Impact Assessment: assessing the social dimensions of fisheries research projects in the Asia-Pacific Region

ABSTRACT

Interest in understanding the social impact of publicly funded science research is growing globally. However, practical examples demonstrating how the social impacts of research for development are measured are negligible. This paper illustrates the utility of Impact Assessment (IA), Social Impact Assessment (SIA) in particular to measure and articulate the social dimensions of research for development. We employed substantive aspects of SIA to assess the social impacts of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) funded fisheries research projects across Southeast Asia and the Pacific Island Countries. Data were collected through a survey, in-depth interviews, and case studies. Results illustrate that SIA can offer a nuanced understanding of the contribution of research for development to changes in culture, community health and wellbeing, livelihood and economy, and governance and politics, among others. We suggest that researchers, policymakers and research for development organisations consider incorporating SIA in their projects not only as a tool to assess impact but also as a process to manage and understand the social dimensions of science research.

KEYWORDS:

• Social impact of fisheries research
• research for development (R4D)
• Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)
• Southeast Asia and the Pacific Island Countries
• Most Significant Change (MSC)

Introduction

The use of Social Impact Assessment (SIA) as a framework to conceptualise and assess the social dimensions of development interventions is increasing globally (Bradshaw et al. 2001; Vanclay et al. 2015; Mabon et al. 2017). However, Sherren et al. (2017) surmise that the conventional approaches of SIA have become less effective in recent decades as they remain within the realm of academic work, with limited practical application. Aledo-Tur and Dominguez-Gomez (2017) also pointed out that much work needs to be done to conceptualise SIA and to enhance its practicability both as a framework and a paradigm. They argue that understanding SIA as a paradigm is useful as a foundation for more robust and better grounded SIA knowledge production. This paper responds to these calls by providing an empirical example of how SIA, as a process and framework, can be employed to access the social impacts of research for development interventions.

Social impact is defined as ‘the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions’ (Vanclay et al. 2015, p. 1) Social impacts include all effects stemming from a planned intervention that affect or concern people at individual, family, household, social group, community or society levels (Vanclay et al. 2015). Social impacts also include cultural impacts involving changes to the norms, values, and beliefs that guide and rationalise their cognition of themselves and their society. These impacts can cover a wide range of human-welfare concerns such as gender, health, heritage and culture (Richards and Mwampamba 2013).

Social impacts can be both positive and negative. For example, a study of the social impact of Community-Based Fisheries Management (CBFM) on the welfare of fishing households in Bangladesh has demonstrated that the CBFM activities contributed to increased household income of fishing communities (Islam et al. 2014). Conversely, a study that explored the social impact of the closure of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in south-west England reported that the closure created negative social impact by lengthening fishing trips and creating tension, conflict and uncertainty in the livelihood of people working in the fishing industry (Hattam et al. 2014). This indicates that a scientific activity with a long-term objective can have an adverse impact on the development of a community.

SIA has been in academia and practice, at least conceptually, since the early 1970s when the US National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) introduced a requirement to ensure that federal actions significantly affecting the quality of human environment were incorporated into a balanced and publicly available assessment of the likely impact of such actions (Burdge and Vanclay 1996; Asselin and Parkins 2009; Vanclay et al. 2015). More recently, SIA researchers and practitioners have become interested in analysing, monitoring and managing the social consequences of planned interventions and social dimensions of development in general. Additionally, practitioners work with communities, development agencies and private sector companies to achieve better development outcomes for communities, design better projects and policies, and provide information for the development approval process of projects (Esteves et al. 2012).

SIA has rapidly evolved as a result of (a) the increasing realisation of the importance of active management of social issues to address the social impacts of projects; (b) the fact that communities want to be active partners in co-development to share benefit from projects and (c) a realisation that the regulators and monitoring authorities of today are not only government agencies, but include NGOs, international industry associations, the finance and insurance sectors, and project-affected communities themselves (Vanclay et al. 2015).

Social Impact Assessment can be conceptualised in different ways. While some scholars define SIA as a field of research to understand the socio-cultural consequences of human populations, others view it as a paradigm or a body of knowledge in its own right (Vanclay 2003; Esteves et al. 2012; Aledo-Tur and Dominguez-Gomez 2017). As a field of research and practice, SIA covers a broad range of tasks associated with the interaction between a project and its local communities that require interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary expertise. As a methodological approach or framework, SIA provides the conceptual scaffolding to understand and assess the social impacts of a development intervention (Esteves et al. 2012).

Thus, undertaking SIA depends on contexts and purposes and this, in turn, dictates how it is operationalised. For instance, in some contexts, SIA is carried out on behalf of a multinational corporation as part of that company’s internal procedures. Others such as consultant companies perform SIA in compliance with regulatory or funding agency requirements. Still, others like development agencies undertake SIA to ensure the best value for their country’s development assistance. While each of these applications is valuable, undertaking an SIA needs to consider its intended purposes (Vanclay et al. 2015).

In this paper, we conceptualised SIA as a methodological framework and process to assess the social dimensions of research for development interventions (Vanclay 2003). To test our conceptualisation of SIA, we assessed the social impacts of the interventions of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Centre’s (ACIAR) Fisheries Program in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Island Countries as a case study. The paper illustrates the utility of SIA and its methodological and analytical implications as an approach to assess and understand the more nuanced and implicit social dimensions of diverse and complex research for development interventions across multiple countries. The paper contributes to the growing effort to ground the theoretical and conceptual basis and practicality of SIA (Aledo-Tur and Dominguez-Gomez 2017).

Conceptual and analytical framework

We used the dimensions of change identified by Vanclay (2003) to develop a conceptual and analytical framework to assess the social impact of research for development. While Vanclay (2003) suggested eight dimensions of change, we merged these into five. However, we did not include the category – ‘their environment’ (Vanclay 2003).. This is primarily because ACIAR conducts separate environmental impact assessments of its projects as part of its Impact Assessment Series (see Pearce and White 2012), and thus, was not included in the scope of this evaluation project.

The categories of change developed are:

1. changes in community, health and wellbeing;

2. changes in culture and people’s way of life;

3. changes in community livelihood and economy;

4. changes in governance and politics; and

5. changes in the fears and aspirations of people

The framework (Figure 1) was used as a conceptual and analytical framework to assess the social dimensions of the ACIAR Fisheries Program (hereafter ‘the Program’) in the Asia-Pacific region (outlined below) as a case study. in other words, it was utilised to provide an understanding of the social impacts of the Program’s research for development interventions to enable policymakers to respond to changes proactively and to make informed research investment decisions in the future (Esteves et al. 2012).

Figure 1. SIA conceptual and analytical framework.

(Source: authors adaptation of Vanclay (2003))

However, SIA has not been considered by the Program at the research planning stage, although statements of social impacts were included in project reports. Social impacts were more implicit than explicit, expressed through enhanced community engagement, improved industry productivity gains, and improved community wellbeing and health (Centre for Strategic Economic Studies 2012). Also, the fact that the Program projects implemented across several countries were diverse introduced some limitations regarding the depth of analysis and the claim that can be made. Thus, to address these shortcomings, we have opted to report the overall impact of the program by providing case study stories that presented evidence of change by highlighting the most significant social changes (Dart and Davies 2003; Wilder and Walpole 2008).

Background to the study

The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) is a statutory authority that operates as part of the Australian Aid Program. ACIAR invests in applied research by commissioning Australian scientists to work with scientists in developing countries. Between January 2000 and April 2014, the Fisheries Program funded 131 projects with a total amount of over AU$70 million in South-East Asia and the Pacific countries. The goal of the Program was to improve the livelihoods of people dependent on fish capture and aquatic farming systems in these countries by enhancing the productivity and sustainability of fisheries through research partnerships (ACIAR 2014).

The Program projects were spread across Southeast Asia, and the Pacific Island Countries (Figure 2). However, the examples provided in this paper were primarily drawn from case studies in five countries: Indonesia, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), PNG, Solomon Islands and Vietnam. The principal author travelled to and observed project activities, attended community meetings and conducted interviews with local researchers, community members and relevant government officials. Each case study highlights the social impact of the Program.

Figure 2. Study area map showing countries with ACIAR Fisheries Program projects.

The Republic of Indonesia is located between the Indian and Pacific Oceans and is the largest island country in the world, with over 17 thousand islands covering nearly 2 million square km. It shares land borders with PNG, East Timor and Malaysia, and is home to the biggest economy in South East Asia. Indonesia’s population¹ of 264 million is ethnically diverse, with 300 local languages spoken by its mainly Muslim people. More than half of the population live in Java, the world’s most densely populated island. While the economy of Indonesia has been growing steadily for the last few decades, 13% of its population still live under the poverty line of around US$1.25 per day, and 49% live on less than US$2.00 per day (ACIAR 2017a). ACIAR has been supporting fisheries research in Indonesia for over 30 years. Between 2000 and 2014, the Program funded 37 research projects with over AU$20 million budget that were conducted either in Indonesia solely or along with other countries in the Asia Pacific region.

Lao PDR is a landlocked, mountainous country in South East Asia with a population of 6.85 million bordered by China, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. Lao is one of the worlds least developed countries with an estimated one-third of its population living below the poverty line. Between 2000 and 2014, the Program funded 11 research projects with over AU$4 million budget that were conducted either in Lao PDR alone or with other countries in the region. The focus of the research for development work in Lao PDR was food security.

Papua New Guinea (PNG) is in Melanesia, on the eastern half of the island of New Guinea and its offshore islands. One of the most culturally diverse countries in the world, PNG lists over 820 languages in a population of just 8 million. Most of its people live in small isolated rural communities, with poor infrastructure. Over 2 million of its population live in poverty, and depend on subsistence agriculture with staple crops of taro and sweet potato. The aim of ACIAR’s research program in PNG was to support the country in achieving food security through increased productivity and enhanced access to markets and services. To support this objective, between 2000 and 2014, the Program funded 27 research projects with over AU$11 million budget that were conducted either in PNG alone or along with other countries in the region.

The Solomon Islands are a mixture of islands, atolls and volcanic rock covering 29,000 square km with the South Pacific Ocean to the north and the Coral Sea to the south. With a population of just over 611,000 people living on about 300 of the nearly 1, 000 islands, government resources are thinly spread. Communities, who have rights to their resources through customary land tenure, largely left to manage resources on their own with little outside assistance. Between 2000 and 2014, the Program funded 12 research projects with over AU$11 million budget that were conducted either in Solomon Islands alone or along with other countries in the Asia Pacific.

Vietnam, with a population of over 95 million, occupies the eastern and southern part of the Indochinese peninsula in Southeast Asia, with the South China Sea along its entire coast. China is to the north and Laos, and Cambodia are to the west. Although strong economic growth in the last few decades has propelled Vietnam to a middle-income country, there are still more than 33 million people living in poverty in the country, mostly in rural and remote communities (ACIAR 2017a). ACIAR’s efforts in Vietnam were focused on enabling the nation to enhance smallholder incomes in regions where poverty has persisted. Between 2000 and 2014, the Program funded 25 research projects with over AU$13 million budget that were conducted either in Vietnam alone or along with other countries in the Asia Pacific.

Research approach

This study forms part of a broader evaluation of the Fisheries Program projects in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Island Countries between 2000 and 2014. The social impact assessment of the Program was guided by the research question ‘What were the positive social impacts from the Fisheries Program projects? To answer this question, data were collected using document collation and analysis, a survey, semi-structured interviews, and case studies (Bryman 2015). A qualitative approach, informed by the framework developed after Vanclay (2003), was adopted. The framework was used to analyse changes in (1) community health and wellbeing; (2) culture and people’s way of life; (3) community livelihood and economy; (4) governance and politics and (5) the aspirations of people (Vanclay 2003; Den Broeder and Vanclay 2014).

In assessing the social impact, our focus was mainly on analysing the most significant intended or unintended social consequences with positive effects that were primarily invoked by the interventions of the Program projects (Vanclay et al. 2015). Initially, reports of all ACIAR Fisheries Program projects in scope were collated (n = 131) and analysed to understand what the reported social impacts and changes were. We then administered a survey to research project leaders² and partner country researchers (n = 39) to understand what they considered to be the most significant social impacts of their projects (Dart and Davies 2003). The survey sample accounted for 60% of project leaders. In the study, respondents were asked to outline the significant social changes or benefits to local communities.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with project leaders, researchers, partner countries government officials and community members. Overall 19 project leaders (representing 53 projects; and 15 partner country project leaders, government officials and researchers) and 15 community members from the five case study countries were interviewed. Purposive sampling was used to guide participant selection (Bryman 2015). The semi-structured interviews were designed to ascertain the most significant social changes and benefits of the Program research projects. The Program involved diverse and complex projects across many countries. Thus, the focus of the research was to solicit the most significant changes rather than documenting detailed changes attributed to each project (Dart and Davies 2003).

Five case study countries and associated projects were selected purposively based on logistical considerations and representativeness of the projects. The case studies were designed to provide context and highlight the social impacts of the program (Baxter and Jack 2008). As part of the case studies, data were collected from (i) relevant research project reports and publications; (ii) meetings with communities (n = 5), participating farmers (n = 6) and companies (n = 3) across the five countries; and (iii) interviews with selected community members (n = 15). Field notes of visits and observations were also included in the analysis. The case studies were used to document, interpret and highlight the most significant social changes that participants considered to have been the outcomes or impacts of the Program, or changes to which the Program had contributed (Dart and Davies 2003; Baxter and Jack 2008). In other words, the purpose of the case studies was to show the most significant changes of the Program.

We designed a matrix (Table 1) based on the five impact categories in our framework to code the data to assess the social impacts of the Program. We used narrative, thematic and structural analysis to extract themes based on the matrix to elucidate significant social changes that took place as a result of the Program interventions (Bryman 2015). The focus was on the content of the text in the data both at the thematic (what was said) and structural (the way it was told) levels (Bryman 2015).

Table 1. Impact categories used to code and analyse data.

Changes in:	Evidence of changes
Community health and wellbeing	Health benefits gained and contribution to wellbeing	Community cohesion and stability, Services and facilities	Efforts in community engagement and knowledge sharing
Culture and people’s way of life	Contribution to people’s shared value, influence on people’s culture and attitudes	New ways of doing things	New values that improve the quality of life
Community livelihood and economy	New businesses that benefited the community	Increased employment opportunity	Increased fisheries productivity and sustainability
Governance and politics	Community participation in decision-making	Barriers to participation removed, Inspire to create agreed vision	Contributed to informed policy formulation, Improved governance
People’s aspirations and fears	Contribution to positive community attitudes	People aspire and plan	Community feels things are changing for the better

However, instead of tracing activities, outputs and outcomes that link to social impacts, we opted to look for evidence of observable and reported most significant changes related to the categories identified in our framework (Dart and Davies 2003). The stories in the case studies were used to illustrate these changes. This approach was useful in analysing and evaluating the intended and unintended consequences and the most significant changes and processes invoked by the Program (Vanclay et al. 2015).

Limitations

A key limitation of many impact assessment frameworks has been the attribution of impact to a specific project by linking input-to-output-to-outcome and ultimately to impact. SIA is no different: in some cases, we were unable to attribute impact explicitly to a project. This was made more difficult by the complex context under which the research projects were carried out, and the fact that SIA was not used to inform the research projects at the planning stage. Secondly, as mentioned earlier environmental dimensions of social impacts were not included both at the data collection and analysis stages mainly because ACIAR conducts separate assessment as part of its Impact Assessment Series. This is a limitation, as environmental dimensions are considered integral parts of SIA. In addition, the multiplicity and diversity of projects implemented across several countries made the task of data collection and analysis difficult. Thus, acknowledging this inherent complexity as a limitation, we have used actual examples and stories of impacts from the case studies to illustrate the social impact of the Program to speak directly to the categories drawn from our framework.

Results – social impacts of the fisheries program

In this section, the Program logic and relevant inputs, outputs and outcomes of the Program are presented as a background. This is followed by the social impacts of the Program presented against the five SIA impact categories identified in the framework. Examples from the case studies are used to contextualise the most significant changes.

The main goal of the Program was to improve the productivity and sustainability of fisheries in partner countries by improving food and nutrition security and livelihood of communities (ACIAR 2014). Program inputs that contributed to social change included financial and technical support; and specific inputs such as training. The outputs included an increased capability of local researchers, improved research infrastructure, and improved capability of research organisations. The outcomes of the Program included the use of enhanced capability and knowledge to create new technologies, increased uptake of improved technologies among local farmers and entrepreneurs, the creation of new industries and businesses, and improvement in the productivity and production of fisheries resources. These, in turn, are assumed to have contributed to changes in community health and wellbeing; culture and people’s way of life; community livelihood and economy; governance and politics; and the aspirations of people.

1 Changes in community, health and wellbeing

We define community as a group of people who are linked by common social ties, experiences, interests and perspectives and who are engaged in the research projects under assessment directly, or indirectly (Hiruy 2014). Changes in community refer to cohesion and stability, and related services and facilities that serve the group; and health and wellbeing of the community is to mean the state of physical, mental, social and spiritual wellbeing, which is often a product of a wide range of factors (Fehr et al. 2014; Fischer et al. 2018;). It is also important to note that culture, as one of the social determinants of health, also affect the health and wellbeing of communities. Different communities may have different views as to what constitute positive changes in the health and wellbeing of their communities (Fehr et al. 2014). Communities who are involved in the Program include local fishing and farming communities, aquaculture farmers, hatchery growers, women and youth groups, religious groups and other community groups.

The survey results indicated that the Program had contributed to changes in communities, their health and wellbeing by:

• strengthening community stability due to increased food production and increased disposable household incomes;

• enhancing confidence, sense of worth, pride and security in communities due to increased knowledge and household incomes; and

• improving health and wellbeing due to the consumption of more fish.

Overall, the results show that the Program had contributed positively towards the health and wellbeing of the participating communities. Findings from both the survey and interviews indicated that some projects had contributed to improvements in the production and productivity of fisheries resources. Project leaders and community members interviewed claimed that the improvement in production and productivity had positive changes in community stability, food security and increased disposable income. They also suggested that there was an improvement in the health and wellbeing of participating communities due to increased consumption of fish in some areas. Although, it is difficult to ascertain these claims without any established baseline data, the findings are consistent with a growing literature which links fish farming and consumption to improvements in health and wellbeing (Thilsted 2012; Tacon and Metian 2013; Béné et al. 2016).

The following examples from the case studies highlight some of the changes.

Pride, cohesion and security from the fish passage projects in Lao PDR (FIS/2006/183, FIS/2007/076 & FIS/2009/041)

ACIAR funded several fishway projects in Lao PDR since 2006. The objective of these projects was to develop criteria to create migration opportunities for Lower Mekong fish species by incorporating knowledge of local species and hydrology into fishway design (Baumgartner et al. 2012; ACIAR 2017b). Fishways can offer a suitable solution to improve fisheries productivity in areas impacted by irrigation infrastructure by allowing fish to pass through, or around barriers to migrate to their seasonal breeding ground. As a demonstration, the project built a fishway in Pak Peung village in Central Lao.

The fishway development projects brought a sense of unity and accomplishment among locals in the village where the fishway was built. Our discussion with villagers in Pak Peung revealed a strong sense of pride and accomplishment among villagers and officials. The fishway has become an important landmark and locals were already exploring tourism opportunities. The project worked with the community from planning to construction and actively employed local staff to assist with fieldwork, attend project workshops, coordinate community co-management meetings and disseminate information which built substantial goodwill within the community.

One of the leaders of the local partner research institution noted that the project had contributed to food security, wellbeing and health of the participating villages by increasing the availability of fish in their wetlands, and increasing the protein intake at the household level. Similarly, Nibans (Village Chiefs) reported increased catches and a decrease in the daily pressure to provide enough food within the villages.

There is an improvement regarding the number of fish in the wetlands, and we see the return of two important species that we were unable to see before. There are also juveniles of several species from the Mekong River. This has increased our catch. Now we can go for a short time fishing and catch enough fish (PI, V1, VET).

The fishway project team also reported the continuous engagement with local communities and their direct involvement in activities such as data collection, fish identification and experimental setup provided opportunities for knowledge sharing.

Community stability, confidence and improved health and wellbeing from inland aquaculture in PNG (FIS/2001/083 & FIS/2008/023)

The Program has been active in the highlands of PNG since 2000, where aquaculture was identified to alleviate food security and nutritional deficits in these communities. The purpose of the inland aquaculture projects was to help improve fish production among subsistence farmers. However, beyond this intended objective, the inland aquaculture project had contributed to community stability. In an area where protein was scarce, and largely limited to the occasional ceremonial slaughter of pigs, fish has now become an affordable and readily available source of protein in many villages.

Currently, it is estimated that there are more than 40,000 small-scale fish farms in the highlands of PNG producing mainly tilapia and carp for home consumption and sale. The protein intake per capita is expected to have increased, and this is highly likely to have improved health outcomes at a household level (Thilsted 2012). However, we were unable to collect health data to ascertain the health benefits of fish farming in the area during the study period.

Results show that the project has contributed to social stability. As one of the fish farmers noted,

Fish farming helps to reduce the tribal fighting because when a person starts or creates a problem, .. the other people who have their fish pond do not want to get involved because they think that the fight will destroy their fish and [livelihood]. So it helps reduce the tribal fight (PI, FF2, PNG).

Another fish farmers also reported that fish farming had helped keep youth ‘out of trouble.’

I started telling people, the young boys especially to do fish farming, to keep them occupied. It has improved their livelihoods and gave them something to do. It has also kept them out of trouble and tribal fighting (PI, FF1, PNG).

Overall, results indicate that the project has contributed to community wellbeing by introducing viable livelihood choices and providing communities with opportunities. As such, as a project manager from PNG would indicate, fish farming has become the anchor to broader social change processes.

I think we have a big part to play because you see they are looking for something, anything to grasp, to build their lives back again. Fish does not earn that much, but it is the hope that it creates and the passion to do something for yourself, it is somewhere to start (PI, PM1, PNG)

2 Changes in culture and people’s way of life

Culture is defined as shared beliefs, customs, values and language or dialect and people’s way of life refers to how a group of people work, play and interact with one another on a day-to-day basis (Vanclay 2003). It is understood that people’s culture and way of life are related to the biophysical environment in which people live.

The survey and interview results indicated that the Program had an impact on culture and people’s way of life due to the introduction of new technologies, and industries, the associated increase in income and the resultant lifestyle changes. Interviewees particularly noted changes related to institutional culture and personal work ethic among local researchers, which constitute a change in culture in broader terms.

For example, speaking of the changes in a research institute in Vietnam, one of the interviewees, noted that the engagement of Australian scientists with local researchers has been instrumental in creating opportunities for learning and collaboration.

… we learned not only about the [scientific] techniques of producing oysters but also how to deal with the problem, techniques on how to work together and how to develop the research ideas (PI, PM2, Vietnam).

An Indonesian researcher also confirmed this noting that the contribution of the Program through the Australian researchers goes beyond sharing technical and scientific skills. He reasoned the Australian researchers have contributed to changes in people’s attitudes and behaviours, by coaching and influencing the way local scientists in Indonesia see themselves. He noted, ‘… that is important, we work on the research and [build confidence]’

To further highlight some of the changes in culture and people’s way of life, examples from two case studies are presented.

Increased community pride and changes in consumption patterns – the growth of the oyster industry in Vietnam (FIS/2005/114 & FIS2010/100)

The oyster research projects had been instrumental in establishing a viable oyster industry in northern Vietnam. In 2015/16 the industry had employed over 1,500 people directly and over 3,000 indirectly and produced over 10,000 tonnes of oysters per year. The commercial success of the oyster industry has contributed to changes in culture and way of life in northern Vietnam. Pierce and O’Connor (2014) reported that there was increased community pride among the oyster farming communities as a result of increased income and associated changes in better housing and improved level of access to jobs in the local area. They also noted that oyster farming in the area created opportunities for the local communities to connect with each other and thrive together. Growing affluence has raised the profile of oysters as a prestige food, and we have observed new supermarkets filling their chilled cabinets with shucked oysters in response to the adoption of oysters by a range of increasingly affluent consumers.

Our findings indicate that the growth of the oyster industry had contributed to new consumption patterns in Vietnam. As one interviewee recounts the project has contributed to changes in culture and people’s way of life:

I think its contribution [to people’s way of life] is huge because the tradition of eating an oyster in Vietnam has developed a lot. Oysters … for making the sweet and sour soup and oyster for cooking with the eggs and so on (PI, PM2, Vietnam).

A new culture of fish farming and consumption in the highlands of PNG (FIS/2001/083 & FIS/2008/023)

Our analysis of reports, survey and interview showed that the activities of the project have contributed to a new culture of fish farming and consumption in the highlands of PNG. Besides increasing the protein intake and providing livelihood opportunities to subsistence farmers, it has introduced a new culture of fish farming. The project has also introduced new ways of doing things and provided new status to those who can sell and lend fish to their neighbours. One of the farmers reports these changes from his point of view.

Once we get [the young people] involved in fish farming, they start investing their time and effort and some of their money also in building their farms. So it keeps them away from doing other things and keeping them busy on new activities, and it creates new culture (PI, FF1, PNG).

Influential individuals within the community are using fish farming as a tool to improve community stability. Our analysis also indicated that the project had been instrumental in changing the way of life of a former gang member, a former prisoner and others who have adopted fish farming, seeing the possibilities for personal and community growth.

In the past, I was involved in [gang related activities]. However, I transformed my life and became a councillor. When I wanted to change, I started fish farming. I chose fish for myself and my family’s security, and because it was also easy to see [the return on] your investment (PI, FF2, PNG).

The examples provided demonstrate that fisheries research for development can contribute positively to changes in people’s culture and ways of life

3 Changes in community Livelihood and Economy

Community livelihood refers to the means to support one’s living (financially or otherwise), comprising the capabilities, assets and activities one requires to do so (Chambers and Conway 1992).

The survey results indicated that the introduction of new technologies and industries, and the associated increase in income have contributed to changes in community livelihood and economy by:

• Introducing new opportunities for employment, income generation and food security;

• Improving the productivity and profitability of aquaculture; and

• Increasing production of fish at a reduced cost.

Content analysis of the project reports also showed that during the assessment period there were over 70 individuals from partner countries directly employed by the Program projects. These employees included researchers/scientists, research assistants, project officers, field officers, fisheries observers, local surveyors and community wardens.

The following examples highlight the contribution of the Program to changes in community livelihood and economy.

Improved community livelihood and economy in Lao PDR (FIS/2006/183, FIS/2007/076 & FIS/2009/041)

In Lao PDR, the fishway projects have contributed to the food security by increasing the available fish in the wetlands and increasing the protein intake at the household level. It has also created employment opportunities for many. As one of the community members noted:

…they are also very happy that the project chose the people who live in this village to work with the project teams. They also get paid so that they are not going to find the work from another place. So this has given them more employment (PI, V2, VET).

Improved community livelihood and economy in Vietnam (FIS/2005/114 & FIS/2010/100)

The establishment of an oyster hatchery and research facility at RIA1 in Cat Ba Island with the support of the Fisheries Program contributed to the establishment of a thriving oyster industry in Ha Long Bay in northern Vietnam. The research hatchery had been distributing oysters to farmers and grow-out facilities along Ha Long Bay since 2007. This has contributed to the increased production of oysters in the area. In 2007, production levels were approximately 100 tonnes of oysters. In 2010, the production level reached over 5,000 to 7,000 tonnes. In 2015, production was estimated at over 10,000 tonnes of oysters.

The economic impact of the oyster industry in northern Vietnam had been significant. From no commercial output in 2006–2007, the industry was valued to be between AU$7–9.8 million in 2010–11 (O’Connor et al. 2012). By 2015–16, these production levels almost doubled to approximately AU$10–15 million. At the end of 2015, there were over 200 oyster farmers along Ha Long Bay, creating employment for over 1,500 people directly and over 3,000 indirectly.

As the yield grew, so did the services needed to get the goods to market. Oysters needed to be cleaned, graded, packed in the shells in which they had grown or shucked, rinsed and bagged ready for sale to supermarkets or restaurants. The oyster supply chain opened opportunities across the community. Importantly, the women from the community assumed great significance in processing and packaging, supplementing family incomes and increasing their participation in the formal economy.

….it has been the additional source of revenue that wasn’t previously there for these people. Whether it be through employment or through opportunities for their families to work in the local area (PI, Researcher).

4 Changes in Governance and Politics

In this paper, ‘changes in governance and politics’ refer to two potential impacts: (a) any contribution to resources that improve governance, including policy or knowledge; and (b) any contribution to the way people participate in decisions that affect their lives.

over sixty per cent of survey respondents answered ‘yes’ to questions regarding the direct contribution of their projects to changes in governance and politics. These respondents suggested that their projects had contributed positively to changes in governance and politics in partner countries mainly by providing scientific evidence for policymakers and by enabling local people to participate in decision-making processes that affect their lives. Evidence from document analysis also suggested that most projects have contributed to policy and practice changes directly or indirectly.

The following examples provide insight into the scope of the Program’s contributions to changes in governance and politics.

Improved fisheries health management across the Asian region – (FIS/2002/075, FIS/2005/115, FIS/2005/137, FIS/2009/035, and FIS/2010/101)

Projects on fish health management and the application of sophisticated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology contributed to health policies and protocols across several countries in Asia. ACIAR project reports show that governments of India, Indonesia and Vietnam had adopted recommendations provided by project staff to create procedures for health management. These countries are currently implementing regular PCR proficiency testing of service laboratories.

New fish passage policy and curricula in Lao PDR (FIS/2006/183 and FIS/2009/041)

In addition to the direct community benefits, the project created an opportunity for the government of Lao PDR to lead in fisheries management, and this, in turn, has brought informed changes in policy. The research and demonstration in fish passage technology have influenced policy and curricula (ACIAR 2017b). Fish passage is now listed as a consideration in Laos irrigation Law for new irrigation development, and it is also a formal part of the University curriculum for undergraduates.

Community-Based Resource Management (CBRM) in the Solomon Islands (FIS/2010/056)

The ACIAR-funded WorldFish project on CBRM is a community strengthening program that builds local skills and capacity to enable them to manage their own resources. The project had a significant impact both on the way communities participated in decisions that affect their lives, and on the overall governance of natural resources in the Solomon Islands. Our findings showed that the learning from CBRM project work with communities contributed to national policy. Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) has now created a national strategy for inland fisheries and marine resources, recognising both the importance of CBRM for food security and the importance of community involvement in co-managing these resources (Cohen et al. 2015; Orirana et al. 2016).

Communities who participated in the CBRM have since created grassroots organisations and designed and implemented community-endorsed solutions (Sukulu et al. 2016). The following statement from one of the community leaders attests to this.

As a community, now we have our own rules, and we are considering what kind of legal help we can have to enforce them. We are aware of the province having an ordinance that is related to this kind of organisation. That will be a plus for us. We also need to register our rules and management group with the Fisheries Department (PI, CL1, SI).

The CBRM process has enabled local communities to participate in and lead marine resource related decisions. The project has also empowered communities to build partnerships with other communities and the government.

5 Changes in people’s fears and aspirations

Research and development interventions can affect people’s perceptions about their safety, their fears about the future of their community, and their aspirations for their future and the future of their children. Findings suggest that the Program projects have contributed to changes in people’s perceptions about their safety, the future of their communities, and their aspirations for the future of their children.

The following examples provide some insight:

ACIAR-funded WorldFish CBRM project in the Solomon Islands (FIS/2010/056)

The results from communities involved in CBRM indicated that the project had provided opportunities for communities to come together and resolve common problems and use their resources sustainably. As a process, CBRM provided a platform to involve everyone in the community – old, young, men and women. We found the emergence of a positive and shared vision among different tribes and increasing interest from the next generation to have resulted from the CBRM project. As one elder summarises it,

we give the opportunities for the youth to hold positions in committee, and now we find youth, young girls and boys, are involved in the committee. This could not have been achieved without the support of the project (PI, CL2, SI).

A young person, who was a member of one of the community committees also noted the changes in the aspiration of the young people to manage the shared natural resources.

Many times as young people we just go to the reef and destroy coral or marine resources, but when the WorldFish team came and educated us, many young people surrounding the community started to respect our marine resource and other properties from the sea. We enjoy and participate in the activities (PI, CL3, SI)

The Pak Peung fishway in Lao PDR (FIS/2006/183, FIS/2007/076 & FIS/2009/041)

Built progressively through successive ACIAR projects, the fishway in Pak Peung has become a national success story and a source of inspiration and pride for the locals and the country. The fishway has brought this previously unknown area to national prominence (ACIAR 2017b). Nationally, the project has become a showcase for Lao PDR officials. It has also attracted substantial funding from overseas, with the World Bank and other generous donors giving US$4 – 5m towards fishways in recognition of the value of the project. There is a noticeable sense of pride amongst locals, knowing the role they have played in realising this nationally important infrastructure.

People are proud, I think. Neighbouring countries are [also] interested in our work,… in that way the first of our impact is in Thailand. We have a good cooperation with Thailand and we are assisting to redesign their fish passages. Also, other countries like in Cambodia, we are also collaborating with them … in terms of the improvement of the fish passages (PI, LR, LAO). .

Inland aquaculture projects in PNG (FIS/2001/083 & FIS/2008/023)

Discussions with community members revealed that the introduction of fish farming seems to have lifted community spirit and a belief in the future. Across the villages in the highlands of PNG, fish farming is now regarded as a meaningful and profitable activity which not only meets their basic needs but also enables to improve their conditions. Fish farming has become an established activity, and the shared interest in fish farming seems to have created the opportunity for some previously competing tribal groups to work together and learn from each other. Locals further claim that the crime rate has fallen as more and more people become involved in fish farming.

Similar effects on regional harmony and shared prosperity were also observed in backyard hatcheries in Indonesia and the oyster industry in Vietnam.

Discussion

In this paper, we used the framework developed and the dimensions of change identified by Vanclay (2003) to assess the social dimensions of the ACIAR Fisheries Program in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Island Countries. We used the categories of impacts identified to demonstrate how the social impact of research for development might be assessed and presented using the Program as a case study. Our findings show that the use of the conceptual and analytical categories of social impact is useful in teasing out the social dimension of research for development. Our use of examples from the case studies also provides a meaningful narrative and stories of change for researchers, policymakers and the communities involved in the research projects to contextualise the findings and make informed decisions about current and future projects.

Our use of SIA as an approach reveals that the Program has contributed to social changes in the countries in which it was undertaken. Our findings illustrate that the Program has contributed towards the health and wellbeing of the participating communities. There is also an indication that, in some instances, by improving the production and productivity of fisheries resources, the Program has contributed to community stability, increased food security, increased disposable income, and improved health and wellbeing of vulnerable communities.

Overall, we were able to provide narratives supported by case studies to show that the Program has contributed to:

• improved access to low cost and high protein food sources at the local level contributing positively to community health and wellbeing;

• changes in people’s culture and way of life for participating communities;

• positive impacts on community livelihood and local economies including increased local incomes and enhanced employment opportunities.

• changes in policy and increased participation of communities in the decision-making processes; and

• increased confidence, self-respect and aspirations across partner communities.

Although the ACIAR research projects were not specifically designed to promote the wellbeing of women and youth, our findings indicate that the Program activities have benefited women and youth across the countries.

The use of causal chain models to understand the links between the different impact categories and to explain the outcomes was initially considered. However, as Lord has argued (Lord 2011), we felt that including a complicated causal chain model may create unnecessary confusion. Thus, we opted to analyse and present the findings for each category separately to encourage further discussion and interpretation by those who may use the results for future planning, investment and policy decisions (Esteves et al. 2012).

Three factors made our task of assessing the social impacts of the ACIAR Fisheries Program, using the framework developed, particularly challenging. First, SIA was not used as a paradigm (Aledo-Tur and Dominguez-Gomez 2017) or a process (Vanclay 2006) to enable planning for the wider social impacts of the Program research projects. This made employing the SIA framework for assessing wider social impacts of the Program challenging (Esteves et al. 2012). Second, the lack of consistency in reporting social impacts across the Program projects made our task of analysing the reports and drawing meaningful conclusions problematic. Finally, the fact that this evaluation was part of a broader evaluation including 131 projects across several countries made the task challenging. However, to compensate for these limitations, we drew on a range of examples from the five case studies to provide context and highlight the most significant social changes/impacts of the Program on individuals and communities (Dart and Davies 2003; Race and Millar 2008; Bryman 2015).

Conclusion

In this article, we have presented IA as a methodology and used substantive aspects of SIA to assess wider social impacts of research for development projects. We believe that our use of SIA is instructional and may be of value to other practitioners and researchers. The conceptual and analytical framework developed and the operability of the categories of impact identified to assess research for development projects contribute to the literature in SIA.

Our use of the conceptual and analytical categories has created an opportunity to test the utility and veracity of the framework. Our use of the framework and the various categories of social impacts as a priori, demonstrates how one might collect data and analyse the social dimensions of research for development interventions. While our use of the different categories may have its limitations, it provides a framework for conceptualising social dimensions of research for development projects such as the Program assessed in this paper. The categories provided scaffolding to document the nuanced social impacts that might have resulted from research for development interventions. Our use of the case studies to provide practical examples to illuminate significant social changes/impacts also provides an opportunity to use the report to inform policy and decision making, in order to understand the broader context of social change.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the ACIAR Fisheries Program and RDS Partners Pty Ltd for providing the funding and time required to conduct the evaluation and write this paper. We thank the Project Leaders, researchers and community members who generously gave their time and knowledge. We would also like to thank the editor and the reviewers for providing such a valuable and constructive comments that have improved the quality of the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was commissioned by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research [Project No C2016/108].

Notes

1. The population data for all countries is based on the latest (2017) United Nations Population Division estimates (https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/ accessed on 20 November 2017).

2. Project Leaders are lead research scientists who managed ACIAR commissioned research projects.