of the nation, serve rather private interests (Pachauri, Jacquet et Tubiana 2011).

2. The necessity of a sustainable approach to fishery

«Government will therefore endeavour to manage the resources sustainably in order to derive maximum benefits, which will contribute towards food security for all Sierra Leoneans, and the reduction of poverty» (GoSL, Agenda for Change 2008)

a. Economic growth and sustainability

Previous policies were unsuccessful, inadequate and inefficient regarding the reduction of poverty and improvement of food security. In 2008, the government of Sierra Leone introduced a sustainable approach to the management scheme in order to exploit its fish resources to their fullest for as long as possible. The fishery sector in Sierra Leone can produce an annual economic return of an estimated US$ 59. That being said such an achievement depends greatly on adequate management. Two types of management scheme exist: type I and type II. The type I management scheme describes a use rights framework under which maximization of economic benefits is sought out. On the other hand, the type II management scheme describes a government-controlled top-down framework under which maximization of fish production is sought out. The type II management scheme is the most widespread. The issue with this scheme is that it generates slight to no economic rent. In the long term economic and biological overexploitation are to be expected when applying the type II scheme. Evidently, Sierra Leonean fisherfolks work «under weakly defined use-rights creating incentives to compete for fish catches and to build greater fishing capacity», inevitably leading to overfishing. Coincidentally, regulations implemented by the government usually fail to handle and oversee the asymmetry between fish stocks and the quantity fishers are actually extracting from the waters. Whereas in comparison, type I management scheme which are founded on «strong use-rights and stakeholder involvement, often involving collective action, have proved to be more successful in achieving productive and sustainable fisheries» (Neiland, et al. 2016). Poor management of the fishery sector results in loss in revenue and opportunity both economic and social. Today's fishery sector state is characterized by somewhat modest level of production, as well as moderate profitability. Adequate management plays a key role in generating more revenue, supporting the GDP and allowing for more employment and food security (NEPAD, Action Plan for the Environment Initiative 2003).The mismanagement of the fishery sector and unsustainable practices imply a depletion in fish stocks and wasted economic potential. Effectively, while benefits are large they won't sustain in the long run and do more harm than good to the natural resources. Type II management schemes while harmful in the long run are particularly attractive to countries like Sierra Leone, poor and in need of important cash flow especially in time of crisis. Drawing a comparison, with proper sustainable management, namely type I scheme, the fishery sector can perform much better and for a longer period. Investments of surplus can then lead to down-stream employment both in primary and

secondary employment (e.g. processing, marketing and trading) and also contribute to food security (FAO 2014).

b. The government's efforts toward sustainable fisheries

The elaboration and implementation of a sustainable policy requires the consultation of all stakeholders especially small scale fisherfolks who represent the majority of fisherfolks. In 2007, the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) changed its strategy and decided to revamp the Fishery Policy of Sierra Leone 2003 (FAO 2004). The new strategy, more inclusive towards fisherfolks, aimed at consulting them on policies and measures that would improve the fishery sector and consequently their livelihoods. The consultations were conducted for 3 years with the support of the Institute of Marine Biology and Oceanography, the EU and the FAO and led to multiple policy drafts. The by-product of this collaboration between stakeholders at local, national, and international level was the creation of the Policy and Operational Framework for Fisheries of Sierra Leone. This new groundwork's focal point was the commitment to sustainability of the marine resources in order to combat poverty and generate wealth for coastal populations (GoSL 2010).

Fishery was a lesser concern compared to agriculture and mining for economic growth, poverty alleviation and food security when the first poverty reduction strategy paper was written in 2001. At the time, achieving poverty reduction and food security went hand in hand with enhanced production of crop and fish to a lesser concern. As we demonstrated before, more food does not automatically mean less poverty and more food security. When the AfC was drafted, the fishery sector became a more important concern for the government, and the way the government perceived it evolved. Sierra Leone's fish production golden years came at the end of the 90's when peak production represented around 85 million tonnes. But since then production never ceased to decrease and in almost 40 years the stocks Sierra Leoneans are able to fish within biologically sustainable levels declined from 90% to 71%. Almost 30% of the fish stocks are estimated to be exploited at unsustainable level meaning overfishing (FAO 2014).

In the late 00's, fisherfolks started noticing a scarce fish supply and worried, this concern was translated in the second part of the AfC: `Strategic Priorities' more precisely in the third point `Enhancing Productivity in Agriculture and Fisheries'. In 2008, fishery contributed 8% of the

GDP and 15 to 20% of the domestic fish production. Realizing that the potential of the sector wasn't close to being fully explored the government expressed the will to better manage the sector and introduced a sustainability approach. The new poverty reduction paper A4P built on the work of the AfC and further established that, while the country needs to take advantage of its natural resources more, it should do so in a sustainable fashion. Fishery continued to concern the government and «sustainability issues have, rightly, risen up the agenda» (GoSL 2013).

Including the fishery sector in the latest PRSPs made possible the adoption of comprehensive policies which united sustainable management of natural resources with poverty reduction and economic growth. Sustainable fishery generate revenue to Sierra Leone and also benefits populations who depend on the fishery sector for employment and food. Therefore, the more sustainable-oriented the government policies and fisherfolks' practices are, the more we increase the economic potential of the sector, which will lead to poverty reduction and food insecurity in the long term.

II. Fishery, nutrition and income: focus on small-scale fisheries

The growing potential of the sector can possibly increase employment opportunities and food security if adequate and specific policies are implemented. Such policies must take into account all stakeholders including small scale fisherfolks in order to effectively improve their food security and reduce poverty in those communities.

1. Poverty alleviation through fishery activities

Poverty alleviation in the context of fisheries requires sustainable management of marine resources. After defining poverty and the concepts associated with it we will focus on the relation between sustainable management of fisheries and poverty reduction.

a. Concepts surrounding poverty

Dynamic and constantly evolving, fishery employs people fulltime, part-time, seasonally or even when individuals experience punctual reduced income. Small-scale fishery provides people in temporary need of quick cash a safety net. Vulnerable households when faced with economic stress such as loss of income or national economy destabilisation turn to small-scale fishery for an additional or alternative source of income (FAO 2005). The resilience to this type of behaviour among the poorest bears witness to the fact that fishing contributes to poverty reduction (FAO 2008). The UNDP described poverty in its 1997 report as:

«Poverty means that opportunities and choices most basic to human development are denied Ð to lead a long, healthy, creative life and to enjoy a decent standard of living, freedom, dignity, self-respect and the respect of others» (UNDP 1997)

The concept of poverty can also include several different forms of penury related to basic human needs such a s food security, dignity and decent work (OECD 2001). In the context of fishery, poverty reduction can be understood as:

«a process through which people are becoming measurably better off over time due to their involvement/investment in fisheries activities.» (FAO 2005)

Poverty can exist at 3 different but interconnected levels. First at household level, when income does not allow the enjoyment of a proper standard of living. Second, at community level and third at national level. Poverty studies and analysis in general but also in Sierra Leone misjudged the concept, regarding it as homogenous and capable of being applied uniformly to all. On the contrary, poverty is a complex concept especially when it comes to fisherfolks. For a long time, poverty research focused on income and assets that a lot of fisherfolks don't own. While they of course play a substantial role in their poverty their income is usually uncertain and seasonal (FAO 2008).

Poor people are more likely to be vulnerable given their limited capacity to cope with the shock of change in their situation and their lack of 'safety net'. They therefore depend highly on fishery for almost everything linked to their household and livelihood including food security. As they

tend to allocate up to two-thirds of their income on food (FAO 2017), its variation can lead to more or food security. Vulnerability happens when three conditions meet:

· Risk exposure: the kind of risk as well as the degree to which an individual, a household or a community is exposed

· Sensitivity to the risk in question: in the context of fishery, it is the degree of dependence an individual, a household or a community on the sector for wealth generation and food security

· Adaptive capacity: meaning the aptitude of an individual, a household or a community to deal with a shift in circumstances (Adger, et al. 2004).

Fishery can contribute both directly and indirectly to food security. The contribution is direct when fish is immediately used for food from the catch, fishery then represents the mean of subsistence. It also contributes indirectly through the income generated from being employed of selling your own production which is then used to buy food. It must be noted that due the asymmetry of demand compared to fish supply the prices of fish rose preventing low income populations from accessing their main source of protein. Therefore, people who purchase fish with their income have to allocate a greater part, leaving them with little for other expenses (FAO 2014). It is still unclear how the level of poverty impacts the proportion of the catch that is sold compared to the part consumed. Either way, it is commonly presumed that a larger portion is consumed than sold. What is clear one the other hand, is that the poorer the people are the larger the portion sold is. These people, then use the money to buy cheaper food as a coping mechanism. As a result, the direct contribution of fishery to food security with extremely poor people is lower, because they don't benefit from the fish's nutritional input (FAO 2005).

b. Sustainable fishery and poverty

The impact of fishery on food security pushed the government to take the issue more seriously, especially since the prices of fish increased putting more Sierra Leoneans in a vulnerable state of food security. Since 2008 and the publication of the AfC the government vowed to:

«endeavour to manage the resources sustainably in order to derive maximum benefits, which will contribute towards food security for all Sierra Leoneans, and the reduction of poverty.» (GoSL, Agenda for Change 2008)

According to the government's data some of Sierra Leone's poorest people live in coastal areas (GoSL 2005). Since the late 90's Sierra Leone has been part of the Sustainable fisheries livelihoods Programme in West and Central Africa (SFLP) a partnership between the FAO, the Department for International Development of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and 25 West African countries. Launched in 1999 and set to end in 2006, the SFLP intended to reduce poverty and improve the livelihood of coastal communities by targeting existent policies relating to SSFs. The action was founded on 4 principles: information, improvement, support and promotion each one involving institutions at different level of authority. In order to reduce poverty and improve the livelihood of coastal communities the SFLP, use the Sustainable Livelihood Approach and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) as a framework. The multilevel action of the SFLP made it rather effective by targeting issues at global, regional, national and local level (FAO 2008). Effectively as we said before, in 2008 the AfC largely included fishery and small-scale fishery in the PRSP, which was reprised later in 2013 in the A4P.

2. Small-scale fisheries

SSFs and the role they play in the economy, poverty reduction as well as improvement of food security is the subject of more attention at national but also global level. The conversations around SSFs emerged in the early 00's when the FAO started publishing reports about the predicaments of small-scale fisherfolks and became an important subject in 2008 with the first Global Conference on Small-Scale Fisheries organized by the FAO and held in Bangkok. Sierra Leone, included SSFs and fishery in its policies and PRSP substantially only in 2008 with the AfC. Today, SSFs are regulated at all levels more or less adequately. Notably, through The Code at international level but also the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), The Future We Want. The Future We Want is a document elaborated by 192 head of States and the international civil society, with the objective of supporting the sustainable use of natural resources amongst other goals. Reprising elements of the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VG Tenure), it is particularly important because it insists on the role of SSFs regarding sustainable development of fisheries, the participants committed to:

«observe the need to ensure access to fisheries, and the importance of access to markets, by subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fishers and women fish workers, as well as indigenous peoples and their communities particularly in developing countries, especially small island developing States.» (UN, The Future We Want 2012)

During the conference, the participants established the groundwork for the future Sustainable Development Goals which would eventually take shape 3 years later. (FAO 2014)

«The fish is produced in our waters and the people of Sierra Leone should have the first
option». (Charles Rogers, 2016)

In an effort to help the domestic fishery sector, the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Marine Resources (DMFMR) decide to impose a ban on fish exports. Authorities have suggested that the purpose of this ban was to anticipate an impending stock shortage (Cham 2016). However, the ban was short lived and lifted 19 days later. According to the DMFMR, the ban was short but efficient as domestic fish stocks replenished, but the benefits of the ban were never proven to be beneficial towards domestic fish market or fisherfolks. It also caused mixed responses. While some agreed with the DMFMR's statement others didn't appreciate the unexpected decision and a lack of communication about the ban lift caused fisherfolks to maintain it and therefore prevented themselves from selling the fish at a higher price (World Bulletin 2016).

3. Highly nutritious and important for vulnerable households

«Globally fish provides about three billion people with almost 20 percent of their average per capita intake of animal protein» (FAO 2014)

In Sierra Leone fish protein provides 80% of animal protein intake highlighting the importance of fish in Sierra Leoneans' diet (FAO 2004). New studies show that fisheries contribute in fact to the improvement of food security and nutrition while also pointing out the plausible risks of unsustainable practices (Srinivas, et al. 2010). Fish and fishery play a particularly important role in developing countries (FAO 2014). The average daily dietary input of fish is modest with about 33 calories per capita. Yet, in countries like Sierra Leone it can surpass 150 calories per

capita, especially when there are no other possibilities or when a fish preference has been adopted and upheld. Fish, shellfish and other by-products serve as a precious source of animal protein. The consumption of a portion as small as 150g can contribute to approximatively 50 to 60% of the required daily protein intake for an adult. Relatively poor fisherfolks depend largely on staple food and use fish to adjust the imbalance of their diet (FAO 2014). Rice, Sierra Leonean's favorited staple food make up the majority of their plate but lacks essential nutrients and fatty-acid provided by fish and fundamental for a healthy development. Micro-nutrients such as zinc, iron and vitamin A cannot be absorbed through rice consumption alone and have to be provided by fish (FAO 2005).

The Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines) were designed to promote and enhance the contribution of SSFs, increase public awareness about their plight, contribute to their development and poverty reduction, achieve sustainable use of natural resources and provide guidance to States and regional bodies. The SSF Guidelines reaffirm the necessity and decisiveness of fishery in guaranteeing food security and point out the disabling pressure and influence of other sectors as well as economically-oriented agendas as risks for fisherfolks (FAO 2015).

In order to develop the fishery sector and link it to another important sector the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had the idea to promote rice and fish farming systems in inland fisheries. Integrated rice-fish farming systems are proven to be sustainable but also productive. The allow farmers and fisherfolks involved to increase their income, and improve their diet (WorldFish Center 2015). The ancient technique used for centuries in Asia has demonstrated promising results in the West African region (FAO 2006). The development of integrated rice-fish farming allows for a diversification of crops and food consumption and therefore food security and self-sufficiency in both rice and fish.

Fish and other fish products represent a key to poverty reduction and food security improvement. Highly nutritious and accessible fish also provides the poorest communities employment and offers a security net to those momentarily in need of quick cash.

III. The governance of fishery: an accumulation of standards, treaties and agreements

The topic of fisheries governance at all levels seems relevant for the rest of this essay as it allows us to understand the current state of the fishery sector. We will focus here on the details and analyse the regulations in place to evaluate their relevance, effectiveness in fighting unsustainable practices and their coherence.

1. The international and regional governance of fisheries

International institutions in cooperation with regional bodies have established the regulations that are in place and have led to the state of the fisheries sector as we know it today. As always, the FAO leads discussions surrounding fisheries and produced numerous plan of action, codes and technical guidelines that inspired other levels of governance to establish like-minded documents.

The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries elaborated by the 170 States Members and based on major international documents³² had two main objectives. First, a change in practices to go towards more sustainable and rational use of marine resources; and second, the involvement of all stakeholders in the decision-making process (FAO 1995). While it continues to be the reference document regarding the sustainable management of fisheries for all levels of governance (FAO 2014), The Code fails to address new concerns that are now undertaken in more recent documents. The dangerously unsustainable size of the international fleet has raised concerned worldwide in the late 90's and led to the drafting of the International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity (FAO 1999). Subsequently, countries have vowed to reduce their national fleet by setting targets. This document also led countries to impose restrictions regarding their IEZ for certain boats and equipment. Yet, while the number of fishing vessels decline in areas they increased in others (FAO 2014). This is particularly the case in West Africa where vessels from North America, Western Europe and South Asia are pouring in. Following the overexploitation of their own marine resources they now operate in large numbers in West African waters. Industrial boats such as trawlers especially Korean ones

³² The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (1993)

have been accused and found guilty of fishing too close to Sierra Leoneans' coasts violating the 5 miles IEZ in place³³. As of 2014, the FAO produced close to 30 technical guidelines to support fisherfolks and governments in the implementation of the Code and the improvement of their practices.

The United Nations, through the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, always encourages the cooperation between countries especially regionally in order to implement more tailored policies and boost regional activity (UN 1982). This initiative comes from the observation that regional and sub-regional management has more potential and is more effective. Regional Fishery Bodies (RFB) are first in line when it comes to the regional management and monitoring of fisheries. They represent a useful tool for countries who wish to secure their marine resources. They have proved to be so crucial to the combat against unsustainable practices. Approximatively 50 RFBs exists and are playing the role of facilitator between the FAO and the States. In 2013, the UN General Assembly Resolution on Sustainable Fisheries³⁴ established the obligation of States to cooperate and become members of a Regional Fisheries Management Organization (RFMO) in order to be in compliance with international law³⁵. In that sense Sierra Leone is part of regional and sub-regional organizations and unions that tackle more or less issues related to fisheries: the Economic Organization of West African States (ECOWAS) that established in 2015 the West Africa Regional Food Security Reserve (RFSR); the Fisheries Committee of the West Central Gulf of Guinea (FCWC) and the Manu River Union (MRU) with Ivory Coast, Guinea and Liberia.

In Africa, the Economic, environmental, and social evaluation of Africa's small-scale fisheries report published by the World Bank in 2015, acts as a reference document for the regional conduct of FAO policies. The objective of the report was to determine the link between the quality of governance and SSFs performance. It was concluded that fisheries with tenure systems allowed for more earnings among SSFs. Tenure rights in fishery establishes how fisherfolks but also companies or cooperatives access marine resources. Introducing tenure rights in SSFs can secure their rights or acquire new ones and therefore allow them to operate

³⁴ A/RES/68/71 - Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and related instruments.

without the constraint of uncertainty regarding their catch and whether they are violating laws or not. Tenure rights in the context of fishery is inefficient in areas where national and regional governance is of poor quality or nonexistent (World Bank 2015). In Sierra Leone tenure rights in the context of fisheries is not as developed as tenure rights for land and the only regulation protecting SSF is the IEZ which allocate space exclusively dedicated to small scale fisherfolks but not to specific communities. The poor governance of tenure right in fisheries allows for illegal fishing and limits the legal remedies coastal communities can access (FAO 2014). The current document dealing with tenure rights in the context of fisheries is the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forest in the Context of National Food Security produced in 2012 (FAO 2012). RFB and national bodies are encouraged to cooperate and build on these guidelines to implement them and produce similar documents adapted to the specificities of each region and sub-region.

The capacity of Sierra Leone to implement and enforce international and regional policies remains limited. The MFMR is currently unable to efficiently implement and enforce policies regarding the protection of SSFs and monitoring of marine resources due to scarce manpower and disorganization (Neiland, et al. 2016). After a review conducted by experts the Management and Functional Review concluded that : «The capacity and capability of the Ministry in 2012 has barely changed from its 2006 levels . It remains woefully under Ð capacity» (GoSL 2012). The MFMR is the main body that manages the implementation and monitoring of fisheries in Sierra Leone.

2. The local governance of fishery in Sierra Leone: a clear framework

The current framework originated in 2007 when the MFMR decided to revamp the former Fishery Policy of Sierra Leone 2003 (GoSL 2003). This ambition led to the creation of the Institutional Support for Fisheries Management Project (ISFM) in cooperation with the EU and Institute of Marine Biology and oceanography (IMBO). The ISFM in consultation with all kinds of stakeholders drafted a number of policies that assembled became the current framework. Policy and Operational Framework for Fisheries of Sierra Leone is the current reference document for fishery management in Sierra Leone. The main focus is the sustainable management of marine resources with the objective of reducing poverty by creating wealth and improving food security especially for SSF (GoSL 2010). With this new framework the

government of Sierra Leone reoriented its approach from «production-oriented and technology-driven» (Neiland, et al. 2016) to a sustainability and development approach, matching the global impetus. The government of Sierra Leone hopes to promote sustainable practices amongst the fishing community and coupled with better governance generate substantial profit in order to reach its goal of improving the overall food security and reduction of poverty. The new framework of fisheries is regarded as largely coherent with clear-cut and straightforward objectives. However, concerns are raised about the integration within the same framework of artisanal and industrial fishing.

The accumulation of documents dedicated to the governance of fisheries at all levels of governance creates a global blur set of regulations that is hardly implemented at national level. Sierra Leone's MFMR remains heavily limited by its little logistical resources and therefore is unable to implement and enforce policies established in cooperation with the FAO or RFB. While the national framework for fisheries management is clearly designed corruption cripples the proper functioning of the institutions and the government remains unable to manage the natural resource with transparency.

Conclusion of the second part

Despite the high potential of the fishery sector the government neglected to take full advantage of it when the first PRSP were drafted. With the growing interest of foreign investors, the Sierra Leone government decided to take a necessary interest. As the national economy is supported by 10fishery at the rate of 10%, overlooking the sector means overlooking millions of Sierra Leoneans who depend on fishery and marine resources for or income whether directly or indirectly. Like all other natural resources fishery requires a sustainable management in order to take reap all the benefits. Sustainable management is all the more crucial because unsustainable practices lead to the overexploitation of fish stocks. A depletion of fish stocks translates into less fish for coastal communities and therefore a rise in the number of poor and food insecure population. The depletion over fish stocks is all the more concerning because of the importance of fisheries. Aware of the key role it plays, the government is relying more and more on the fishing sector to alleviate the socio-economic problems it faces.

PARTIE III - The mechanisms of Ocean Grabbing

Though global «land rush» is known and highly documented, what can be described as a global «ocean rush» is less studied and denounced despite its equally harmful consequences on marine natural resources and the people who exploit these resource for a living (Barbesgaard 2017). As of 2014, it was estimated that a quarter of all marine catches were from non-African vessels, further demonstrating the hearing of ocean grabbing (FAO 2014). The governance of fisheries is crucial in combatting ocean grabbing and its mechanisms. Unfortunately, Sierra Leone's actual fisheries state of governance undermines the contribution of the sector to food security. The primary threats undermining the contribution of fisheries to food security is the ineffective management coupled with poor conservation of marine habitats.

I. Ocean Grabbing: discourses and reality

Ocean grabbing is a recent phenomenon which in a similar way to land grabbing attacks marine resources in order to transform them into a financial manna by overlooking the regulations in place.

1. Ocean grabbing: definition and consequences

The term ocean grabbing has been used to describe actions, policies or initiatives that deprives small-scale fishers of resources, dispossess vulnerable populations of coastal lands, and/or undermine historical access to areas of the sea (James Benett, Govan et Satterfield 2015). The expression is designed to highlight the mechanisms that critically affect fisherfolks. Tenure systems in place for generations are overlooked and the economic power is transferred to powerful actors who neglect small stakeholders in making decisions that impact their livelihood (Franco, et al. 2014). Back in October 2012, Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations Special rapporteur on the right to food, addressed the implication and risks that ocean grabbing represent for food security. He appealed to world leaders and international bodies to put an end to the overexploitation of fish stocks, and urgently carry out actions to protect, sustain, and share the benefits of fisheries. According to him, without quick and effective actions to halt unsustainable practices, fishery will not be able to play its major role in securing food for millions. He also stresses that because the agricultural sector is continuously under pressure,

populations tend to look to water bodies for their share of protein products. And then, urges governments to change their policies in order to practice fishery more sustainably, stressing on the importance of SSFs. The major challenge for Mr. De Schutter is:

«To ensure coexistence between industrial fishing and the rights of small-scale fishers and coastal communities - for whom even occasional fishing can constitute an essential safety net in times of crisis». (De Schutter 2012)

For stakeholders who are in favour of ocean grabbing, the general discourses claim that food production needs to be expended to satisfy the world's fast growing population but also that overexploitation of marine resources has to stop and needs to be protected. While these arguments are true, here they mask a hidden agenda. Indeed, they serve another purpose, one that will benefit the private sectors. Governments are blamed for their inability to manage fishery and marine resources, which pushes for the implementation of policies and reforms established on the privatization of fisheries (Franco, et al. 2014).

Ocean grabbing inevitably entails the destruction of marine resources and jeopardizes the subsistence of SSFs. The consequences on the socio-economic fabric of Sierra Leone are undeniable. SSF represent the backbone of an entire sector that contributes to 10% of the economy in Sierra Leone. The spreading of ocean grabbing can have highly detrimental effects on the whole country, making millions of people even more vulnerable to food insecurity and subsequently depriving them of their livelihood. Ocean grabbing is most concerning in regards to traditional owners who constitute the most vulnerable of the vulnerable communities (Franco, et al. 2014).

Ocean grabbing can be realized through different mechanisms, and motivated by two main drivers which are global demand and development pressure. As we mentioned earlier, the demand for fish and other sea food is on the rise in Europe, Asia and North America which represent the biggest markets for fish exports. This increased demand encouraged developed countries to establish distant water fleets in West Africa following a massive fish stocks depletion in their own coasts (Gagern et Van Den Bergh 2013). In response, West African countries saw an opportunity to boost their economy and developed an exports-oriented fishery sector (Pauly, Watson et Alder 2005). To evaluate if an initiative constitutes or not ocean grabbing we must consider 3 criteria : the negative effect produced; the lowered quality of life

encompassing poverty, food security and livelihood; and the condition of local governance (Franco, et al. 2014).

2. The role of institutions

Eminent international institutions such as the World Bank play a key role in the perpetuation of Ocean Grabbing through their views on the management of natural resources and their economical bias. The World Bank launched the Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO) with the advertised goal of bringing oceans back to health (Global Partnership for Oceans 2014), with a budget of US$ 1.5 billion over the course of 5 years, making it the biggest programme dealing with fisheries to this day. The GPO has been presented as a programme with the pretence of being the new alliance that will govern issues surrounding fisheries and marine resource management. Additionally, it was built by a limited number of stakeholders without substantial consultation and inclusion of fisherfolks (Franco, et al. 2014).

The African equivalent of the GPO is the Africa Program for Fisheries, which naturally was the product of the collaboration between the World Bank, African leaders through the African Union and the New Economic Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad). The Africa Program for Fisheries is the extension of the GPO on the African continent, despite the announced goal of sustainability, as once again, these institutions failed to involve the primarily concerned and pushed for a privatization of fishery sectors across Africa (FAO et NEPAD 2014).

Ocean grabbing by creating a discourse of protection is indulging on the contrary and overexploiting marine resources. Those who perpetuate ocean grabbing play with the laws in place, bypass them and violate them, thereby depriving coastal communities of their livelihood. The role of major institutions such as the World Bank is disappointing and not very relevant in the fight against ocean grabbing partly because it does not take into account the voice of fishing communities who are nevertheless the first concerned.

II. Blue growth: the fine line between business and ocean grabbing

The FAO has taken a leading role in the management and governance of blue growth. It has turned it into a real financial resource with networks, groups of experts and specialised regional and sub-regional bodies. Although it promotes the protection of this new economic opportunity, the practices surrounding blue growth seem to bear witness to this differently.

Founded on the principles of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication, Blue Growth is an economic approach developed by the FAO. It aims at sustainably developing what is called the `blue economy', referring to natural resources as well as creating jobs in fisheries (World Bank 2017). The concept of `blue economy' emerged in 2012 during the Rio+20 Conference and describes an ocean-based economy which stresses on the necessity of `healthy' oceans for more productivity and profit (FAO 2014). The blue economy offers employment to around 5 million people worldwide and creates close to US$ 580 billion a year with a yet to be exploited potential (European Commission Maritime Affairs 2018). Blue Growth intends to better exploit the potential of marine resources with a strategy built on three focuses: put an end to destructive fishing practices like overfishing and Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing by promoting sustainability; implement cooperative measures with developing countries; encourage the development of similar policies in favour of sustainable management, food security and poverty reduction. The FAO, aims at establishing institutions and mechanisms that set up common standards for more compelling actions at both international and national level. The organisation looks to help countries identify the issues standing in the way of improving food security and poverty reduction and then support them in implementing adequate policies (FAO, Policy Support and Governance s.d.).

«Talk of the ocean as a new economic frontier, of a new phase of industrialization of the seas, will become widespread in 2016» (Goddard s.d.)

2015 marked a renewed interest in oceans as their economic potential and financial benefits were now asserted. Multiple forums, meetings and conferences were subsequently organized around the concept of `blue economy' and how countries can obtain blue growth. Instead of

realizing how incompatible blue growth and natural resources conservation are, partisans of this new approach prefer to see in it only solutions and win-win situations. Similar to land grabbing, ocean grabbing is permitted and justified for its supposed positive contribution whilst contributing to everything that goes against what it supposedly defends: the conservation and sustainable management of marine resources (Borras, et al. 2018).

During the Rio+20 summit, when blue growth gained important momentum, 4 different discourses were identified. First, that oceans are natural capital; second, that oceans and their natural resources were profitable; third, that they are non-dissociable from small island developing States; and last that they are the mean of subsistence of small-scale fisherfolks. Blue growth then proceeds to provide answers to all of the issues that come with each discourse. The marginalisation and inequalities that small island and small-scale fisherfolks face is a shared focal point that blue growth proposes to solve by implementing a human right-based approach with the support from NGO's and fisher organisations (Barbesgaard 2017).

The Rio+20 represents a real milestone that launched a series of initiates facilitating the implementation of blue growth. The most important and the first of its kind was FAO's own Blue Growth Initiative (BGI) introduced in 2013. The FAO's definition of blue growth reads as follows:

«The sustainable growth and development emanating from economic activities in the oceans,
wetlands and coastal zones, that minimize environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and
unsustainable use of living aquatic resources, and maximize economic and social benefits»
(FAO 2015)

This definition is particularly interesting in the way it approaches each of the 4 discourses by combining them. The aim is to be able to respond to the associated problems and to present BGI as a comprehensive and effective approach that can both identify problems related to the ocean's natural resources and provide answers. BGI also insist on the importance of `meaningful partnerships' that prevent groups from taking over. This commitment hints that civil society and small stakeholders are taken into account and treated like primordial actors. Nonetheless, some are opposed to this approach and have expressed their discontentment. World Forum of Fisher Peoples and the World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fish Workers, have openly

criticised blue growth in general for the lack of actual involvement of small stakeholders (Barbesgaard 2017).

While blue growth was rightfully promoted as the new way to make profit off of natural resources, the sustainable management it requires is completely disregarded. The role of the FAO is therefore one of an enabler of overexploitation. In complete paradox with what it advances, the practices that surround blue growth are in every way similar to ocean grabbing, far removed from the discourse on sustainability that it continues to deliver.

III. The issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing

«In Africa's coastal waters, IUU fishing has reached epidemic proportions. This plunder
destroys entire coastal communities when they lose the opportunities to catch, process and
trade. Commercial trawlers that operate under flags of convenience, and unload in ports that
do not record their catch, are engaging in organised theft disguised as commerce.» (Kofi
Annan 2014)

1. Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing: consequences and response to a widespread practice

Approximatively 20% of the fish caught worldwide is likely to be from IUU fishing, this represents an annual value of US$ 17 billion (Agnew, et al. 2009). West African bountiful waters draw foreign vessels mostly from the EU and Asia that seek to satisfy the growing demand of their domestic market (FAO 2014). A handful of them illegally operate on West African waters using unsustainable and dangerous technics that encourage the depletion of fish stocks and jeopardize the existence of SSF (Daniels, et al. 2016).

According to the FAO close to 75% of fish stocks are entirely exploited while 30% are overexploited worldwide. The overexploitation is a direct consequence of the extensive size of the world's fleet. As of 2016, the size if the world's fleet was 2.5 times bigger than the `sustainable extraction level' that corresponds to the regeneration rate of fish (Daniels, et al. 2016). US$ 27 billion are estimated to be spent by coastal countries on subsides and taxes exemptions. In Sierra

Leone, the government introduced investment incentives in multiple sectors including fishery, that allow foreign investors to be completely exempt from taxes for up to ten years (Leone s.d.). These subsidies and tax exemption embolden those who practice IUU and diminishes efforts to reduce and ultimately put an end to it. In addition, industrial fishing technics such as trawling threatens the marine biodiversity by scraping seas beds and therefore destroying the habitats of many species leading to a decreased availability of fish altogether. What is most concerning being that trawlers are essentially foreign, this means that besides damaging the coastal environment they also take away from Sierra Leoneans SSFs a significant part of the available marine resources. As a result, it is estimated that only about 2% of the wealth originating from fishery went to Sierra Leoneans (World Bank 2017).

The mismanagement and overexploitation of West African fishery resources led to ravaging socio-economic repercussions and SSFs with the culture and traditions that come with them are disappearing (Daniels, et al. 2016). The MFMR stressed that Sierra Leone lost about US$ 29 million every year due to IUU (GoSL, Agenda for Change 2008). The impact is most visible in SSFs who represent the largest part of the fishing population and is also the most vulnerable to any kind of disturbance, to this extent IUU fishing affect SSF first. With their large contribution to employment, the economy and food security their destabilisation can have major implication for the country as a whole (FAO et NEPAD 2014). Artisanal fisherfolks who abide by the rules established by the MFMR end up making less money as a result of not only illegal but unfair practices. Part of the fish and fishery products obtained from IUU fishing end up in the local market at low prices, establishing an unfair competition for SSFs. While those who practice IUU manage to make profit because they do not pay taxes, the SSFs are imposed low and disloyal prices (Daniels, et al. 2016). Therefore, IUU fishing risks leaving small-scale fisherfolks' in an exacerbated socioeconomic state where their livelihood and food security are threatened (FAO 2014).

On the island of Sherbo, the Boho people, a small fishing community are regularly confronted with what they call a `blackface'. The `blackface' is a reference to South Korean trawlers that fish close to the coast, damaging the Boho people's artisanal fishing equipment. They reported that since `blackfaces' started operating close to their island, local fish stocks were noticeably low and fishing enough to get by became difficult as there were forced to go into deeper waters.

They small boats become more dangerous as they sail into deep waters and their costs rise because of an increased use of gas. The Boho people declared that South Korean vessels frequently entered the 6 miles-zone violating regulations established by the government. Sierra Leone introduced a 6 miles-zones from the shore exclusively reserved for artisanal fisherfolks in order to preserve their livelihood. On top of illegally fishing in a reserved area, South Korean fishers don't declare their catch to local authorities and tranship the fish onto reefers in order to escape any kind of payment. As a consequence of the widespread practice of IUU by South Korean vessels, the EU put South Korea in its IUU blacklist back in 2013 (Rahimi Midani et Lee 2016). Some fishermen feel so helpless in the face of the state's inability to act that they come to regret the civil war during which boats of this type fled the Sierra Leonean coasts (Daniels, et al. 2016) (Hyun-ju 2018).

The strategy against IUU is mostly developed in the A4P through pillar n°1 and 2 with the goal of promoting and enforcing sustainable fishing practices. Sierra Leone's government plans to establish Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and create a local authority whose main role is the monitoring of IUU. But to this day, those initiatives remain ineffective due to lack of proper and clear definition and weak governance. Despite unprecise statistics it appears that the overexploitation of most fish species leads to the unsatisfying economic benefits generated through fishery. The MFMR is the reference managing body which concentrates on issuing fishing licenses instead of allocating resources to combat IUU also lacks manpower to enforce legislations.

2. How rules are bent: lack of compliance and legal loopholes

Foreign vessels operate off Sierra Leone's shores with little regard for the illegal nature of their actions and the consequences they entail. This pattern of behaviour has been encouraged by the lack of technical means, the development illegal ways to bypass the law and the sometimes lenient local authorities.

A substantial number of foreign vessels practice transhipment, a practice that consists of loading the catch onto another boat immediately without having to dock in a local port. The

fish is then transported in reefers (large refrigerated boats) to the UE or Asia. Transhipment partly happens in EEZs when the practice is forbidden. About 16% of West Africa's fish exports occurs through reefers and 84% through refrigerated containers. While transhipment and the use of reefers is regulated, refrigerated containers aren't. Refrigerated containers aren't subject to any regulations from the EU, and according to reports most Asian countries who import fish from West Africa. They escape all regulations, verifications and monitoring set up by the countries of departure and arrival (Daniels, et al. 2016).

Joint ventures are a common alternative when it comes to IUU. West African companies will establish a joint venture with a foreign economic partner. This way foreign vessels can be re-flagged as a local vessels and enjoy the benefits of the status (Daniels, et al. 2016).

Illegal fishing also operates in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) and represent another way to bypass national laws. Commonly called `high seas' ABNJ start where EEZ end and are under no specific jurisdiction and constitute more than half of the surface of oceans and 95% of their volumes. The legal void that surrounds ABNJ is a definite threat to the fisherfolks who witness the depletion of the natural resources they rely being overexploited without legal consequences for the perpetrators (FAO 2014).

Attempts at implementing and enforcing any king of regulation concerning IUU is undermined by corruption. Most West African, amongst which Sierra Leone, request the presence of an inspector whose task is to verify that the catch is in fact legal and that all regulations are being respected. Unfortunately, it often happens that inspectors are paid by the foreign operators, this means that the inspector must give a positive report or he won't be paid. In 2017, Sierra Leone ranked 130 out of 180 in the Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index³⁶, with a score of 30 which is lower than the 32 score of Sub-Saharan Africa (Transparancy International 2018). Furthermore, in rare occurrences where foreign operators were prosecuted, fines are not dissuasive (Daniels, et al. 2016).

³⁶ Corruption Perception Index: measures corruption in 180 countries, using a score which goas from 0 `highly corrupt' to 100 `very clean'.

3. The efforts introduced to combat IUU

IUU is a set of illegal practices related to fishing that threatens coastal communities by depriving them of the fish they require to feed themselves whether directly as food or indirectly through sale. Global and regional efforts to tackle IUU has been orchestrated by the FAO who encouraged cooperation between fishery bodies.

a. The global response to IUU fishing

FAO State Members adopted in 2001 the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU) a document designed as the framework for future regional and national plans to eliminate IUU. Regional and national organisations and governments are encouraged to use the IPOA-IUU to shape a similar plan in accordance to the specificities of their country. IPOA-IUU particularly stresses on the importance of Regional Fishery Bodies in organizing the implementation of such policies. The FAO works closely with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in combatting IUU. This collaboration led to the reform of the IMO Ship Identification Numbering Scheme in order complete it and to make it more efficient (FAO 2014). A consequential portion of fish caught in West Africa is illegally transhipped and directly exported. This led to the setting up of an enhanced system of regulation knows as the Port State Measures (PSM). PMS is a set of rules that a foreign vessel must comply with in order to dock and use the port, such as notification prior to arrival (WorldFish Center 2017).

Unfortunately, the accumulation of various treaties and agreements is contributing to the apparent opacity of the regulations. Additionally, the multiplication of international actors who are trying to establish themselves as reference authorities on issues surrounding fishery regulation and more particularly IUU is supporting the failure of these efforts. Even if the FAO seems to dominate these issues, it is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that governs anything relating to oceans. UNCLOS' most important contribution is the creation of the EEZ, a 200 nautical miles strip around the coasts of a State that falls under its jurisdiction (Daniels, et al. 2016). Also attempts made to establish a common system of registration in order to identify and tag vessels who practice IUU fishing received little success. Interpol is the actual

international law enforcement agency reference supervising IUU isn't up to date on the practices used, nor are other initiatives or programs.

b. Regional efforts towards ending IUU

In West Africa however strong the governance of fishery is, it always seems to consider SSFs as a priority. In 2010 the World Bank launched a sub-regional initiative dedicated to West Africa. The World Bank's West Africa Regional Fisheries Program (WARFP)'s ambition is to «increase the economic contribution» of SSF «through strengthened fisheries management and governance» in order to «reduced illegal fishing, and increased local value added to fish products» (World Bank 2017). The government of Sierra Leone created the Inshore Exclusive Zone, a 6 nautical miles strip from the shore entirely reserved to SSF where large boats, like trawlers are expressively prohibited from entering and fishing. In cooperation with neighbouring countries like Liberia a monitoring programme was also created to enhance the effectiveness and help law enforcement. Thanks to these initiatives a slight improvement in fish catch has been perceived by SSFs. With help from the World Bank an array of Adaptable Program Loans (APLs) were introduced in West Africa in order to boost the cooperation between countries regarding fishery governance and regulations with the end goal of sustainable exploitation of marine resources. To facilitate and meet this goal a Joint Maritime Commission (JMC) was established and specifically designed to answer the problematic of IUU in West Africa. Results appear satisfying as in 2012 Sierra Leone managed to generate US$ 2 million in IUU fines but the practice persists and SSF are still suffering from the consequences (World Bank 2013).

While about 6 million fisherfolks live in precarious conditions in Africa, facing poverty and food insecurity, fishery generates millions in revenue and crucial source of nutriments (FAO 2014). Since Sierra Leone was declared Ebola free, the National Ebola Recovery Strategy has been integrating the rehabilitation of the fishing sector with an emphasis on artisanal fisheries as part of a more general economic growth plan. This rehabilitation requires all the more so rational and inclusive management that the government is struggling to put in place despite its efforts. Indeed, efforts led by the government for development of fisheries is despite the stated goals directed towards the private sector and foreign investment (World Bank 2015).

The omnipresence of illegal fishing facilitated by the weak governance of fishery in West Africa as well as in Sierra Leone despite initiatives are disrupting the efforts made towards poverty reduction and food security for vulnerable communities like small scale fisherfolks.

IUU is facilitated by poor governance of States, which is itself due to their lack of manpower and financial resources but also in some cases to laxity encouraged by corruption.

IV. The violation of the right to food

Ocean grabbing in the form of illegal fishing or even fisheries agreement that perpetuate unsustainable use of marine resources, deprive fisherfolks of their mean of subsistence. By doing so, they also deprive those communities of their right to food. The right to food is universally recognized both at a global level by international organizations through various documents and at national level in Sierra Leone through the constitution.

1. The concept of right to food: a comprehensive definition

Usually interpreted as the `right to feed oneself', the right to food is a fundamental human right established by the United Nations more than 50 years ago and globally recognized by most countries. The violation of the right to food occurs when economic interest surpasses the respect of fundamental human right (Golay et Ozden 2005).

The definition of right to food was shaped by former special rapporteur on the right to food Jean Ziegler who build on the definitions present in the International Bill of Human Rights³⁷ drafted more than 50 years before. Jean Ziegler understands the right to food as:

³⁷ International Bill of Human Rights is a document produced by the UN General Assembly in 1948 through the Resolution 217. It includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) with its two Optional Protocols.

« the right to have regular, permanent and free access, either directly or through purchase, to
quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food, that is in line with the cultural
traditions of the people» (Ziegler, Golay et Mahon, The Fight for the Right to Food: Lessons
Learned 2011)

In addition to the access to food he also considers the access to any kind of resource that can benefit the people and insure their subsistence. Hence, the right to food includes but is not restricted to, the access to land, clean water, technology, the guarantee of property or traditional fishing areas for fisherfolks who depend on it for their subsistence (Ziegler, Golay et Mahon, The Fight for the Right to Food: Lessons Learned 2011).

The right to food therefore includes two main components: availability and access to food. Food must be available directly, becoming a source a food or through natural resources being sold in order to generate income that will then be used to purchase food. Access to food is both physical and economic. Everyone should have access including vulnerable people to `sufficient and adequate food'. The access to food and people's diet should not be limited by their income. The spending of an individual, a household or a community should not be limited by the proportion they have to allocate to food leading to a lower level of health, education or housing. Be as we mentioned before poor households in Sierra Leone allocate more than two thirds of their income in food items. This is especially true in coastal communities whose income are becoming more uncertain with time. The link between the right to food and food security comes from shared components. The right to food incorporates all the components of food security and combines them to accountability (Ziegler, Golay et Mahon, The Fight for the Right to Food: Lessons Learned 2011).

2. The recognition and obligations related to the concept of the right to food

The recognition of the right to food is essential in allowing States to put it into action. This recognition was first given by the United Nations and then taken up by the regional and national bodies in different ways.

a. The recognition of the concept: a step towards achieving food security

i. The United Nation: the pioneer of the concept

The right to food is a fundamental human right that is recognized at every level of governance. The most recent document acknowledging it is the FAO in the Voluntary guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security. But the first most important body to recognize the right to food was the UN General Assembly through a series of documents complied in the International Bill of Human Rights of 1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the first document to recognize the right to food and gave it momentum for years to come. In its Article 25.1 the UDHR reads:

«Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of
himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary
social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability,
widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control» (UN
1948)

The strength and advantages of the UDHR lies in the fact that it is accepted by all States, including Sierra Leone. Some 20 years later the UN reaffirmed the right to food through the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966 through the Article 11 `Right to an adequate standard of living'. States Parties to the ICESCR acknowledge the existence of economic, social and cultural rights amongst which the right to food. By signing and ratifying the ICESCR State Parties committed to do everything in their power to ensure:

«The right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions» as well as «the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger» (UN 1966)

The treaties above-mentioned are legally binding and all State Parties are obliged to implement and put them into action.

30 years later, the Committee on economic, social and cultural rights (CESCR) General

Comment n°12 added the dimension of dignity to the definition, stating that it was inseparable from the intrinsic dignity of human beings and is imperative for the realization of other fundamental human rights (CESCR 1999).

The international recognition of the right to food led regional and national bodies to take notice and also recognize and implement it in their constitution, treaties or agreements.

The right to food was recognized at different levels on the African continent, as well as in Sierra Leone. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, the specialized body of the African Union, produced two documents concerning fundamental human rights: the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHP)³⁸ in 1981 and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC) of 1990. The government of Sierra Leone ratified both Charters, respectively in 1983 and 2002. Unfortunately, both of them do not explicitly reference to the right to food but instead to other fundamental human rights that can be assimilated to it. However, the Article 60 of the ACHP stipulates the obligation for its State Members to respect their international commitment. This obligation automatically leads to the recognition of the right to food as all States are States Members of the UDHR (Ziegler, Golay et Mahon 2011).

In Sierra Leone the right to food is recognized in the 1991 Constitution using 3 different ways. First, through other fundamental rights such as «the opportunity for securing adequate means of livelihood as well as adequate opportunities to secure suitable employment» in the Article 8. Second, through the integration of international treaties and agreement directly in their internal legal order. The Article 10 of the Sierra Leonean Constitution expressively stipulates «the respect for international law and treaty obligations» (GoSL 1991), which means that as a State party to the UDHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the government of Sierra Leone indirectly recognizes and is committed to implement the right to food. To this day, the only clear reference to the right to food by a Sierra Leonean official statesperson or document was in 2002 when former president Alhaji Dr Ahmad Tejan Kabbah addressed the citizens of Sierra Leone following his re-election. He stated:

³⁸ Also known as the Banjul Charter, in reference to Banjul, Gambia, the headquarters of African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.

«Fellow Sierra Leoneans, my own principal objective on this second leg of our journey
together is also centred on a basic human right Ñ the right to food. So, today, with the new
mandate you have given me I should make another pledge. This time I pledge to work even
harder, and with greater resolve, to do everything in my power to ensure that within the next
five years no Sierra Leonean should go to bed hungry» Alhaji Dr Ahmad Tejan Kabbah Oath
of office, 2002

Despite this statement and the subsequent creation of a Right to Food Secretariat in 2005³⁹, the right to food is absent from the PRSP or any other important official document since 2008⁴⁰ and the right to food of fisherfolks continues to be violated through the many forms of ocean grabbing.

b. The State' obligations

Recognizing the right to food is a first step but without actual implementation and practice it remains meaningless. It is not enough to simply recognize the right to food, States also have the obligation to facilitate its realisation. The States' obligations towards the right to food are established by monitoring bodies at three levels of governance, which means that States partly elaborated these obligations themselves. States are essentially obligated to respect, protect, implement, facilitate and give access to the right to food. By respecting the right to food States pledge, for example, not to engage in economic policies that will ultimately lead to the loss of livelihood or habitat without proper compensation. Those affected by such actions should be able to find an alternative way to access adequate food (Ziegler et Golay 2005). The protection of the right to food forces States to prevent the violation of the right to food by a third party such as another State or a company. States should always look for ways to protect the access of food for populations. The implementation of the right to food means facilitating and actually giving access to food. States have various ways of implementing the right to food. They have the possibility to directly translate into their national legislation international documents that recognize the right to food. They can also write the concept in their Constitution as either a

³⁹ A creation of the PRSP «A National Programme for Food Security, Job Creation and Good Governance» 20052007 that was estblished while Alhaji Dr Ahmad Tejan Kabbah was in office.

⁴⁰ When Alhaji Dr Ahmad Tejan Kabbah's term expired and a new government was elected.

fundamental human right or a principal of its own; or as part of a fundamental human right or a principal (Ziegler, Golay et Mahon 2011).

In practice, the right to food is adopted in national legislation through 5 different ways. First, States can directly translate international agreements and treaties into their internal legal order. Second by the explicit mention of the right to food in the Constitution as a fundamental right. Third, by its mentions as a principal or a social and political objective. Fourth, by assimilating the right to food with another fundamental right or principal or socio-political objective. And last, by guarantying elements of the right to food such as the right to land or water.

3. Governance of the right to food

Despite the recognition of the right to food by the majority of States, its implementation in regional and national practices and regulations as well as its application are subject to differences according to the States and the degree of importance given to it in the documents that recognize it.

a. Monitoring mechanisms

Monitoring mechanisms give people who have been the victim of a violation of their right to food a way to have their rights recognized and enforced and to seek redress. In the case of fisheries, communities driven out of their traditional and customary land and fishing sites can appeal to the authorities in charge. Practically speaking, chances of reparations are slim and depend largely on the quality of the monitoring mechanism and sometimes also on the will of the authorities in charge to pursue the case. Generally, the violation of the right to food is perpetrated by the government or a foreign firm. Either way, it's the government's will that leads or not to an investigation. An investigation also depends on the government's willingness to act as an intermediary between foreign companies and complainants, especially when the government feels that it has more to gain than to lose by being relatively lenient with offenders. Indeed, in some cases the government will prefer to 'let it go', driven by economic interests, as a significant amount of revenue comes from fishing licences from international countries and firms.

Two types of monitoring mechanisms exist: judicial and extra-judicial monitoring mechanisms. When judicial monitoring mechanisms are involved it is a local who takes up the case. On the other hand, the involvement of extra-judicial monitoring mechanisms represents the last resort, when local authorities could not find a solution. extra-judicial monitoring mechanisms consist of negotiating reparation or compensation with State power. The main monitoring mechanisms are the National Human Rights Institutions that represent a real bridge between local and international authorities.

b. Regional and international monitoring mechanisms

Every citizen of the African continent can, when faced with the violation of their fundamental rights, address the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. Citizens of Sierra Leone have the possibility to appeal to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights on two conditions. First, Sierra Leone has to be party to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (PACHPR) and second they must have had exhausted all domestic remedies. While Sierra Leone has signed the PACHPR in 1998 it never ratified it. Both the non-ratification of the protocol and the non-explicit recognition of the right to food represent a form of denial of citizens' fundamental rights. This means that in addition to being the victim of the violation of their rights they are deprived from the possibility to petition their government and regional authorities for a redress.

As of 2018, no international judicial remedy exists because the CESCR in charge of monitoring the realization of the right to food still does not possess the required legal instruments that could enable it to be seized and presented with a request if a violation were to occur. The CESCR remains confined to a role of recommendation despite the fact that its position within the United Nations could give it a significant power. The last resort is the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, a monitoring mechanism created by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) in 2000. The Special Rapporteur is tasked with the promotion of the right to food and can exercise its power in 3 was. The current Special Rapporteur, Hilal Elver has the power to present report at the UNCHR, go on the field to control the realization of the right to food and last she can denounce countries that violate the right to food. It is the monitoring mechanisms that is most accessible to people.

As SSF find themselves with few legal remedies to assert their rights, some have decided to assemble into organizations. This way of empowerment allows them to regroup and form a more powerful force giving them a reinforced bargaining power over local and national authorities. In this way the hope to challenge the government and improve their socioeconomic situation. Small autonomous groups like cooperatives have great potential in contributing to the improvement of the socioeconomically situation of fisherfolks, including food security. The only challenge that such cooperatives are faced with is the sometimes fluctuating commitment (FAO 2014).

Although initiatives are in place to enforce the right to food, Sierra Leone is still hesitant in its practices and the implementation of the right to food is rather weak. The violation of the right to food is therefore associated with ocean grabbing as is participates in the logic of deriving communities of their most fundamental rights.

Conclusion of the third part

Ocean grabbing is perpetrated differently and at all level of governance. Even though discourses offered to West African countries are appealing and seem to suggest the perfect balance between sustainability and profit, ocean grabbing operates contradictorily. Initiatives like blue growth offer a way to sustainably manage marine resources while profiting off of them while they in fact facilitate the process of fish stocks depletion. Weak governance and lack of will to enforce fundamental rights further threaten fisherfolks. Already vulnerable communities are deprived of their access and availability of natural resources and fall into food insecurity and severe poverty. In Sierra Leone IUU is particularly concerning as foreign vessels often violates IEZ, damaging sea beds and overfishing closest to the shore where small scale fisherfolks can only fish. As small-scale fisheries represent 80% of the fishing sector, protecting and promoting small scale fisheries seems to be the more adequate way to go. Unfortunately, even if the government recognizes the important role of SSFs, in particular in recent PRSP, the country decided to give priority to the development of the small private sector and promote foreign investment.

CONCLUSION

After becoming an example of post-conflict recovery Sierra Leone was unfortunately faced with multiple hurdles but showed to this day resilience in achieving poverty reduction and food security. The challenges that the new president has to undertake are important and will demonstrate the ability of the new government to do better than its predecessors. The major obstacle remains governance. A better governance coupled with involvement and participation of small scale stakeholders will allow for more adequate and tailor-made policies, which will boost the fishery sector and help achieve poverty reduction and food security. Unfortunately, even when SSFs seems to be the government's first concern, it has operated in fact in favour of the development of its small private and industrial sector. The financial benefits generated from it are larger and more quickly obtained through fishing licences. This shift of concern is putting small scale fisherfolks in a more vulnerable position when they are the ones supporting the fishery sector. Poor governance partly allowed for ocean grabbing to happen on Sierra Leone's coasts, depriving small scale fisherfolks of their mean of subsistence. The corruption and leniency of operators in charge of monitoring and preventing all forms of ocean grabbing is contributing to the phenomenon. Combined with the lack of willingness to enforce and expressively recognize fundamental rights, the government is also responsible for ocean grabbing. Narratives supporting blue growth, a dangerously misleading initiative that perpetrates ocean grabbing by allowing overfishing while promoting sustainability and profit. By stripping fisherfolks of their main mean of protein source ocean grabbing is threating the food security of Sierra Leoneans who are already dependant on rice, a staple food that is becoming increasingly expensive. In the face of government decisions that are in complete disagreement with the promises and plans made in the PRSPs, their livelihoods of coastal communities are disappearing with their traditions. As a result, they fall into food insecurity and poverty which form a vicious circle that is difficult to leave. It is the mechanisms of ocean grabbing facilitated by the government inability to support SSF that threatens their food security and by extension the food security of all Sierra Leoneans.

The development of inland fishery and aquaculture offers a way to balance the depletion of marine fish. But its benefits are limited to the state of infrastructures without which the access of inland fish is difficult. The combination of rice and aquaculture could represent another

solution to the growing demand of fish and rice, therefore offering more domestically produced staple foods. The development of aquaculture in coastal areas could relieve the domestic pressure on marine resources and allow for regeneration to complete its natural course. Nevertheless, aquaculture and inland fishery do not offer a way to put a stop to ocean grabbing in the form of foreign vessels illegally fishing in Sierra Leoneans waters.

Adger, Neil, Nick Brooks, Graham Bentham, Maureen Agneew, and Siri Eriksen. 2004. New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

AFDB. 2018. African Economic Outlook 2018. Abidjan: African Development Bank Group. AFDB. 2013. Green Growth Sierra Leone. Transitioning Towards Green Growth Stocktaking and the Way Forward. Tunisia: AFDB.

AFDB. 2013. Sierra Leone country strategy paper 2013-2017. Abidjan: African Development Bank Group.

AFDB. n.d. Sierra Leone Economic Outlook. Edited by African Development Bank Group.

AfricaRice Center. 2017. Annual Report 2016 : Towards rice selfsufficiency in Africa. Abidjan: AfricaRice Center.

Agnew, David, John Pearce, Ganapathiraju Pramod, Tom Peatman, Reg Watson, John Beddington, and Tony Pitcher. 2009. «Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing.» PlosOne (University of California San Diego) 4 (2).

Arcand, Jean-Louis. 2001. Undernourishment and Economic Growth: The Efficiency Cost of Hunger. Stockholm: FAO.

Azoulay, Gerard, and Jean-Claude Dillon. 1993. La sécurité alimentaire en Afrique. Manel d'analyse et d'élaboration de strategies . Paris: Kartala.

Bah, Alphajoh Alhadi. 2013. «Strategies for promoting rice self-sufficiency in Sierra Leone.» Journal of Northeast Agricultural University, 78-86.

Barbesgaard, Mads. 2017. «Blue growth: saviour or ocean grabbing?» The Journal of Peasant Studies, 30 October: 130-147.

Borras, Jun, Jennifer Franco, Clara Mi Young Park, Mads Barbesgaard, Yukari Sekine, Ye Lin Myint, and Thant Zin. 2018. The twin challenge of agrarian and climate justice. The Hague: Transnational Institute.

CESCR. 1999. CESCR General Comment No. 12: The Right to Adequate Food (Art. 11) . Geneva: UN.

Cohen, Deborah. 2005. «Achieving food security in vulnerable populations.» British Medical Journal, 1 October: 775-777.

Conteh, Alhaji Mohamed Hamza, Xiangbin Yan, and Foday Pinka Sankoh. 2012. «The influence of price on rice production in Sierra Leone.» Agriculture Sciences, 462-469.

Daniels, Alfonso, Miren Gutiérrez, Gonzalo Fanjul, Arantxa Guere-a, Ishbel Matheson, and Kevin Watkins. 2016. Western Africa's missing fish The impacts of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and under-reporting catches by foreign fleets. London: Overseas Development Institute.

De Waal, Alex. 1991. Evil days : thirty years of war and famine in Ethiopia. New York: Human Rights Watch.

EFJ. 2009. Dirty Fish - How EU Hygiene Standards facilitates illegal fishing in West Africa. London: EFJ.

FAO. 2008. Achieving poverty reduction through responsible fisheries Lessons from West and Central Africa . Rome: FAO.

FAO. 2006. Contribution of fisheries to national economies in West and Central Africa. Policies to increase the wealth generated by small-scale fisheries. Rome: FAO. FAO. 2009. Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security. Rome: FAO.

FAO. 2000. Handbook for Defining and Setting up a Food Security Information and Early Warning System. Rome: FAO.

FAO. 1998. «Implications of economic policy for food security: a training manual.» Rome. FAO. 2005. Increasing the contribution of small-scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security . Rome: FAO.

FAO. 2006. Integrated Irrigation and Aquaculture in West Africa: Concepts, Practices and Potential. Rome: FAO.

FAO. 1999. International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity . Rome: FAO.

FAO. 1986. Marine fishery resources of sierra leone: a review of exploited fish stocks . Rome: FAO.

FAO. 2015. Oceans and sustainable development: integration of the three dimensions of

sustainable development, namely environmental, social and economic. Rome: FAO. FAO. n.d. Policy Support and Governance. Accessed April 15, 2018.

FAO. 1996. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome: FAO.

FAO. 2006. The State of Food and Agriculture : Food Aid for Food Security. Rome: FAO. FAO. 2008. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World in 2008. Rome: FAO. FAO. 2017. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World in 2017. Building Resilience

FAO. 2014. The State of World fisheries and Aquaculture. Oppotunities and Challenges. Rome: FAO.

FAO. 2003. Trade Reforms and Food Security: Conceptualizing the Linkages. Rome: FAO. FAO. 2015. Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. Rome: FAO.

FAO. 2012. Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forest in the Context of National Food Security. Rome: FAO.

FAO. 1983. World Food Security: A Reappraisal of the Concepts and Approaches. Rome: FAO.

FAO, WFP. 2015. Evaluation conjointe FAO/PAM des récoltes et de la sécurité alimentaire - Libéria, Sierra Leone et Guinée. Rome: FAO, 3-5.

Franco, Jennifer, Pietje Vervest, Timothé Feodoroff, Carsten Pedersen, Ricarda Reuter, and Mads Christian Barbesgaard. 2014. The Global Ocean Grab. Amsterdam: The Transnational Institute.

Frankel, Jeffrey Alexander. 2012. The Natural Resource Curse: A Survey of Diagnoses and Some Prescriptions. Harvard Kennedy School.

Gagern, Antonius, and Jeroen Van Den Bergh. 2013. «A critical review of fishing agreements with tropical developing countries.» Marine Policy, March: 375-386 .

Gibson, Mark. 2012. The feeding of nations. Redefining food security for the 21st century. New York: CRC Press.

Global Partnership for Oceans. 2014. Framework Document for a Global Partnership for Oceans. Washingto, D.C: World Bank.

Golay, Christophe, and Melik Ozden. 2005. Le droit à l'alimentation : Un droit humain fondamental stipulé par l'ONU et reconnu par des traités régionaux et de nombreuses constitutions nationales. CETIM.

GoSL. 2010. Policy and Operational Framework for Fisheries of Sierra Leone. Freetown: MFMR.

GoSL. 2005. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. A National Programme for Food Security, Job Creation and Good Governance. Freetown: GoSL.

GoSL, DFN, and ACF. 2017. Sierra Leone National Nutrition Survey 2017. Freetwown: GoSL. GoSL, WFP, and UNICEF. 2010. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in Sierra Leone in

2011. Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerabilty Analysis. Freetown: GoSL. GoSL, WFP, and WHO. 2015. The State of Food Security in Sierra Leone 2015. Comprehensive

Hyun-ju, Ock. 2018. «Industry needs to do more to fight illegal fishing, labor abuses.» The Korea Herald.

International MCS Network. n.d. IUU fishing is recognized as a major threat to the long term sustainability of the world's oceans. Accessed April 24, 2018. http://imcsnet.org/resources/iuu/.

James Benett, Nathan, Hugh Govan, and Terre Satterfield. 2015. «Ocean grabbing.» Marine policy, July: 61-68.

Malthus, Thomas Robert. 1992. Essai sur le principe de population. Paris: Flammarion. Margolis, David, Nina Rosas, Samuel Tura, and Abubakarr Turay. 2016. Findings from the

2014 Labor Force Survey in Sierra Leone. Washington, DC: The World Bank Group. Maunder, Nathalie. 2006. Food Security Information Systems and Networks : Leson 1 Food

Maxwell, Simon, and Timothy Frankenberger. 1992. Household Food Security: Concepts, Indicators and Measurements: A Technical Review. New York: UNICEF.

Mendez del Villar, Patricio (CIRAD), Jean-Martin (WFP) Bauer, Aliou (CILSS) Maiga, and Laouali Ibrahim. 2011. «Crise rizicole, évolution des marchés et sécurité alimentaire en Afrique de l'Ouest.»

Neiland, Arthur E., Stephen Cunningham, Michael Arbuckle, Andrew Baio, Timothy Bostock, Dougoutigui Coulibaly, Nancy K. Gitonga, Ronan Long, and Sheku Sei. 2016. «Assessing the Potential Contribution of Fisheries to Economic Development : The Case of Post-Ebola Sierra Leone.» Natural resources, June: 356-376.

NEPAD. 2003. Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme. South Africa: NEPAD.

OAU. 1980. Lagos Plan of Action for the Economic Development of Africa. Addis Ababa: OAU.

Pachauri, Rajendra, Pierre Jacquet, and Laurence Tubiana. 2011. Regard critique sur les accords de pêche Union européenne-Afrique de l'Ouest. France: Armand Colin.

Pauly, Daniel, Reg Watson, and Jackie Alder. 2005. «Global trends in world fisheries: impacts on marine ecosystems and food security.» Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 29 January: 5-12.

Rahimi Midani, Amaj , and Sang-Go Lee. 2016. «Confronting Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing with Proper Port and Flagged States Policies: The Case of South Korea and European Union.» Journal of Fisheries Sciences, 43-51.

Robert, Anne-Cécile. n.d. Le plan Lagos. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/mav/141/ROBERT/53043.

Rocher, Joseph. 1998. Après les feux de pailles. Politiques de sécurité alimantaire dans les pays de Sud et mondialisation. Paris: Charles Léopold Mayer.

Scaramozzino, Pasquale. 2006. Measuring Vulnerability to Food Insecurity. Rome: FAO. Security, Committee on World Food. 2007. Assessment of the World Food Security Situation. Rome: FAO.

Sen, Amartya. 1981. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sen, Amartya. 1997. Resources, Values, and Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Srinivas, Thara, William Chung, Reg Watson, and Ussif Rashid Sumaila. 2010. «Food security implications of global marine catch losses due to overfishing .» Journal of Bioeconomics, October: 183-200.

Staube Tercier, Nicole, and Beat Sottas. 2000. La sécurité alimentaire en question. Dilemmes, constats et controverses. Paris: Kartala.

Steve Wiggins, Julia Compton, Sharada Keats, Mark Davies. 2010. Country responses to the food price crisis 2007/08 : Case studies from Bangladesh, Nicaragua, and Sierra Leone. London: Overseas Development Institute, 26, 30-32.

Tokyo International Conference of African Development. 2016. Embracing Blue Economy for Africa's Accelerated Development. Nairobi: Tokyo International Conference of African Development.

Transparancy International. 2018. CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2017. 21 February.

UN. 1966. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. New York: UN.

UN. 2016. The Sustainable Development Agenda. 1 January. Accessed May 28, 2018.

UNDP. 2014. Country programme document for Sierra Leone 2013-2014. New York: UNDP. UNDP. 2016. Human Development Report 2016 - Sierra Leone. New York: UNDP.

UNEP. 2010. Sierra Leone Environment, Conflict and Peace-Building Assessment. Technical Report. Geneva: UNEP.

USAID, CARE, WFP, TANGO, and Feinstein International Center. 2008. «The Coping Strategies Index. A tool for rapid measurement of household food security and the impact of food aid programs in humanitarian emergencies.»

USDA. 2008. Food and Consumer Price Index and Expenditures. Food Security Assessment. Washingto, D.C: USDA.

Venables, Anthony James. 2016. «Using Natural Resources for Development: Why Has It Proven So Difficult?» Journal of Economic Perspectives, 161-184.

Welthungerhilfe, and IFPRI. 2006. Global Hunger Index "Case studies in the post-confl ict

countries of Afghanistan and Sierra Leone" - Welt Hunger Hilfe. Bonn: NEPAD. Welthungerhilfe, and IFPRI. 2006. Global Hunger Index "Case studies in the post-confl ict

Welthungerhilfe, and IFPRI. 2017. Global Hunger Index "The Inequalities of Hunger". Washington, DC, Dublin, Bonn: NEPAD.

World Bank. 2015. Economic, environmental, and social evaluation of Africa's small-scale fisheries. Washington, D.C: World Bank Group.

World Bank. 2017. New Hope for Sustainable Fishing and a Blue Economy for West Africa.

World Bank. 1986. Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing Countries. Washignton D.C: World Bank Group.

World Bank. 2013. Protecting West African Fisheries. 28 March. Accessed April 15, 2018.

World Bank. 2017. West Africa Regional Fisheries Program. Washington, D.C: World Bank Group.

WorldFish Center. 2011. Aquaculture, Fisheries, Poverty and Food Security . Penang: WorldFish Center.

WorldFish Center. 2015. Feed the Future Sierra Leone Agriculture Project. Penang: WorldFish Center.

WorldFish Center. 2017. Sierra Leone fish value chain analysis with special emphasis on Tonkolili District. Penang: WorldFish Center.

Ziegler, Jean, and Christophe Golay. 2005. «Le droit à l'alimentation: une exigence face à la loi du plus fort? .» ONU : droits pour tous ou loi du plus fort ?, 333-348.

Ziegler, Jean, Christophe Golay, and Claire Mahon. 2011. The Fight for the Right to Food: Lessons Learned. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.